asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the working party on firearms control will consider the desirability of extending certificate life.

This subject wilt not be considered by the working party, but the fees review, about which I wrote to my hon. Friend on 28 July 1982, concluded that the life of a shotgun certificate could be doubled from three to six years provided this is coupled with a requirement to notify changes of address.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. When does he hope to introduce legislation to put that good news into effect?

Certainly not in the immediate future.

Will the Home Secretary remind the House when last we had an amnesty for illegally held firearms? Would it not be a good idea to have another one so that we can get rid of the large numbers of illegally held firearms which encourage crimes of violence?

I have no plans for such an amnesty.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the general issues relating to telephone tapping about which he is prepared to answer parliamentary questions, and to which he referred in his reply to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), Official Report, 16 December, c. 467.

I have already made it clear that the general issues on which I should be prepared to answer questions are those relating to the procedures and safeguards set out in the White Paper "The Interception of Communications in Great Britain" (Cmnd. 7873) and the role of the judicial monitor.

There is widespread disquiet that bugging is carried out on a much wider scale than the authorities have ever permitted, particularly when it is done without ministerial warrant. On how many occasions in the past year have bugging devices been used at the discretion of the chief police officer alone? Will the Home Secretary ensure that police authorities are regularly given this information for their own areas so that at least there is some accountability over this exercise of police power?

I do not accept the hon. Genileman's views on the widespread disquiet. I was asked about the interceptions that I authorised, and I have given the answer.

Will my right hon. Friend ignore the extraordinary views of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), which have very little support in the country, and bear in mind that most people utterly trust his judgment, particularly in matters of crime and the safety of the state?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance.

How can we possibly discuss safeguards if we do not know what we are safeguarding? Surely it is reasonable for the House to be able to discuss the substantial question. Is it not absurd for hon. Members to be able to ask questions about safeguards when the Home Secretary is unwilling to tell us anything about the extent of this practice?

I am simply following the practice of successive Governments in this matter, and it was debated in 1981, when the practice was fully approved.

Does my right hon. Friend receive thousands, hundreds or dozens of letters from members of the public, or occasional letters from Left-wing Labour Members?

I do receive letters from hon. Members. I do not think that I receive many letters from members of the public. I shall look into the matter and give my hon. Friend the answer.

The White Paper mentioned the number of warrants that had been issued to authorise telephone tapping. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the number of warrants issued each year will be divulged to Parliament, possibly as a precursor to legislation, because the judge in the Malone case said that telephone tapping cries out for legislation? Will the right hon. Gentleman also assure the House that Members of Parliament are not subject to that intimidatory process?

The position of Members of Parliament has been made abundantly clear by successive Prime Ministers. The hon. Gentleman said that the subject cries out for legislation. It can go on crying out, but it will not necessarily get an answer.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the workings of section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, as amended, concerning the terms and conditions on which licences are issued to cable television operators.

In general the present arrangements work satisfactorily, but the control of cable operators will be reorganised under the Government's proposals for cable expansion.

Has the Under-Secretary of State had any applications from cable operators in Wales to change from the S4C service to the general United Kingdom service? If so, will he give an assurance that the existing S4C service will be given a fair time to run before a decision is taken? Will he also give an assurance that any poll that may be taken will be conducted on a fair basis, not just in shops belonging to the company involved as the cable operator?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the one application that has been received and that the reasons for rejecting it were made clear in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 28 October. I have nothing to add, except that we accept the recommendation of the Committee on Welsh Affairs. We would require clear evidence of a genuine majority wishing for change before we would allow it.

Does my hon. Friend believe that the suggestion that there should be an Asian cable television service in Greenwich will in the long run assist racial harmony and integration, which is so important in Britain?

The Government's proposals on the wider use of cable television will be announced in due course. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the level of recruitment to the Metropolitan police force over the past four years.

