asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of unreported crime; and if he will publish the results of any recent such surveys.

The British crime survey, published on 25 February, gives a fuller indication than has previously been available of the extent of certain types of crime in this country and of public attitudes towards them.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the British crime survey, which was published after the question was tabled, is exceedingly helpful in assessing trends? Does my right hon. Friend have any intention of repeating such a survey, at an interval of his choice, so that there will be opportunities to compare the figures and to gain a better insight into trends?

Yes, it is important that we do so. The survey has revealed some interesting findings, which should be followed up and which could guide us in our attitude towards crime.

Is the Home Secretary aware that one of the most striking features of the British crime survey is the stated desire of the victims of crime that offenders make reparation rather than be subjected to more punitive punishments? Will the right hon. Gentleman take measures to encourage the former and to diminish the latter?

No one can suggest that this Government have not done a great deal to encourage the former. The community service orders were introduced by a previous Conservative Government, and have been much increased by this Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will encourage chief constables to run schemes for visits to schools by police officers on request, to talk to pupils about the work of the police.

Forces throughout England and Wales already operate schemes for police officers to visit schools on a regular basis to talk to pupils about the work of the police. Chief officers know that they have my right hon. Friend's full support in all their efforts to make contact with young people.

Not all local education authorities are convinced about such a scheme. Does the Minister agree that this type of scheme has considerable merit? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to make an assessment of all the schemes that have been introduced to disseminate what he considers to be good practice to the police forces? In view of the increase in vandalism, is it not important that we explore every possible avenue to reduce vandalism—for example, by police visiting schools?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no doubt about the merits of these schemes. Virtually all forces are involved with schools either through special liaison officers or local beat officers. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said about the possibility of our assessing how various schemes are working and giving advice.

In view of the sharp increase in drug-taking in schools, and in conjunction with the scheme, will my hon. and learned Friend ask chief constables to pay attention to the provision of information about the dangers of experimentation in drugs?

I hope that chief constables do. I shall bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the committee on the public prosecutions service to report.

The working party on prosecution arrangements expects to report in the summer.

As there is cross-party support for this proposition, and as it was recommended by the Royal Commission, would it not be better for it to be implemented in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill instead of giving extra powers to the police that are outside any degree of control until the reform is made?

I do not think so, as the hon. Gentleman knows from our deliberations in Committee. It is important to get this right. My right hon. Friend has appointed the working party. He has taken three interim steps to pave the way, including guidelines from the Attorney-General. This is an important matter that we need to get right.

Does the Minister accept that it would help to assuage some of the real fears about the new powers being given to the police if there were an independent Crown prosecutor service as suggested by the Royal Commission? Will he bring forward such proposals at the earliest possible moment?

The hon. Gentleman is right to some extent, but we cannot have everything as soon as we want it. We need to get it right. We shall have it as soon as we possibly can, but it is important that, when we get it, it is as right as it can be.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the Press Council report on press handling of the Sutcliffe case, he has any plans to give guidance to police forces concerning relations with the news media during and after the investigation of a serious crime; and if he will make a statement.

On 29 December 1982 my Department issued circulars of guidance to chief officers of police on the investigation of a series of major crimes and on the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Copies of these two circulars were placed in the Library. The circular on the 1981 Act took full account of the relations between the police and the media during and after the investigations in the Sutcliffe case. I see no need to issue further guidance on this matter in the light of the Press Council's report.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of any further thoughts that he may have had on the Press Council's strong recommendation about people under pressure and harassment from the press and the help that the police can give in such circumstances? Will he make it clear to owners and editors of newspapers that, despite their hiding behind the claim of freedom of the press, the House is determined to uphold a more important freedom—that of a fair trial?

The importance of a fair trial cannot be overstressed. That has been a major feature in all the guidance that we have given. As for giving guidance to editors, that is something that they must take on board for themselves. Some editors would not take any pleasure in receiving guidance from me, considering what some of them think about me.

