asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he takes into consideration when deciding whether to accede to any request to ban a march or demonstration in the metropolis.

I have no power to ban demonstrations. As to marches, the Public Order Act 1936 provides that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Commissioner of the City police may, subject to my consent, make an order banning all marches or any class of march, but only if he believes that his other powers of control under the Act will be insufficient to prevent marches occasioning serious public disorder. In each case I consider the Commissioner's reasons for reaching his operational judgment. Beyond that, specific considerations may vary, but I always reach my decision on whether to consent to a banning order on what I judge will be in the public interest.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his considered reply. Since last year, over 750,000 police man-hours, involving more than 100 officers, have been used in controlling demonstrations in the metropolis. Will my right hon. Friend seriously and sympathetically consider an extension to the Public Order Act, if necessary, so that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis can ask for the re-routeing or banning of a march or demonstration if he can show that, if it went ahead, it would impede his main priority of fighting crime in London?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that that does not come into the present law on serious public disorder. Those who decide to exercise their undoubted right to have marches or demonstrations must recognise the responsibilities that they are taking on and the danger that they will take away from others in the metropolis the police protection that they want.

How many police officers were engaged in controlling the demonstration in Trafalgar Square the Sunday before last, organised by Lady Olga Maitland and her upper-middle class friends, in support of nuclear weapons? Has the Home Secretary, or anyone else in his Department, considered sending the bill for policing such demonstrations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or to the Sunday Express?

I cannot give an answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question without notice.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I would very much like him to send those bills to the organisations that arrange demonstrations on the streets of London? Is he further aware that the number of such demonstrations has increased sevenfold in nine years? As people are increasingly taking politics on to the streets, at great cost and inconvenience to the general public, particularly the ratepayers of London, is it not about time that they were asked to pay for the privilege?

I say again that those who decide to have marches and demonstrations, which is their democratic right, must accept their full responsibilities. In the Green Paper on public order I have made it clear that there are formidable problems, in principle and in practice, in suggestions about making conditions of control and in deciding to levy costs. However, we must look at the responsibility of all those who seek to organise demonstrations and marches.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new edition of "Protect and Survive" will be made available to the public; and whether free copies will be provided for training civil defence volunteers.

We expect the successor to "Protect and Survive" to be ready for publication early next year.

In view of the growing interest in this matter and its undoubted importance, will my hon. and learned Friend examine the possibility of producing audiovisual and other aids so that the message can be got over as clearly and effectively as possible?

Yes. Audio-visual versions of the new document will be available through the Central Film Library, just as war crises tapes are already available. It is an important matter and we want to give it wide publicity.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that, in the past few years, Government instructions about what we should do in the event of nuclear attack have varied? We were told that we must all stay in our homes; then that we must evacuate. We are now told, I believe, that some of us must stay at home and others must evacuate. Will he assure us that this new edition of "Protect and Survive" will be his last word on the matter? Otherwise, there is a danger that it will not be taken seriously.

I am glad to hear the implication in the hon. Lady's question that she believes that civil defence ought to be taken seriously. I hope that she will press that view on her colleagues in the Labour party. It is important that advice to the country should change and keep pace with developments. That is what my right hon. Friend is determined to secure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether instructions have been issued to chief executives of local authorities to be based within a certain radius of a nuclear shelter.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister explain why the metropolitan borough of Sefton is spending £l million to move the chief executive's office from Bootle to leafy Southport to be near the nuclear fall-out bunker so that, when the four-minute warning comes, he can get there, but the people of Bootle cannot? Is he aware that it is a waste of money because, when last there was a practice run, he arrived without the key, the caretaker had to be sent for and he arrived an hour later on a bicycle?

That just goes to show the value of exercises. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do all that he can to drive home the importance of that lesson.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue guidance to local authorities concerning eligibility for concessionary television licences for pensioners.