Yes, Sir. During the four years ending on 31 December 1982, the strength of the Metropolitan police increased by 4,310 to 26,271—less than 350 below the authorised establishment for the force.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that information. Is he aware that Londoners also welcome the Home Secretary's response to the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner's preliminary report on the priorities and problems facing the Metropolitan police in allowing the force to be built up to 27,000 by the end of 1983–84?

The House and London will also welcome the fact that last year 1,000 police officers were put back on foot patrol duties and Sir Kenneth Newman's announcement of his intention to put another 650 on foot patrol, which is where the public want to see them.

There has been an improvement in police strength, but does the Minister agree that there needs to be a significant increase in the establishment of the Metropolitan police? Would it not be a significant contribution to the fight against crime if Left-wing extremists were to refrain from promoting street demonstrations, which consume so much police time, and if the Labour party in general were to stop its campaign aimed at undermining the police?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has told Sir Kenneth Newman that he can expect to build up the force to 27,000 by the end of the next financial year. Large demonstrations are expensive for the police. Any campaign aimed at undermining public confidence in the police will not succeed, but such a campaign would be damaging and retrograde.

Will the Minister suggest to the Commissioner that, although policemen retire at an early age, it might be advisable to arrange for them to stay on or to return to supernumary jobs, such as traffic control and so on, rather than to work for private security firms and so on? That would release younger policemen for the other work. Many policemen would like to take their pensions and carry on with their work.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. It is a matter for the Commissioner, but I am sure that he will take heed of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

In view of Brent council's clear determination to undermine the Hendon training college by its insistence on the reinstatement of two lecturers who have no right to be teaching there in any case, will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the jobs of the other lecturers, one of whom is a constituent of mine, are not threatened?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is studying a report from the Commissioner into the episode to which my hon. Friend referred. I do not believe that there is the slightest risk to other jobs. I trust that that is the case.

Does the Minister welcome the Commissioner's proposals regarding the new consultative procedures for London? Does he agree that those proposals would not have come about without pressure from the GLC and the London boroughs? Am I being a Left-wing subversive by suggesting that the proposals merely bring a little nearer the creation of a proper police authority for the metropolitan area?

Naturally, my right hon. Friend welcomes the Commissioner's proposals on consultative procedures. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman or his party should take the credit for something that was given a large push by Lord Scarman in his report and is plainly common sense.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government will provide 100 per cent. grant-aid to offset expenditure on emergency planning and the raising and training of civil defence volunteers by county councils and the Greater London council as required under the proposed new civil defence regulations.

Consultation with the local authority associations is still in progress. My right hon. Friend hopes to lay the new regulations in draft form before Parliament in March. Under the proposed regulations, civil defence grant-aid would be increased from 75 to 100 per cent. on approved local authority expenditure on the training and exercising of staff and volunteers, and on communications and related equipment in emergency wartime headquarters.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that many local authorities are unwilling to take up the grant-aid because it is described by them as overspending and they claim that they are penalised for it? We must find a way to encourage all local authorities to involve themselves in this necessary activity.

In no case can it be a question of "cannot", although in some cases it may be used to serve as a spurious cover for political hostility to civil defence. It is a question of priorities, but all local authorities recognise, or should recognise, that they have to conform to the Government's economic strategy.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that he may have to employ an advertising agency to sell these regulations to the people, because not only are Labour local authorities opposing them, but Conservative authorities have now started publicly to criticise their wisdom? The Minister cannot operate an effective national civil defence scheme unless he has the positive support and co-operation of every local authority in Britain.

The hon. Lady would do better to add her voice to those who proclaim what is true—that civil defence is a humanitarian duty. It has nothing to do with politics. It is a humanitarian duty to protect people as far as possible in the event of a catastrophe, which we all hope will never occur.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that local authorities would be more sensible to apply their energies and thoughts to civil defence than to the idiotic and ostrich-like activity of pretending to be nuclear-free zones?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I went to the conference of the so-called nuclear-free zone authorities. They sent me an invitation, but did not think that I would go. However, I enjoyed myself and told them some things that they did not expect to hear and to which they had no answer.