In the light of what the Home Secretary has said about the importance of a fair trial, will he comment on the press coverage of the case of Mr. David Nilson, allegedly—

Order. That is a separate question, and in any case the matter is sub judice.

My question also related to Mr. Nilson, so I shall not now ask it, Mr. Speaker.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the reign of the so-called Yorkshire Ripper reduced the quality of life in Yorkshire for five years? Does he further accept that people did not want to walk the streets alone or open their doors? Was not the much-criticised early press conference given by the chief constable of west Yorkshire perhaps given against the background of trying to alleviate the tremendous distress of people in Yorkshire at having such a criminal at large?

There is no doubt that there were particular problems in that case. Many people will have learnt a good many lessons about the handling of that case—including the press, the police and everyone else. I regret that I am no great expert on the quality of life in Yorkshire or anywhere else.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the definition of offensive weapons.

We are not aware of any recent representations specifically about the definition of "offensive weapon" contained in section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.

In view of the widespread concern in many communities about the new stop and search powers of the police, does the Minister agree that it is about time that there was a change in the definition of "offensive weapon" to exclude such everyday items as coins and bunches of keys? Is he aware that many people believe that the police will use that very wide definition of "offensive weapon" to stop people whom they do not like?

I do not think that that is true. The definition has been on the statute book for almost 30 years. It has not caused any significant difficulties. The powers of stop and search are dependent on reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that any unusual item found on a burglar or housebreaker who is caught could well be described as an offensive weapon?

That depends upon the circumstances. The definition broadly states that any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, having on him in a public place any offensive weapon, is guilty of an offence. An offensive weapon is defined as

"any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him".

Would it not be correct to define a cruise missile as an offensive weapon? Has the Home Secretary received the letter that I sent to him yesterday from one of the fine, courageous women at Greenham Common, drawing attention to the violence being practised by the police against women at that site?

The hon. Gentleman and the women to whom he referred should reflect on how fortunate they are to live in a country, protected as it is, in which they can send such letters.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree—

The Minister does not mind people being beaten by the police; is that it?

Order. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) must not shout in that way while another hon. Member is speaking.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the skean-dhu, which is worn by many Scots, could be described as an offensive weapon? Is it not true that under the present stop and search regulations the police apply their wisdom and recognise that individuals wearing the kilt and the skean-dhu are not carrying an offensive weapon to be used in an offensive way?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I am equally sure that I would be extremely unwise to venture further on that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times he has given effect to schemes for the administration of charities.

Three times.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the allegations that I have referred to his right hon. Friend about internal matters in the RSPCA now relate to large sums of money and make many damaging remarks about the individuals concerned? If his Department and the Charity Commission refuse to intervene, and my constituents Dr. and Mrs. House now face expulsion from the society for trying to act internally, will not much damage be done to the RSPCA if it is to remain a credible body on animal welfare matters?

The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that the aim of the 1960 Act was to keep politicians out of the affairs of charities. As a result, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no responsibility for the affairs of individual charities. The Charity Commission has no power to intervene in the administrative affairs of charities, including internal policy disputes such as appears, unfortunately, to be taking place within the RSPCA.

If the aim of the 1960 Act is to keep politics out of charities, why is the Charity Commission pursuing the Exclusive Brethren and picking on a religious charity in that way? Would it not be better for the Government to come forward with comprehensive legislation so that distasteful charities, such as the Moonies and Eton college, may be separated from decent charities, which might then have an opportunity to get relief from value added tax?

Most of the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman, especially that of the Exclusive Brethren, are the province of the chief charity commissioner, not me. In asking for fresh legislation the hon. Gentleman is looking further into the future than I would care to do.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victims of crime he estimates will be excluded from compensation in the next year as a result of his change in the rules of eligibility; and what are the reasons for the change.

We are providing some £29 million this year for compensation awards to the victims of violent crime. The increase in the lower limit to £400 is intended to keep the cost of compensation in future years within the provision made in the Government's expenditure plans. It is uncertain how many applicants who would have been eligible for small awards will be excluded in the next year, but the number may be between 3,000 and 4,000.