Information about the conditions on which the old persons' home television licence may be granted, which remain unchanged, was sent to all local authorities in April 1978. Further advice will be issued when the extension of the 5p licence scheme to physically disabled and mentally disordered people in similar accommodation is introduced.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. All hon. Members are aware that the present system creates many anomalies and dissatisfaction among the majority of pensioners, who do not live in warden supervised accommodation. Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities appear to be abusing the system by appointing wardens merely to control groups of dwellings so that more elderly people can take advantage of cheap television licences? Is he further aware that that practice is especially rife among Labour-controlled authorities? Is that fair to the public, who are responsible for the expenditure, or elderly people who are still unable to get the benefit of concessionary licences?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Like the Labour Government, we recognise that the system is anomalous. The problem is that it is impossible equitably to take away the concession from those who have it, and it is not economically realistic to extend it to all pensioners —nor would that be justified. I am aware that my hon. Friend might be referring to publicity for Sheffield city council. It does not have permission for such a scheme, and we wait to hear from it about the matter. It should not be assumed that what the council proposes will fall within the terms of the scheme.

Does the Minister agree that the present system is complete nonsense and grossly unfair? The Government now claim that a recovery is on the way. Would it not be a good idea to share that recovery with pensioners and let them all have free television licences rather than continue with a system that creates anomolies?

That sounds attractive in theory, but the consequence would be a shortfall of £250 million in revenue to the BBC. Granting the benefit to all pensioners, not all of whom can be described as needy, would be an imposition on many non-pensioner families, some of whom might be poor, who would have to pay £70 for a television licence to compensate for the shortfall of £250 million. What the hon. Gentleman suggests is an attractive electioneering promise, but it does not have much to it.

Is the Minister aware that those who want to help pensioners believe that the cost could be met, at least in part, by a proper charge being levied on hotels and other commercial premises which pay a single television licence for, as is the case with the Savoy, 365 television receivers? When will we hear the Government's view about commercial premises being charged a proper fee?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government made their view clear some time ago in a written answer. I am not sure that imposing additional burdens on the hotel sector, which provides much employment, is the answer. I do not know whether that is how the right hon. Gentleman will vindicate the promise that the Labour party has made on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman must accept, as he did when he was a member of the Labour Government, that it is not as easy as it sounds to grant that boon to all pensioners without creating unfair consequences for others.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the size of the prison population; and how many people are currently being held in police and court cells.

On 29 April the prison population stood at 44,407, in addition to which 296 prisoners were held in police cells.

Does the Home Secretary agree that holding prisoners in police and court cells is unsatisfactory, and will he advance proposals to remedy that problem urgently? Is he aware that families of prisoners are sometimes told that their relative is being held in custody at one police or court cell, only to find, when they go to visit him, that he has been moved to somewhere completely different where visits are not possible?

I agree that that is unsatisfactory. As the hon. Gentleman knows, certain wings in some local prisons in London are out of action because we are undertaking improvements and maintenance which should have been carried out a long time ago. No one should suggest that that is wrong. I hope to propose measures that will put the matter right quickly. I have plans to make other places available so that people can be moved from London prisons to others outside.

Is there any alternative, in the longer run, to building even more prisons than my right hon. Friend proposes?

At long last we have a Government who have had the courage to take on the job and to build prisons. That must be right and be seen to be right.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the key to the alternative to prison is the probation service? Yet, in his article on prison overcrowding in The Times today, the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the probation service. Is that not an extremely regrettable omission? Will he bear in mind that the expected increase of only 155 probation officers next year will be hopelessly inadequate if the prison population is to be reduced significantly?

In that article I referred to the use of non-custodial alternatives. The Government have done a great deal in that regard. Indeed, we have done a great deal more to build up the probation service than any of our predecessors. We have also done a good deal more to increase its numbers. The hon. Lady should remember that.

I appreciate the improvements in the prison service that my right hon. Friend has achieved, but has he had an opportunity yet to read the all-party Select Committee report which unanimously recommended that all prisoners should have the right of access to education as a means of alleviating the problem of thousands of prisoners being kept locked up for as much as 23 hours a day? Does he agree that that is having a severely deleterious effect on their chances of improvement when they return to society?