The regulations refer to the movement of the population to temporary accommodation. Will the Minister say where the 500,000 citizens of Manchester, for example, will find temporary accommodation? What temporary accommodation is available in the event of a pending nuclear attack? Will there be accommodation only for those wealthy people who own pads in the Welsh mountains?

Every prudent local authority would wish to make such plans as are possible for almost any eventuality that can be foreseen. It is desirable that they should be encouraged to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will rename the home defence college the civil defence college; and if he will make a statement.

We favour a change of name and are inviting views.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that helpful reply. It shows that the Home Office is paying this important subject the attention that it deserves. If it is important enough for the Swiss to establish a sophisticated civil defence system to maintain their neutrality, surely it is important for this country, which is in the forefront of NATO, to do so. Will my hon. and learned Friend continue to give civil defence the emphasis that it needs?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. As I said, civil defence is about saving people's lives, where possible. The difference between the Swiss and ourselves is that the Swiss do not contribute to preventing war by belonging to NATO. We put the bulk of our money into doing our best to prevent a war.

Will my hon. and learned Friend encourage as many hon. Members as possible from both sides of the House to visit this remarkable college, whatever its name may be in the future? They will then see the high professional standards of the people in charge and the encouraging measures of prevention and precaution that are possible in an eventuality which we all devoutly hope will never occur.

I agree with my hon. Friend. It will give great encouragement to those at the civil defence college. Last year 546 people attended courses, and during this year about 700 are expected. A number of Labour supporters have attended courses. They went with a sceptical view of civil defence, but they had that view corrected.

Has the Minister any plans to provide everyone with a shelter, such as that provided for the Prime Minister and one or two other notables?

I have no knowledge of any shelter for the Prime Minister, although I trust sincerely that there is a good one. The answer to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question is no.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will bring forward proposals for a community civil defence organisation which will enable the deployment of existing voluntary agencies in civil defence roles.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what other agencies he considers should be included in the preparation of community emergency plans.

Local authorities take the lead in local emergency planning, and the Government have appointed co-ordinators for England and Wales and for Scotland to advise them on the use of voluntary effort. Valuable contributions can be made by the voluntary aid societies especially, and we encourage local authorities to seek and organise help from any quarter.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Is he aware that many people who are deeply interested in effective civil defence believe that voluntary effort can best and most effectively be channelled and utilised along the lines of the Devon volunteer organisation? Will he undertake to push and encourage that idea throughout the country?

I have the greatest admiration for the Devon voluntary organisation. Sir Leslie Mayor is responsible to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for assisting local authorities and voluntary organisations in England and Wales to adapt to local circumstances the best features and arrangements for civil defence that operate elsewhere.

Is my hon. and learned Friend of the opinion that the plans can be implemented within the 24 hours recommended by his Department in circulars to local authorities?

My right hon. Friend is of that opinion generally.

Who is the chief co-ordinator—the local authority, or the local police force? What would happen at Willesden Junction, for example, where, without a war, radiation hazards from the transport of nuclear fuels could mean the evacuation of 500,000 people?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to such an accident taking place in peacetime, the local authority or the police, whichever is most expedient, would take charge. It depends on the particular circumstances. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that an organisation that is set up to take precautions and make preparations during wartime will also be valuable in peacetime.

What advice will my hon. and learned Friend give to local authority employees who are being advised by their local union branches not to co-operate in the event of their having to work on civil defence matters?

I do not believe that my advice would be particularly parliamentary. They must take every opportunity to point out that those who are seeking to impede civil defence precautions are seeking to impede the giving of help to people who may need it desperately at some time.

When the Home Secretary publishes his Bill to force local authorities to participate in civil defence, will he include a clause that will allow local authority officers who have deeply held personal convictions not to take part?