How does the Minister reconcile that mean and niggardly act with the Home Secretary's statement on 23 March last year to the annual general meeting of the National Association of Victim Support Schemes that the Government want to do everything possible to support the victims of crime? Is it not blatant hypocrisy for the Government to pretend to want to help victims of crime while reducing the number who will be eligible for financial compensation?

I reject that entirely. Since the Labour Government were removed we have extended the scheme to the victims of violence within the family, enabled the board to reopen cases where there has been a serious change in medical condition, provided a higher limit than previously on the rate of lost earnings and allowed funeral expenses to be taken into account. My right hon. Friend recently announced that a new bereavement award of a fixed sum of £3,500 would be introduced. That is what the Government have done in practice.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that at the moment the courts seem to be more interested in those who have committed offences than in those who have had offences committed against them? Is not the level of compensation totally inadequate—here I support uniquely the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk)—particularly in respect of those who have crimes of violence committed against them? Will my hon. and learned Friend consider this matter again and uprate the amount of compensation available to those who have had crimes of violence committed against them?

A question about the amount of compensation is slightly different from the one that I was asked. My hon. Friend will recall that in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 much greater power is given to the courts to make the offender pay compensation to the victim in respect of the harm that has been done to him. It is important that that should be emphasised.

Does the Minister agree that there is a gross imbalance when for every £1 that is spent on offenders only 1p is spent on victims? Is there not a need to develop more victim support schemes to complement those already in existence?

I think that it is very much better to take practical measures, such as those in the Criminal Justice Act, than to enter into calculations of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned in his question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions he has exercised his powers under section 29(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 relating to Government control over the broadcasting of certain matter.

None, Sir.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is no effective way at present of securing balance and fairness in the media and that serious misrepresentations, such as constant recent incorrect references to unilateral disarmament, go uncorrected despite regular complaints? If letters to the director general do not have any effect, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only effective way of securing balance and fairness is by instituting an explicit right of reply? Will the right hon. Gentleman institute an explicit right of reply, subject, of course, to the judgment of an adjudicating body?

No, Sir. The arrangements that we have made, through the governors of the BBC and through the IBA board, to deal with problems of balance and fairness have worked better than arrangements in any other country in the world.

Quite apart from using his full powers, will my right hon. Friend consider writing to Central Television about its programme this week on nuclear warfare and disarmament, which was wholly biased and one-sided?

That is naturally a matter for the IBA to consider. When I hear complaints coming from one side of the problem and then from the other, I think that it is better that we should distance the House from such complaints.

I know that the Home Secretary is anxious to maintain the visible impartiality of the BBC, but will he help that process by assuring the Opposition that they will be consulted before he appoints a new chairman?

No, Sir.

Since the principle has always been that Home Office Ministers will not interfere with the independence of the BBC, will the Home Secretary publish somewhere the number of times that members of the Government have been in touch with the director general to persuade him to take a different line on matters of political controversy?

No, Sir. Nor will I seek to publish, even if I had the information, the number of times that members of previous Governments have done the same thing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made by the police recently in improving the rate of those charged and convicted of criminal damage; and what proportion of those liable to charge are subsequently found to be below the age of criminal responsibility.

Over the past five years the clear-up rate for offences of criminal damage valued over £20 has remained at about 30 per cent. Between 1977 and 1981 the number of persons convicted of or cautioned for criminal damage rose from 50,000 to 60,000.

In view of public concern about the relatively poor success rate in clearing up this mindless and senseless vandalism, will my hon. and learned Friend see whether more can be done to improve those figures and, above all, to emphasise the responsibility of the family for these matters? That would be a good idea for discussion by the Cabinet's family policy group.