Yes. I am grateful for that important report, which should be studied. As I have made clear several times, the more public debate there is on what happens in our prisons, the more likely we are to deal with many of the problems that we have had for a long time and ignored at our peril.

Will the Home Secretary look for a cheaper and more effective alternative to prison for vagrants who are frequently sent to prison for comparatively small social security frauds, and for whom prison has no rehabilitative effect and is extremely expensive?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those people should not go to prison, but the magistrates have a problem if someone persistently refuses to pay a fine. What else can they do with him?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Radio Amateurs Emergency Network—Raynet—operators to be allowed to participate in local civil defence exercises without the prior approval of his Department.

The role of radio amateurs in civil defence planning and exercises is under review and we expect a decision to be made soon. We believe that they can make an important contribution to civil defence at local level.

Will my hon. and learned Friend give every encouragement to radio amateurs and operators in view of the great help that they could give in an emergency?

Yes, Sir.

Will my hon. and learned Friend also consider whether the citizens band radio enthusiast has a role to play in that area, because the enormous growth in citizens band radio usage in recent years could not have been foreseen when the regulations were drawn up? Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that many people now have expertise in this area and might well be able to play an important role in the public's general growing interest in civil defence?

I shall also consider that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he is giving to possible changes in the law relating to bingo clubs.

We are prepared in principle to accept the proposal made by the bingo trade association for a new joint game with a maximum prize of £50,000. The details of how the games are to be played and controlled will be discussed by the Home Office and the Gaming Board with the associations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will be welcomed by many of those who enjoy the completely harmless pursuit of playing bingo in bingo clubs, and that the provision of that happiness is a substantial social service? Is he further aware that during the past year there has been a decline of about 13 per cent. in attendance at bingo halls and that many halls are threatened with closure? In addition to increasing the prize money, will my hon. Friend also consider removing some restrictions on advertising?

I am glad to know that my hon. and learned Friend spends his afternoons so profitably. There has been a reduction in attendances at bingo halls. The Government believe that bingo halls provide a valuable social club atmosphere for many of our fellow citizens, with nearly 360,000 people attending daily last year. We are considering ways in which we can work with the associations, but any proposals must be compatible with our overall policy of ensuring that the social element rather than the prospect of financial gain predominates.

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that it is part of the Government's duty to encourage people to gamble at bingo?

No. The Government's view has always been that we should not encourage a growth in gambling, but now that attendances are declining and a reasonable proposal has been advanced to allow the associations to re-attract some of the trade that they have lost, it would be wrong, and would damage the interests of those who enjoy bingo, to stand in the way of any such proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to introduce legislation concerning the taping of interrogations of suspects in police stations.

The power in clause 51 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill which enables me, with the approval of Parliament, to make codes of practice extends to the tape recording of police interviews. The forthcoming field trials are designed to identify the basis for a national scheme and, therefore, to prove the scope and content of an appropriate code of practice.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate how helpful it was to the House to learn about the criteria upon which he is introducing the field trials which were revealed in an answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on 29 April? Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is widespread support for his demonstration of his determined effort to reduce crime, and does he accept that, if this is one way forward, he will have solid support behind him?

The principle of tape recording was set out by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. The Government accept what was said and are pressing forward as fast as possible with the field trials. Everyone must accept that when we carry out the tape recording of interviews—we can and will do so under the Bill—we must do it on a sensible basis that will work. The purpose of the field trials is to ensure that the police carry out the operation effectively.

May I urge the Home Secretary to struggle to remember the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in the small hours of this morning, and to tell the House now, in the light of day, how long it will be before the field trials are completed and, therefore, how long it will be before the prospect of tape recording is widely introduced.—[Interruption.].—I shall pause while the information is passed to the Home Secretary. How long will it be before the field trials are completed, and how long will it be before tape recording is widely introduced?