I am not sure what kind of conscience would preclude a person from helping others in times of stress. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to introduce, not a Bill, but regulations, about which we are consulting at the moment. We shall heed what we are told.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment of the impact on the Argentine he made when he decided before the Argentine invasion that British nationality would not be extended to the Falkland Islanders; and if he will make a statement on the observation of the Franks committee on this matter.

My right hon. Friend notes what is said in the Franks report. During the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, which among other things created a new British dependent territories citizenship, we made it clear that nothing in the Act affected the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands or the Government's obligations to the islands and their inhabitants. There were therefore no grounds for the Argentines to judge that the Act represented any diminution of our commitment to the islands.

In that case, do Home Office Ministers believe that Lord Franks and his colleagues are being a bit hard on them? Was it a senior official of the Home Office or of the Foreign Office who scribbled over one of the warning messages received from Ambassador Williams in Buenos Aires:

"Don't take too much notice of him. He is only an emotional Welshman"?

We all know that the hon. Gentleman has read and re-read the Franks report. He knows perfectly well that paragraph 280 of that report lists several developments that may have cast doubts on British commitment to the islanders. The British Nationality Act 1981 is listed among a number of subjects, including arms sales and the airfields, and it comes last. There is no evidence that the British Nationality Act caused the junta to doubt Great Britain's commitment to the islanders. No such evidence was revealed in any of the relevant documents submitted to Franks.

How could the potential change in the lettering on the cover of the passports of a minority of the islanders, which takes effect this year, in any way affect the invasion plans of generals in the Argentine during the spring of last year?

My hon. Friend poses a good question. The British Nationality Act made the majority of the citizens of the Falkland Islands British citizens. Furthermore, during the progress of the British Nationality Bill the Government said time and again that the establishment of the separate new citizenship of the dependent territories in no way altered the Government's obligations and commitments to the dependent territories, and the Falkland Islands in particular.

The Franks report does not really accord with the Minister's answer. What liaison, if any, was there on that issue with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Prime Minister, and what was the result of that liaison?

I shall not go into such details, but I assure the hon. Gentleman of two matters. First, there is nothing in what I have said that cuts across the conclusions of the Franks report. I have already said that in paragraph 280 Franks reported that a number of matters could have influenced the Argentine junta. We do not believe for one moment that they did. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary.

Looking forward rather than backward, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) always does, will my hon. and learned Friend follow what must surely be his basic instincts and conclude that both prudence and honour require that this concession be made as quickly as possible?

Yes, Sir. A private Member's Bill, sponsored by Baroness Vickers, has started its progress through the other place. During the progress of the British Nationality Bill through the House one plainly had to bear in mind that it was difficult to discriminate in favour of one dependent territory as against another. However, circumstances have changed. We shall look with the greatest sympathy at the Bill going through the other place.

Does the status of citizen of British dependent territories confer that crucial element of British protection—the availability of consular protection services in time of emergency?

With respect, that is not the point. The right hon. Gentleman should read his hon. Friend's question. I was asked what may have influenced the junta. There is no evidence that any of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend had the slightest influence on the junta.

Does the new status of citizen of British dependent territories carry with it the crucial element of consular protection?

I have already answered that question. During the passage of the legislation my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it plain that the determination of the British Government to defend the rights of the islanders would in no way be diminished by the passage of the Bill.

That is a totally unsatisfactory reply. I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what limitation is placed by his Department on the number of civilian staff employed by the Metropolitan police.

As police authority for the metropolis, I am responsible for determining the size of the civilian support staff employed by the Metropolitan police The current ceiling—excluding traffic wardens, cadets, part-time school crossing patrols and other staff for whom the force is reimbursed by other authorities—is 13,040 and the strength at 31 December 1982 was 12,830. The ceiling will be raised to 13,140 with effect from 1 April 1983. There will then have been increases totalling 400 posts since May 1982.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is very welcome news, in that for every additional civilian member of staff employed it is often possible to redeploy a policeman? Is he further aware of the broad welcome throughout London for the proposals by the Commissioner of Police for new policing methods?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on both points. It is especially encouraging that Sir Kenneth Newman has pointed out ways in which he believes it is possible to put more policemen on the beat.