I agree with my hon. Friend about the worrying nature of the problem of the very young offender. Naturally, it is extremely important that the clear-up rate should be improved. Perhaps at the forefront of the steps that could be taken to improve the problem is for parents to take more responsibility for the actions of their children, and certainly more responsibility for the standards according to which they are brought up.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many young people who are convicted for offences of criminal damage are in fact persistent truants? Does he further agree that there is scope here for our right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science to initiate a thorough review to establish whether there is a link between persistent truancy and teenage crime?

I quite understand my hon. Friend's point. It is generally accepted that the conditions that give rise to truancy also give rise to the likelihood that a child will commit offences of this type. In other words, there is a link in that regard. It has yet to be established whether there is a link in other respects.

Will the Minister institute an inquiry to find out how many of these young people have had two or more sentences, and will he take into account their family life, especially if they are out of work? Does he agree that young people often end up in prison because they have too much time on their hands? Will the Government do something about finding them jobs, which would remove that aspect in the creation of young criminals?

I have already agreed about family circumstances. It is important that we should take note of recent research prepared by Professor Stern, who is professor of economics at the University of Warwick. Using data for England and Wales between 1970 and 1981, he found no evidence that increases in unemployment have resulted in increased levels of recorded crime. The author has some trenchant criticism of those who have reported otherwise.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends taking to improve morale in the prison service.

We are significantly increasing staffing and expenditure levels to enable the service to carry out its tasks. In order to improve conditions for staff and inmates, we are implementing the largest prison building programme this century.

Does the Minister agree that the sheer pressure of numbers and the lack of adequate facilities adds to the problem, particularly for those working in the prison service? Evidence of that can be found at Portsmouth, Wormwood Scrubs and Strangeways, among others. Will the Minister take positive action by ensuring in general terms that we commit to prison only those who constitute a real danger to society?

Who goes to prison and who does not must be a matter for the courts.

As the Government's new Criminal Justice Act does not contain any measure which would lead to a significant and permanent reduction in the prison population, when will the Home Secretary use one of the two powers that he does have—one for the early release of prisoners, and the other to reduce the time spent in prison before becoming eligible for parole?

It has been made clear by the Lord Chief Justice that prison sentences should be awarded only when unavoidable. With regard to the other matters, the hon. Lady knows that no decisions have yet been taken.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a most important prison at Winchester which is grossly overcrowded? Does he further accept that while many people in Winchester wish to see tough treatment meted out and believe that prison should not be an easy ride, boredom and overcrowding can reach the point of inhumane treatment?

The matter has been looked at. We are concerned about providing education and employment within prisons. The prison service has a good record of providing useful work for about 12,000 inmates a day in our prisons.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage increase in the number of crimes of violence to the person in Wales between the years 1972 and 1981.

Between 1972 and 1981 the average annual increase in all offences of violence against the person recorded in Wales was about 7 per cent. a year; for the more serious offences it was about 2 per cent. a year.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that it was extremely insensitive of his Department to announce last weekend that the elderly were less likely to suffer an attack on their person than any other people in society? Does he agree that that shows complacency towards their real fears rather than the concern that the Government should show?

I did not, nor did the Department, make that announcement. The Department published the crime survey. Expressed in a shorthand way in my hon. Friend's question, that was one of the findings of the crime survey.

Does the Minister accept that the most important thing is to try to prevent such crimes taking place? One of the factors that has contributed to crime in Wales has been the increase in unemployment over that period. Does he accept that we should seek an eradication of the cause rather than go after the criminals once the crimes have taken place?

I am happy to enjoy the rare experience of agreeing with the hon. Gentleman on the point that we must try to stop those crimes taking place. With regard to his second point, I hope that he will read the answer that I gave a few moments ago about the research findings and note the absence of any link between unemployment and crime.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the form in which suicides are reported in the coroners' statistics to indicate whether the persons were employed or unemployed.

No, Sir. The coroners' statistics record the number and type of verdicts returned at coroners' inquests. The fact of whether or not the deceased person was employed or unemployed forms no part of the verdict.