With his customary courtesy, the right hon. Gentleman asks me to struggle to remember something. I do not have to struggle to remember anything. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to struggle to remember what was said during our debates on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I spent many more hours in the House listening to the debates on that Bill than did the right hon. Gentleman, and I need not struggle to remember much of what was said. The tape recording field trials will probably take two years to complete, but we shall press ahead with them as rapidly as possible. The only way to achieve our objective sensibly is to ensure that we start now. We promised to start and we have done so. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is funny, he is entitled to his opinion.

In the experimental period, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, and ask all those concerned to bear in mind, that we must avoid any cheating in the taping of interviews? It would be of no use to substitute the taping of interviews for the present system if the taping were then subjected to the criticism—all too often undeserved—that is levelled against the present system.

The purpose of the field trials is to ensure that we get it right so that tape recording can be introduced on a proper basis.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that one hold-up in the commencement of the trials has been the non-availability of a suitable machine for the recording? Which British firms have been asked to tender for the contract to supply machines, and how soon does he hope the machines will be in place?

That has been one factor, but we have made as rapid a start as any Government could have made, and we shall press ahead with it as quickly as possible. That is the best guarantee that we can give that it will work.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to bring forward his proposals for the amendment of animal welfare legislation.

In the very near future.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the subject has been under discussion for about four years, and can he be a little more precise on whether we are talking about days, weeks or months? Will he assure the House that the proposals will strike a reasonable balance between the proper protection of animals and the reasonable needs of research, which is very important today?

I give my hon. Friend that assurance, but the achievement of that objective is not easy. That is why the matter has been subject to considerable deliberations not only in Britain, where we have received the report of the Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments, but in Europe, where we are working for common standards. I am happy to tell the House that work on the Council of Europe convention on such matters was completed last week.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the time for deliberation has now passed and that the House and the public expect reform proposals that will not only benefit animals but remove some of the burden from legitimate scientists and doctors whose work is being hampered because they are working under what is perceived to be a cloud of suspicion?

I know of my hon. Friend's distinguished work on the Medical Research Council, and I take his point. I assure him that the Government's thoughts on that matter are at an advanced stage.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his original answer will be welcomed by all those who work in the research laboratories in my constituency, such as the Medical Research Council and the British Industrial Biological Research Association? Is he further aware that proposals such as those that he has suggested are long overdue and will be welcomed by my constituents?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. It is clear that, although the 1876 Act has worked well, there is a need for modernisation. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that. There is also a need to widen controls and to bring into play new concepts that reflect the tremendous changes in experimentation that have taken place over the decades.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the civil defence arrangements for the London borough of Hillingdon.

Local authorities have a statutory obligation to make plans against the effects of possible hostile attack, and we are satisfied that the London borough of Hillingdon has done all that has been required by law.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in Hillingdon will find his reply very reassuring? Will he confirm that one part of the work of civil defence involves dealing with natural disasters as well as with the effects of hostilities? What steps are the Government taking to encourage people to participate more actively in civil defence, particularly with regard to natural disasters?

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point. The organisation and training of volunteers for civil defence is a matter of great importance. In the new regulations that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary laid on 28 April, provision is made to encourage local authorities to do that and to reimburse to the extent of 100 per cent. any expenses that they incur and are approved by the Home Office for the organisation and training of volunteers. Of course, a properly developed civil defence structure would also be available for natural disasters. The Civil Defence Act limits expenditure to preparations against hostile attack, but once one has them one can use one's volunteers in the event of a civil disaster, and that is very important.

Would my hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to see whether the Civil Defence Act needs amending to include provision for civil emergencies so that it is beyond doubt that local authorities are also required to provide for such eventualities?

We must wait to see how local authorities respond to the encouragement which the new regulations — if approved by Parliament — will give. However, my hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that the Civil Defence Act excludes expenditure for such civil emergencies. We shall have to see how we get on.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to reduce the overcrowding in Winchester prison.