Will the Home Secretary encourage the civilian members of the Metropolitan police at present editing the Metropolitan police handbook to speed up the process? We were promised that a copy would be in the Library by the end of January. As January has now ended, and as we take such promises seriously and wish to read the handbook, will the right hon. Gentleman try to hurry things up?

Yes, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be able to read the handbook very soon.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the establishment level of the Metropolitan police is pegged roughly at 1965 levels? Does he agree that it is time for a significant increase—

Order. That relates to an earlier question. We are now dealing with the civilian staff element.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the additional severe strain placed on both civilian staff and police officers of the Metropolitan police by the Labour-controlled GLC police committee spending nearly £500,000 of ratepayers' money encouraging people to make unnecessary complaints against the police?

I can only say that I do not know why the GLC is raising all that money from ratepayers when the GLC has no responsibility for the Metropolitan police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to compile accurate figures showing the numbers of dependants of immigrants already settled in the United Kingdom who, as dependants, would be eligible to come to settle as well; and if he will distinguish between Commonwealth citizens and European Community citizens and their dependants.

Since January 1981 the Government have collected statistical information designed to establish the scale and pattern of future immigration from the Indian subcontinent. We have no plans to extend this exercise to other countries.

Does not that reply show that Tory Back Benchers who are against coloured people are having their way in Government circles? Taking the total number of dependent relatives from the old and new Commonwealth in terms of present immigration law and EC rules, which provide that families should be able to join the breadwinner in this country, does not the Home Secretary's approach show that he is pandering to the racist and Fascist wing of his party?

I do not accept for one moment the language used by the hon. Gentleman about my hon. Friends. Nor do I accept his description of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may be about to do.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the one statistic which the entire English population wish to see is that which will show that immigration into this country has entirely ceased?

My hon. Friend must recognise that such a situation will never be reached. In any civilised society, there is inevitably coming and going. It is therefore unrealistic to talk about an end to all immigration. However, since 1979 there has been a steady and pronounced drop in the number of people achieving settlement in this country. There is no reason to believe that that decline will not continue. I appreciate full well that that is what my hon. Friends hope will happen.—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not have a private discussion with his hon. Friends. He must address the House.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the plight of many elderly dependent relatives in the new Commonwealth? What provision does he intend to make in the new immigration rules for them to join their sons and daughters in this country?

The hon. Gentleman should read the rules. He will then see what is contained in the 1980 rules. He will see what was contained in the rules that were not approved by the House. I am sure that it is the wish of the vast majority of hon. Members that there should be strict controls on immigration. We cannot return to a situation in which every member of a man's family is entitled to enter this country, no matter how remote the relationship.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the large decline in immigration shows without any doubt that there is no large pool of people seeking to enter this country for settlement? Does he agree that that shows the futility of the argument for a register of dependants? Is it not time that members of the Select Committee who suggested such a register in the last Parliament forgot all about it and let the idea be decently buried once and for all?

One of the reasons for the statistical exercise is to assess the size of the pool, so one cannot say that the size is already known. We have not closed our minds to the idea of a register. The difficulty is that although such a register would show the number entitled to come it would not show how many of them intended to do so, so we may find the information that we want more easily through the statistical exercise.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that there are two places in which immigrant families may be reunited—this country and the new Commonwealth countries from which they came?