It should be part of the verdict. Will the Minister reconsider his reply? Has he read the recent report of a young worker with a wife and baby who hanged himself, according to the coroner, because he had been out of work for nine months? Does he realise the growing number of tragedies resulting from the spread of unemployment?

There is no reason to link unemployment with suicide. I should have thought that it would not be seemly to have party disputations on why people commit suicide. There is no reason why that information should be given by coroners any more than a whole range of other information that might have a bearing on individual cases, each of which depends on its own facts and unfortunate circumstances.

Does the Minister agree that the statistics produced by coroners' courts, and many other aspects of the coroners' procedures, are not satisfactory? May I thank him for receiving a recent delegation from "Inquest" to discuss those matters? Does he agree that the information resulting from coroners' inquests and what coroners record ought to be reviewed so that we can have more information?

As the hon. Gentleman knows from that meeting and other occasions, we are concerned with aspects of the coroners' jurisdiction, some of which are undoubtedly ripe for legislative change. We are actively pursuing that.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make nationality application forms available in post offices.

No, Sir. Application forms are available from the Home Office nationality division in Croydon where advice can be given on the appropriate form for individual applicants.

Is it not about time that we had a fresh look at the issuing of such forms? Surely the general public should be encouraged to go to post offices to obtain the forms and make their claims, thus avoiding long delays. Solicitors receive shabby treatment from the Department when they apply for forms. It is about time that we had a fresh look at the rights of people who make applications.

It is very important that the applicants should be told which of the number of avenues to citizenship is open to them. Not everyone is qualified to give that advice. If one were to leave at post offices the whole range of forms—excellent as they are, as a result of the Rayner exercise—those behind the counter would find it difficult to give advice on what was the right form for the right person. I fear that in the main people would go away with all the forms and would then be no wiser as to which was the appropriate one. Those forms are made available to citizens advice bureaux and other bodies that can give advice to individuals.

Before the Minister gets too complacent about the matter, will he tell us whether there has been any improvement in the two-year waiting period that many of my constituents have had to put up with until an answer from his Department at Lunar House is received?

There has been a considerable improvement, but there were great difficulties before the new year because many people persuaded themselves, erroneously, that they would be affected by the coming into force of the British Nationality Act.

Does the Minister accept that the explanatory leaflet issued by the Home Office on the routes for nationality leaves a great deal to be desired in terms of explaining to applicants which route they should take? Does he accept that there is undue delay in processing the application forms? Since applicants pay the full economic cost for the application, does he accept that there is a case for taking on more staff so that the undue delay can be reduced?

I looked at the leaflets when I first came into the Department. I thought that they were rather good, but it is a difficult subject, for the reason that I have mentioned, which is the number of routes to naturalisation or registration as a British citizen. Of course one is anxious to speed up the processing of the applications as much as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there has been in the number of burglaries recorded in Merseyside between 1979 and the latest available date.

In 1981, 42,000 offences of burglary were recorded in Merseyside, about one third more than in 1979.

There has been a massive increase in the number of burglaries, which seem to have reached epidemic proportions, when one home is broken into every 20 minutes every day on Merseyside. How does the Minister account for that massive growth?

The hon. Gentleman knows that, unfortunately, there has been an increase in recorded crime, particularly burglaries, throughout the country. He also knows that the steps that must be taken to counter crime are multifarious and that the police cannot do it all on their own. The courts cannot do it all on their own. It depends upon the community. The Government are assisting.

In that case, will the Minister commend the scheme introduced on Merseyside that enables burglars to make reparation for their crime by working in and for the community, and at the same time reinforce his welcome initiative on the national crime prevention scheme by allowing low-income householders to reinforce the security in their homes by providing them with subsidies?

I am very much in favour of the principle of reparation. The Criminal Justice Act assists the courts to make orders providing for that. To make a burglar compensate his victim one has first to catch him. That is why we rightly increased the numbers of police. We are entitled to take credit for the fact that three new attendance centres in Liverpool and the area in the Merseyside police district have been opened under this Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state his conclusions to date on the preliminary report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on priorities and problems facing his force.