The overcrowding at Winchester prison reflects the continuing pressure on the prison system generally. We are considering the feasibility of reducing the numbers held in the remand centre by creating a new under-21 remand facility at Dorchester prison. In the longer term, relief for the establishment as a whole will be provided as additional places become available elsewhere through the prison building programme.

Yes, but when will all that happen? Does not the Minister's reply really mean that he has no proposals at the moment that will reduce the overcrowding?

No, my reply means nothing of the kind. It means that prisons cannot be built overnight. Since it was the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins)—the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party—who cut the previous Government's prison building programme, the hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to put up overnight the prisons that should have been built during the last decade.

Is the Minister saying that the only solution to the problem of overcrowding in Winchester and other prisons is an expanded prison building programme? Has he given up any hope of persuading the judiciary to reduce the length of sentences for non-violent offenders?

One has to be selective in the points that one makes, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question. Of course it is our policy, working with the judiciary, that sentences of imprisonment should not be passed—as the Lord Chief Justice has made clear —unless absolutely necessary. Equally, with the growth in the number of offenders coming before the courts—there was a 12 per cent, increase in the work of the Crown courts last year— it is imperative that those prisoners who deserve it should be sent to prison and that there should be prisons to receive them.

Further to that answer, will my hon. Friend avoid, on behalf of the Conservative side of the House at any rate, this insistence upon the point that only violent offenders should be sent to prison? There are many people who prey upon the public by burglary, fraud and other means from whom the public must be protected by means of prison sentences.

I represent a part of inner London that suffers particularly badly from burglaries and I entirely accept what my hon. and learned Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Consett on 31 March, Official Report, c. 266, when he expects to have completed his consideration of the resource implications for the probation service of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.

The resource requirements of the probation service will be included in the normal way in the Government's annual review of their expenditure plans.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that highly illumanating reply. Is he aware that the increased burdens placed on the probation service by the Criminal Justice Act 1982 require a reliably estimated 8 per cent. increase in resources? How can the probation service, which is already grossly overstretched, possibly meet the new demands without an adequate increase in resources?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the lifetime of this Government there has been real growth in the probation service in every year, and that growth is projected to continue in the public expenditure plans that have been laid before the House. The impact of that has been a 9 per cent. growth in the number of probation officers during the past three years, and a 46 per cent. growth in the number of probation ancillaries. Thus, we recognise that the probation service has an essential role to play in making non-custodial sentences work. We are giving the service the resources to enable it to do the job effectively.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times over the most recent 12-month period paraldehyde has been administered to prisoners in England and Wales.

We do not keep central records of the use of individual drugs in prisons and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Is it not a pity that the Minister is not aware of how often this obnoxious and painful drug is used in prisons in England and Wales? Will he take steps to find out whether it is still being used, and advise against its use, as there are less painful and obnoxious options available?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's tendentious description of the drug, although it is right to say that other drugs are being used. We could establish what quantities of the drug are being used only by examining the stock records of each and every prison. I do not know that that would be appropriate. Any drug that is used in prison is administered by a qualified medical practitioner, who uses his medical judgment, as any medical practitioner does. I have no reason to think that the use of that drug in prison gives rise to any cause for concern.

The Minister will know that since 1980, following pressure from Labour Members, the number of major tranquillisers prescribed in every prison in Britain has appeared at the end of the annual prison report. Would it not be comparatively simple to classify the heavy tranquillisers by type of drug? Surely it would not cost much to obtain the information that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) seeks.

I agree that in the prison department's annual report we publish a record of the dosages dispensed in prisons in five categories. However, the categories are broad. We have yet to be persuaded that, given the medical safeguards that I have set out, and the fact that no prisoner is compelled to take medication other than in very rare emergencies, there is any need to incur the expense involved in making such arrangements and in breaking down the figures further.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the number of firearms held illegally in the United Kingdom.