My hon. Friend knows the provisions that have been in the rules for many years. At the time of the 1971 Act undertakings were given and the statutory right to come to this country was given to the families of those settled before 1 January 1973. We cannot go back on that statutory right. After that time, undertakings were given by successive Governments that the families of those settled here would be entitled to come.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his undertaking given to the Member for Tottenham in his letter dated 26 April 1982 that he will not allow stop and search on a random basis remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister clear any ambiguity that may be in his mind or that of the Home Secretary as to the true meaning of the word "random"? Would not most statisticians define it as meaning that if, in any circumstances, the police selected a number of people for search from a total in excess of the number selected and the police did not know of the existence of the smaller number so selected without criteria, that would be selection of a random number and thus contrary to the undertaking given to me by the Home Secretary on 26 April?

I cannot confirm that, because I do not understand it. However, I do confirm that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is passing through the House, there is provision for the police to stop and search in the street people whom they suspect of carrying stolen property or of having prohibited articles. That provision is subject to substantial safeguards recommended by the Royal Commission and has the blessing of Lord Scarman, who says that he considers it to be necessary for the combating of street crime.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in Scotland the power of the police to stop and search for offensive weapons has been successful and has resulted in substantial convictions?

I am aware of that. The figures for the first 10 months of the operation of the Scottish power show that, of those who were stopped and searched, about one-third were found to be carrying offensive weapons or other prohibited articles. That is a good result.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the time scale for the commencement and completion of extensions and improvements at Her Majesty's prison, Armley; and if he is prepared to consider claims for financial compensation by owner-occupiers whose homes are affected by the proposals.

Subject to the early completion of the purchase of the additional land, including houses adjacent to the proposed new wall, it is hoped to start construction of the main extension in 1985–86. Design work is already being done. The need to decant means that the full programme of improvements will necessarily take some time. We are not aware of any grounds for paying compensation to other owner-occupiers in the area.

I thank the Minister for the information. Is he aware that when the proposals are carried out, and the plans completed, the new wall of the prison will be within feet of existing owner-occupied houses, with the result that their valuations will be seriously affected? Will he at least consider whether the Department has some responsibility for the devaluation that my constituents will suffer?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. We wish to keep disruption to his constituents to a minimum. To assist in this process we have agreed to purchase, at the request of the city council, 13 houses immediately adjacent to the wall. We do not believe that any substantial disruption of amenity will take place for any other occupiers, but we shall listen with sympathy to what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received calling for an inquiry into the use of CS gas cartridges in Liverpool in July 1981.

On 16 December I answered a question from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) about representations to me about CS and baton rounds, which included those that I had received asking for such an inquiry. I have received no further representations on this matter since then.

The Home Secretary is already aware of the grave disquiet on Merseyside among the general public and the community organisation. Will he give an assurance that he will call for a public inquiry after the civil actions against the police have been concluded?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we must not prejudice the civil proceedings. I cannot give that assurance, because the situation will depend upon what happens in the proceedings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to seek to amend the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.

We hope to have proposals ready in the spring and to introduce legislation as soon as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. Can he assure the House that the absence of a Council of Europe convention will not delay the introduction of any legislation before the next election, as this is one of the few remaining manifesto commitments by the Government yet to be implemented?

The convention is at an advanced stage, and we shall make proposals shortly. However, implementation rests on matters that are not within my control.

When considering legislation on this subject, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that it will still be possible for medicines to be examined and tested properly so that benefits for all people are not adversely affected?

I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. This is a two-sided argument and there is great difficulty in knowing precisely where to draw the line. The difficulties are increased when only one side of the argument seems to be widely and publicly stated.

Has my hon. Friend received a report of a public hearing in December at the Council of Europe? Does he agree that the provisions of the convention are considerably milder than the 1876 Act and what might be acceptable here?

There is concern over clause 9 of the draft convention, but I assure my hon. Friend that pursuant to clause 4 of the convention, if it be our will to apply stronger provisions in Britain than would be necessary by the convention, we have the right under the convention to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the progress in setting up the police community committees in the Metropolitan police area as recommended by the Scarman report.