I refer my hon. Friend to the speech that I made in the House on 28 February.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in Waltham Abbey and other parts of the Epping Forest division falling within the Metropolitan Police district that not enough police are readily available to the public? Will steps be taken quickly to introduce the neighbourhood watch scheme?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The neighbourhood watch schemes, as suggested by the Commissioner, are extremely important. We can assure the citizens of London—that is important—that, to reverse the circumstances that we inherited in 1979, we have managed to increase the number of police officers substantially. The previous Commissioner put 1,000 police officers back on the beat and the present Commissioner proposes to make another 650 available. That is considerable progress in a short time. Much more needs to be done, but it cannot all be done in a day. It would have been much easier if the Opposition had done something about it before.

Has my right hon. Friend reached any conclusion about the shambles that has been caused at Hyde Park corner as a result of the Commissioner's action to slow up the free flow of traffic there?

I understand that that action was decided upon by the GLC, not the Commissioner.

The Home Secretary said that circumstances regarding crime and the police have changed since he became Home Secretary. We all confirm that, in that the increase in crime since he became Home Secretary has been enormous. As his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said that that increase had nothing to do with the increase of unemployment, does the Home Secretary have any idea what has caused the increase in crime? What does he propose to do about it?

The right hon. Gentleman has based his question on an entirely false premise. That is not what I said. I said that we had done a great deal to reverse the circumstances that were left to us by the Labour Government and that we had done that, first, by putting more policemen on the beat. The right hon. Gentleman has never been able to stand up for that. He persistently says that he wants more policemen on the beat, but the Government in which he served denied that opportunity and the good management of the Metropolitan Police, and ensured that the police went back into panda cars. We have reversed that trend and the right hon. Gentleman had better realise it.

Can the Home Secretary bring himself to answer my simple statistical question? Is it not a fact that, having been elected on a promise of law and order, the Government have presided over three years of the worst increase in crime in Britain's recent history?

I accept that there has been a considerable increase in crime. Nevertheless, if only the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served had backed the police and not despised its middle management we should have been in a much better position to deal with the problems than we have been. We now have to retrain the middle management and the police and improve the appalling conditions that we inherited.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to announce in what way he has been able to remove the anomaly regarding the payment of television licence fees for those persons living in disabled accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) on 23 February, he has decided that physically disabled and mentally disordered people in residential homes run by local authorities or voluntary or private organisations, or in certain sheltered housing schemes for the disabled, should benefit from the special 5p television licence, which is already available to retirement pensioners in similar accommodation.

Will the Minister confirm that it was not until my question appeared on the Order Paper today that a planted question from one of his Back-Bench hon. Friends also appeared? Should he not be more anxious to congratulate the disabled people at Cressy Fields. Alfreston, who refused to pay their television licences last year? Is this not a victory for extra-parliamentary activity.

The hon. Gentleman's belief in the conspiracy theory of life does him no credit. The question to which he refers was tabled and answered properly. I am sorry that he cannot bring himself to welcome a helpful concession that will benefit many people.

Does not the history of such a concession show that one has only to introduce concessions to produce anomalies? Would it not be better if such assistance as is given in these concessions were given in cash, as the pensioners' organisations wish?

Overall, what my hon. Friend says is our policy, but we inherited an anomalous set of concessions. I see no reason for denying the concession to the disabled when it is available to elderly people who live in the same type of accommodation. My hon. Friend's argument is right with regard to a further widening of these concessions.

Would the Minister care to look at my ten-minute Bill of 26 October 1982, passed by the House by 187 votes to nil? When will he put the will of the House there expressed into practice with regard to concessionary television licences for old people?

I have already made the position clear. I see no reason for not extending the concession to disabled people who live in the same circumstances as the pensioners to whom I referred earlier. However, there seems to be every reason for not imposing further costs on ordinary licence payers by extending the concession more widely, regardless of need.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the representations made to him following the publication of the report of the inter-departmental working party on extradition law.