The acquisition and possession of firearms is controlled under the Firearms Act 1968. We are satisfied that the existing controls are generally effective and are not persuaded that further specific measures to reduce the number of firearms held illegally, such as an amnesty, would be justified at this time.

Does the Minister accept that there is extreme concern in the Greater Manchester area about the increasing number of robberies that involve the use of firearms? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of those holding firearms appear not to have long criminal records? They seem to be able to get hold of firearms very easily. Is it not important to take steps to take illegal firearms out of circulation by means of an amnesty or other such action so as to tackle the problem at source, rather than simply considering the question of punishing such offenders if and when they are caught?

Amnesties have to be offered very carefully and generally the practice has been to do it, if at all, only after a change in the law. I would be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's concern if he had not, together with his colleagues, taken every opportunity to vote against the proposal in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to give powers to the police to stop and search people on reasonable suspicion that they were carrying offensive weapons.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that his campaign against those holding firearms illegally does not appear to have been as successful as his campaign against holding them legally? Is he aware that people who have firearms for sport and recreation have been irritated by police and Home Office action against them, which has made not the slightest difference to criminals?

I think it is right to examine carefully any means that may reasonably result in reducing the number of illegally held firearms, but it is equally important that those who hold them for perfectly proper reasons—there are about 700,000 firearms certificates in this country—are not unreasonably imposed upon.

Would not the most effective way of reducing the number of illegally held firearms be for magistrates and judges to impose effective deterrent sentences?

I am a great believer, as is my right hon. Friend, in deterrent sentences. These matters fall to the discretion of the judiciary, as my hon. and learned Friend knows.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions he intends to make within the Metropolitan police district to obviate the necessity for prisoners on remand to stay for long periods of time in police stations.

We are taking all possible steps to increase the effective capacity of prison accommodation in London and the south-east, where the present difficulties have arisen, by transferring prisoners to prisons outside the metropolitan area and by various other measures.

Is the Minister aware that on one Monday night two weeks ago 288 people could not be remanded to proper prisons? Is he further aware of the considerable concern in the Metropolitan police district about the number of prisoners who have to be remanded in police stations? Does he not therefore agree that it is about time that magistrates' and Crown courts were encouraged to remand in custody only those whom it is absolutely necessary so to remand?

I have no reason to think that that is not the case. It is not for me to lecture the judiciary on individual cases as to who should be remanded in custody. Having regard to the concern felt by the public of London, including, I imagine, the hon. Gentleman's constituents, about offences committed by people released on bail, I think the hon. Gentleman should be cautious before he tries to lecture.

Can the Minister tell the House how many police officers have been taken away from their jobs of catching criminals to guard prisoners in police and court cells?

Not without notice. The hon. Gentleman knows—I respect his interest in this matter—that we have been doing all we can to reduce the problem. The hon. Gentleman also knows that building new prisons takes time and the consequences of the refurbishment of old prisons on which we have embarked means that some wings must be taken out of commission while they are worked on, which, of course, poses short-term accommodation problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete the work on revising the calculations of the likely number of casualties arising from the effects of a nuclear bomb.

The work is very detailed and complex and will take several more months to complete.

Perhaps that is not surprising with the possibility of an election in the offing. Is the Minister aware of the wide concern among professional people who have made a study of these matters about the total inadequacy of the Government's initial casualty figures? Was the decision to reappraise the assumptions contained in these calculations caused by the British Medical Association's report, which came out in favour of the figures produced by Scientists Against Nuclear Arms?

It was not. It was in train some time before then. I am aware of the great concern in the country about the view taken by a large number of Labour-controlled councils that nothing is to be done in the form of civil defence to protect people against the risk of attack. The right view held by most people on these matters is that it is a humanitarian duty to protect people from the effects of an attack, which we all hope will never come, but which would leave millions of survivors in need of help.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of Metropolitan police officers engaged in fraud squad work and how this compares with one and five years earlier, respectively.

We understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the number of Metropolitan police officers solely engaged in fraud squad work for the years requested was, in 1978, 163, in 1982, 153 and in 1983, 160.

Are the officers engaged in fraud squad work effective in securing sufficient successful convictions? Now that cases of fraud are so complex, and bearing in mind the need to maintain the integrity of the City of London, is it not time to consider more radical measures, such as moving away from the jury system to the use of a panel of expert assessors?

I well understand the consideration lying behind my hon. Friend's question. I think, however, that the quality of officers engaged in fraud work is high. It is for the Commissioner to assess whether he has sufficient resources. At present there is certainly no plan to change so important a matter as jury service in this context. I think that the fraud squad is to be congratulated on the high quality of its work.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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. This evening I shall be holding a reception for the NSPCC.

Is the Prime Minister aware that her decision to postpone telling the House whether there is to be a June election until after she has had a chance to analyse the local election results shows clearly —[Interruption.]—that, despite all her fine words and all her moral gestures, she is just the same as all the rest—a cynical person prepared to put party before the good of the country?

I think that by his stumble the hon. Gentleman has provided the answer to his hollow question.

Does my right hon. Friend approve of the decision of CND to send two observers to the World Peace Council in Prague, sponsored by the Soviet Union? Would not CND do better to campaign against the missiles already deployed in eastern Europe and Russia?

I agree with my hon. Friend—it would do very much better so to campaign. The way to get nuclear disarmament is to persuade the Soviet Union to negotiate in Geneva to get the number of weapons on both sides down.

When the right hon. Lady said earlier in the week that she would announce the date of the general election using the normal method, was she referring to the story attributed to the Home Secretary today — the leakage method of telling us—the headline of which read:

"June 9 is poll date—Whitelaw"?

I do not think the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question merits a reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] With regard to the second part of his question, I should make it clear that the British and French nuclear deterrents cannot be included in the INF negotiations, nor should they be. They are our strategic last resort deterrent. They face many many strategic weapons from the Soviet Union, none of which the Soviet Union proposes to include in the INF negotiations.

The right hon. Lady cannot dismiss my first question in that way. Does she repudiate the statement that appeared in The Birmingham Post? Will she say that it is false? When will she correct the Home Secretary on the matter?

On the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to what I said last week, and what I said then stands absolutely. The French and British nuclear deterrents are our last-resort deterrents. They are already the absolute minimum to deter. We cannot give up the absolute minimum without robbing this country of a very necessary part of its defence.

Is it not clear, however, that Mr. Andropov's limited, but significant, step forward appears to have been much more coolly received in London than in Washington or NATO headquarters? Is the Prime Minister prepared to correct that impression?

The previous question referred only to one particular part of the proposals. The other part of the proposal was that we should count the number of warheads rather than the number of missiles. That is what NATO has always wanted, and that part of the proposal is to be welcomed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the offer this week of an attractive private health insurance scheme to British Rail workers is most welcome? Does she accept that many of my railway constituents will be joining thousands of other trades union workers in wishing to spend their money in the way that they want, despite the threats of the Opposition party?

I agree that it is absolutely right that people should spend their money in their own way and on things of their choice. Many trade unionists have already taken advantage of offers to belong to BUPA that have been negotiated through their employers. They enjoy good terms under such schemes, and it is right that they should continue.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 May.

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

In view of the news from America this morning, will the Prime Minister now seek to encourage President Reagan to take the advice of the House of Representatives and support a nuclear freeze?

No. To support a nuclear freeze would freeze the superiority of the Soviet Union. I do not know whether that is the hon. Gentleman's policy, but it is not the policy of the Conservative party. Those who want genuine disarmament want reductions in nuclear weapons on both sides, and a freeze would hinder that objective.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 May.