Consultative groups, reflecting the guidelines that I issued in June, are now operating in eight boroughs or districts in the Metropolitan police district. Agreement in principle to set up similar groups has been reached in a further 12 and discussions are continuing in other areas. Given that wide-ranging discussions within the local community are a necessary preliminary to the formation of a group, I am satisfied with the progress that has been made.

Does the Home Secretary accept that effective policing is dependent upon the consent, confidence and even participation of those being policed and that these committees can play an effective role in helping to bring that about? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his best endeavours to expedite this development, suggested by Lord Scarman?

I have done that ever since the Scarman report was published. I am grateful to all hon. Members on both sides of the House who are taking part in the consultative groups in London and who are playing an important part in them. I hope that some of the councils that are considering excluding Members of Parliament from some of these groups will realise the importance of having Members of Parliament in them.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to reassure the many people who are deeply alarmed at the assumption in the Government's expenditure White Paper published this week that the prices of nationalised industries, including heating, electricity, transport and postage, will rise in the year ahead by the rate of inflation? As these prices have consistently risen by more than the rate of inflation for several years, does my right hon. Friend agree that both the Government and consumers are entitled to expect more restraint in the future?

What my hon. Friend says is true. The monopoly nationalised industries do not have the same spur of competition as the private sector. There will be an improvement only if strenuous efforts are made to cut costs and increase efficiency. In the meantime, we welcome the decision of the British Gas Corporation to freeze industrial prices and of the electricity industry not to increase average prices for the coming year.

Will the right hon. Lady give us a list of the nationalised industry price increases that she forced up by orders from on high? Furthermore, in view of the appalling figures published today, as the right hon. Lady has suggested that the only cure for mass unemployment that she believes in is a fall in the inflation rate, will she tell us when she thinks her cure will start to work? Is it not a fact that her Government are contemplating an increase of 280,000 or more on the already hideous and terrible unemployment figures published today?

The unemployment figures are a great disappointment. However, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, unemployment is rising the world over and in some countries, for example, Germany, the United States, Canada and Holland, it is rising faster than in the United Kingdom. Rhetoric, rows and strikes will not improve the position. It is only by having sound financial policies—which we have—by trying to keep interest rates down, by having industrial incentives and by drumming up orders the world over, delivered on time and at a price and design that people want, that we shall improve the underlying employment position.

If the right hon. Lady talks about drumming up orders all over the world, why has the Central Electricity Generating Board placed a £10 million order for a cable-laying ship with a Korean shipyard at a time when British Shipbuilders is perfectly prepared to do the job? What representations has the right hon. Lady made to put that right? When she talks about the general situation, does she recall that she said that 1981 would be the year when results begin to show? What has gone wrong since then?

What has gone wrong since then, as the right hon. Gentleman would know if he looked around him, is that there has been a very deep world recession—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which was much deeper than expected, and that hit other industrial countries as well as our own—a recession that is the deeper because of the enormous loans that were made to the under-developed countries, greatly in excess of what some of them could afford to repay in either interest or capital.

If the right hon. Lady is not prepared to intervene at once to get the order for British shipyards, will she cease to go around the country talking about buying British? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

No, because, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to advise people to buy British only when British goods are the best, most competitive and most suitable to the buyer. The alternative course of protecting and cosseting British industry would lead to untold increases in the cost of living, untold inefficiencies in British industry, and a reduction in our standard of living.

asked the Prime Minister what items she intends to discuss with President Reagan in May at the economic summit.

Discussion is likely to concentrate on the state of the world economy, the prospects for lasting recovery, the risks of protectionism, and the problems of debtor countries, but it is too soon to say definitely what the agenda will be. I certainly expect to have bilateral talks with President Reagan at the same time.

When my right hon. Friend meets the President, will she stress that America cannot get on the mend by transferring its economic problems to the rest of the Western nations, and that if we are to avoid destabilising changes in the exchange rate and interest rates America will have to do something about its budget deficit?