Comments are still being received. We are considering the responses and will be deciding what action to take on the working party's recommendations.

Is it not a fact that we have only 44 extradition treaties and that most of them are more than 100 years old? Is it not desirable to dispense with the need for a treaty and agree to extradite for all offences that are made extraditable by the laws of both countries?

That is an important matter, about which my hon. Friend is a great expert. We should be unwise to reach a final conclusion until we have considered all the responses to the working party.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 3 March.

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.

Does the Prime Minister understand that the south Wales miners are angry because investment in their coalfield slumped to only £14 million last year? Does she concede that the provocative appointment of Mr. MacGregor appears to be a signal that the coalfield can be mauled and cut back hugely? Is that not why the miners have no confidence in the Government?

Precisely where investment is made is a matter for the National Coal Board. "Plan for Coal" has been carried out and extensive investment has been made in the NCB because new pits have a very good future. I have no statement to make about the chairmanship either of the NCB or the British Steel Corporation.

The right hon. Lady is backing off.

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

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that the threatened coal strike is both unnecessary and unjustified? Will she take this opportunity to remind the miners that they receive enormous subsidies from the public—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about farmers?"]—and that taxpayers are entitled to expect that that money will be used sensibly and economically, not to keep uneconomic pits in production?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The pit in question is 120 years old and its losses this year are expected to be about £13,000 per man employed.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that one of the causes of the problem in the coalfield is the great mistrust of Government policy that prevails there, partly because of what has happened in the past few years and partly because of what is projected? Does she appreciate that that is likely to be increased by the latest unemployment figures? Does she see any prospect of a fall in unemployment? Does she not understand that the Government calculate an increase of some 280,000 in the number of unemployed? How many of them will be in south Wales? How many of them will be miners?

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman started off on the subject of coal. Following "Plan for Coal", investment in that industry during 1974 to 1978–79 was about £1,500 million. About £3,000 million was invested in coal between 1978 and 1982–83. That shows this Government's faith in the future of coal. Once those excellent pits are in production, there is hope that coal might be produced more cheaply. If that happens, there is hope that electricity costs might be reduced, which would help the many industries that now complain about the cost of electricity.

Does the right hon. Lady recall the remark that she made on one occasion to the effect that every Conservative Government since the war have left more people in work than when they came to power? Is she still of that opinion? Does she not acknowledge that that proposition is true of every Administration except hers? Can she tell us when there will be a fall in unemployment, particularly as she made that speech in Darlington at a very convenient moment?

The right hon. Gentleman's figures for unemployment are not quite right. As he knows, and as I noted carefully, during the Labour Government unemployment increased substantially. He will note that a bigger proportion of our population have jobs than in any other country in the EC, with the exception of Denmark.

Will the right hon. Lady come along next week and tell us whether the promise that she made about unemployment in 1979 in Darlington was true or untrue?

I would be the first to say that unemployment has increased considerably. It has increased in almost all industrialised countries. The German figures were published today, and to those one must add the number of gastarbeiters, of whom about 500,000 have been sent home. If one compares the records for the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany from 1979 to 1983, one sees that from May 1979 to the latest available figures the increase in unemployment in the Netherlands has been 193 per cent., in the United Kingdom 139 per cent., and in Germany 154 per cent. It is a worldwide problem.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time today, not only as Prime Minister but as a London Member of Parliament, to recognise the utter dismay felt by the vast majority of Londoners at the recent to-ings and fro-ings of the leader of the GLC and the way in which the council is using ratepayers' money to give grants to what can only be described politely as extreme, way-out organisations? Does she agree that those actions call into question not only the future of the GLC but the future of the rating system? Can she give any hope to the House that one or the other, or better still both, will be reformed radically or abolished?