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

During my right hon. Friend's very busy programme for the rest of the day, will she pay attention to the levels of public expenditure that are still causing the Government problems, especially revenue expenditure? Will she consider giving an assurance to the House that a future Conservative Government will consider the abolition of the GLC and the other metropolitan county councils that are known for their financial squandermania? Would that not only help public expenditure but create a more accountable and efficient local government? It might, perhaps, be one step on the road to rate reform.

It is true that the GLC and ILEA have added enormously to public expenditure. They overspend their targets considerably and, therefore, add greatly to the burden on ratepayers. In view of their record, I agree that many people would find abolition attractive.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Andropov's offer to count warheads and not simply missiles in Europe is a significant Soviet concession to the United States, and that she was right to welcome it this afternoon? As she said that the Government intend to continue to resist the long-standing Soviet proposal that British nuclear weapons be included in the INF talks, will she tell the House in what circumstances, if any, the British Government would be prepared to negotiate about our nuclear weapons?

It is wholly wrong to suggest that our last-resort strategic submarine-based nuclear weapons should be included in the INF talks, which are about mobile, land-based weapons. For the Soviet Union to suggest that is to leave totally out of account all her strategic weapons, including her submarine-based weapons and is meant to delude the British public. It must not succeed in doing so. If we were ever to have a world where there were no nuclear weapons, we should not need a last resort nuclear deterrent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scottish Conservatives are very much looking forward to welcoming her to Perth next week?

All 10 of them.

During my right hon. Friend's visit to Scotland, in addition to emphasising the importance of Scotland in the policies of her Government, will she pay particular attention to the importance of the electronics industry — not least to the significance of the Government's proposals, based on the Alvey proposals, for a £350 million scheme to assist fifth generation computers?

Scottish people appear to have a great aptitude for the electronics industry. The companies that have gone to Scotland are doing very well. We made an announcement on the Alvey scheme because we felt that there were certain aspects of technology that required money spent on a scale that ordinary companies could not achieve. Therefore, we have these collaborative ventures between the university, the Government and certain companies to secure the essential breakthrough. I hope that a number of companies in Scotland will apply for that scheme and participate in it.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will publish her official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time today to prepare her election speech for the Tory party conference in Perth a week on Friday? Will she note that on an agenda with 225 motions, not one motion deals directly with unemployment? Indeed, 44 deal with defence. It is a case of bombs, not jobs. Is the Tory party in Scotland and Britain not concerned with unemployment?

It would be impossible to discuss any economic question without involving the need to create new jobs. I wholly reject the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to the Leader of the Opposition, will she make it clear both to him and to Mr. Andropov that the 64 Polaris missiles —16 of which are, at any time, guaranteed to be on station — are there to offset not only the 600 intermediate range Soviet nuclear missiles aimed at our people and our allies in western Europe, but to counter the 2,400 intercontinental strategic nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our weapons are an irreducible minimum to deter anyone who might wish to attack us with nuclear weapons. It is absolutely vital that we keep them. We have no shadow of doubt about that.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to congratulate the miners on their record-breaking productivity during the past year? Does she agree that there is now no case for closing pits, especially as we shall need every tonne of coal that we can get to sustain the economic recovery that she assured me last week is, this time, genuine?

I am always pleased to congratulate anyone on increased productivity. I look forward to the day when we do not need to make a loss-making subsidy to coal. The British public not only pay for coal by way of its price, but also through the taxpayers' pockets. The total subsidy this year is expected to be about £540 million. The total external financing limit, of which that subsidy is a part, is £1,201 million. There is quite a long way to go. Mr. Siddall is making an excellent job of his work at the National Coal Board.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that insistence on inclusion of the British nuclear deterrent in any negotiations about arms limitation will inevitably be tantamount to unilateral disarmament, in that we would thereby largely do away with our only form of nuclear shield—the ultimate guarantee of our security—whereas the Soviet Union, under any proposals, would still have a considerable arsenal capable of being directed at and hitting this country?

I agree with my hon. Friend that to abandon our independent nuclear deterrent would be a form of one-sided disarmament. Deterrence is the most important and first part of defence.