I believe that the United States Administration recognise the problems that a large deficit creates, not only for their own economy, but for economies in the other parts of the world—our economy and European economies. I believe that in the recent budget they have made provision to reduce those deficits, and it is important for all of us that they succeed in that objective.

While it is obviously right that the world economic problems should be dealt with at this summit, will the Prime Minister confirm that today's unemployment figures mean that unemployment in this country has risen during her period of office twice as fast as in the other countries of the European Community? Will she therefore accept at least half the responsibility for the figures?

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is asking about the speed at which unemployment has risen. It has risen faster in this country than in some others, and in other cases it has risen faster in other countries. Let me give the figures. These are the actual figures published in each country—the crude figures. In the United Kingdom, from May 1979 to December 1982 there was an increase in unemployment of 135 per cent.; in Germany, from May 1979 to December 1982 there was an increase in unemployment of 140 per cent. and in the Netherlands, from May 1979 to November 1982 there was an increase in unemployment of 186 per cent.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether full preparation has been made for this summit, which will be of vital interest to the Western world because of the worldwide depression? Will she give us an assurance that sufficient work has been done on the control, not just of interest rates, but of the rates of exchange, and on reorganising the immense debt that is now weighing down our production chances and opportunities?

All those matters are the subject of studies that are going on now, before the summit in May.

While the Prime Minister is discussing economic matters with President Reagan, will she point out to him that although it might be good for the American economy to supply aggressive Lockheed Hercules bomber aeroplanes to Argentina, it is in fact breaking an agreement that America has with us not to supply warlike materials to Argentina? Will she ask the United States to stop supplying aggressive war materials to any Fascist country?

I know that certain matters about supplying armaments from the United States to Argentina are under consideration. We made strenuous representations that such armaments should not be supplied, and I believe that at the moment only spares are being supplied. However, I shall check on that, following the hon. Gentleman's question.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 February.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is now becoming clear that the major difference between the unilateralists and the multilateralists is that the unilateralists want peace at any price, whereas the remainder of us would view the sacrifice of freedom as too high a price to pay?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Unilateral disarmament would put peace at risk and it would put peace with freedom and justice at risk. We in this country do not want peace at any price. We want peace to retain freedom and justice, which is a part of our way of life. That peace has been kept by the possession of nuclear weapons. If there is to be disarmament, as most of us desire, it must be all-sided disarmament, not just one-sided disarmament.

The Prime Minister referred recently to the spur of competition. What spur of competition existed when her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport handed out to Travers Morgan and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, without going out to tender in any way, over £600,000 of public money as an interim payment?

The hiring of those consultants was fully in accordance with published codes of practice and precedents.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the women camping out at Greenham Common that the only country that has suffered a nuclear attack in war was one without a deterrent and the means of delivering it? Is it not an ironic but tragic fact that the only effect of demonstrations of this nature is to put off genuine multilateral disarmament because the Soviets may doubt our determination to defend ourselves?

My hon. Friend is correct. The purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter any form of war across the NATO border. It has succeeded in that very well, because the risks of going to war for either side would be too great. I believe that what is happening now is that the Soviet Union, having no public opinion and denying its people any public opinion, is relying on some elements of our public opinion to enable it to keep all its SS20s, while denying us the necessary deterrent to prevent the Soviet Union from using them.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 February.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that the women at Greenham Common, along with the vast majority of the population, are concerned that the installation of cruise missiles under American control will represent an escalation of nuclear weaponry which is not subject to any form of verification throughout the whole of Europe? Is not the £1 million campaign on which the Prime Minister and her cronies are about to embark a public relations exercise to hide the fact that she is a warmonger, in a year that is likely to be an election year?

The hon. Gentleman is talking his usual rubbish. The cruise and Pershing missiles are a modernisation of existing nuclear forces, a modernisation that has already taken place in the Soviet Union. When the missiles come here, their use and the use of the bases will be a matter of joint decision. It would be far better if the hon. Gentleman addressed his remarks to the Soviet Union to try to get it to take down its missiles.