I agree that the vast majority of Londoners are unhappy about the antics of the Leader of the GLC. I also agree that we need major reform of the rating system. That is being considered and we shall make an announcement in due course. I accept that consideration of rating reform must include an examination of the functions of the several local authorities.

Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to see the report just released by the British Medical Association—[Interruption.]—What are hon. Members laughing at? The report is the result of an inquiry chaired by Professsor Sir John Stallworthy into the negative effects of nuclear war. Is the right hon. Lady aware that if one nuclear weapon were exploded over London, more casualties would be created than could be cared for by all the acute beds in the country, of which there are 136,000? Will she examine the report, act upon it and get in touch with President Reagan and Mr. Andropov—[Interruption.]—Tory Members are hooligans. This is a serious matter that affects the lives of all the people of this country and of many other countries. Will the Prime Minister use whatever influence she has with President Reagan and any one else who is prepared to listen to ensure that a meeting can take place to remove the threat of nuclear war from the entire world?

I have not seen the report to which the hon. Lady refers in full, but I have seen a summary of it. The purpose of possessing nuclear weapons is to deter the Soviets from making any attack, either nuclear or conventional, on the countries of the Western Alliance. That strategy has been successful for 37 years, and the Soviets are as aware of the dangers of nuclear war as we are. As long as they face a credible nuclear deterrent as part of our defences they will never risk either a conventional or a nuclear attack.

I am asking the right hon. Lady to do it.

Is the Prime Minister in favour of fixed-term Parliaments? If not, why not?

I see no reason to change the present system. The onus is on those who propose any change to prove the case for it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Livingstone and his Labour colleagues on the GLC have cancelled the Territorial Army banner rededication ceremony that was to take place this month at county hall on the ground that it would offend their friends in the peace movement? Will she take time to consider the grave offence that this has caused to the many thousands of men and women who have participated in maintaining the peace of this country through the Territorial Army for the past 35 years?

The Territorial Army is a wonderful service, and I hope that its members will realise that the vast majority of British people are firmly behind them. We believe in a strong defence, which among other things, enables people such as Mr. Livingstone and others to express their views—a freedom that would be denied to them if they lived under the Soviets.

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

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

Does the Prime Minister recollect my question to her on 8 February, when I informed her of the reaction of the mining industry to the rumoured appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor? Is the Government's announcement during the past two hours, directly after the decision of the national executive of the National Union of Mineworkers, that great democratic union—[Interruption.]—Yes, that great democratic union, to ballot its members, a deliberate act of provocation on her part to make sure that the miners vote for a strike, which is something she has wanted for many months? Can she tell the House whether Mr. MacGregor has accepted the offer?

As the hon. Gentleman probably heard me say earlier, I have no announcement to make about the future chairmanship of the National Coal Board.

It has been on television.

The hon. Gentleman should not always believe as gospel what he sees on television. I have no announcement to make about the future chairmanship of the National Coal Board. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Siddall's appointment comes to an end, I believe, at the end of July, and he cannot carry on. There is no secret about the fact that Mr. MacGregor is being considered for the chairmanship. There are good reasons why his name should be considered. When he was chairman of AMAX, in his first year — [AN HON. MEMBER: "Reading."] — Yes, because I want to be accurate in what I say. When he was chairman of AMAX, Mr. MacGregor took it into coal production, and coal operations expanded by 75 per cent. between 1971 and 1976, making AMAX the third largest producer of bituminous coal in the United States. In 1976, after the worst year for United States mineral consumption since the depression of the 1930s, AMAX, unlike other United States mineral companies—

This means that the Prime Minister has appointed him.

—embarked on a $2 billion expansion programme. That is the background. I have no announcement to make. May I make it clear that no one has yet been appointed to the job.

On a point: of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to consider the convenience of hon. Members? There is serious overcrowding on the Opposition Front Bench below the Gangway, which I believe should have your immediate attention.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have received a request from the Minister of State, Home Office to make a statement retracting his explicit and clear endorsement of police violence towards the women at Greenham Common when replying at Question Time to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Order.