asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the proposal to reintroduce capital punishment by hanging.

Since 10 June my Department has received about 1,100 letters about capital punishment from organisations and members of the public, either direct or forwarded by hon. Members.

In view of the decisive votes yesterday, will the Home Secretary assure us that the restoration of capital punishment is finished as a topic for discussion for a very long time to come? Will he reject any moves for a referendum on the issue? Does he realise that to deal with the problems of crime and violence we must tackle the problem of carrying arms and will he introduce measures to deal with that? Does he realise that if we are to deal with crime and violence the Government must re-examine their economic and social policies, which have led to the increase in crime in recent years?

It is not for me to stop or to promote debate, but I should have thought that last night's votes were sufficiently decisive for it to be unlikely that the matter would come before the House again for quite a while. I do not believe that matters that are not of a constitutional type are suitable for a referendum. Yesterday's debate on capital punishment showed clearly that not just one but many questions must be asked, even by those who favour its restoration—for whom, in what circumstances, and so on. Therefore, the idea that there is a single question that can be answered in a simple way is not one that I find attractive.

In view of last night's votes, if the subject of capital punishment arose again in this country would it not he vital to hold a referendum? Should not Parliament know beyond peradventure the nation's view on this subject so that Parliament and the people are closer together in their general view?

If there was one common thread in yesterday's debate it was the recognition by most people of the probable state of public opinion in so far as it could be ascertained. Therefore, if the object of a referendum is an inquiry I do not think that is necessary. If the object is a decision, for the reasons that I gave earlier, I do not think that it is appropriate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will present early legislation to the House, in advance of the election to the European assembly, to allow postal votes in that election for persons intending to be on holiday on polling day.

My right hon. and learned Friend is actively considering the question of legislation on this matter, but it is doubtful whether such legislation could be introduced in time for the European Parliament elections next year.

As there is a clear date for the election, is my hon. Friend aware that some of us would regard the Government's decision on this as showing whether they seriously intend to respond to the wishes of the House or to kick the matter into touch for another five years?

My right hon. and learned Friend made the Government's position clear in the debate on the Queen's Speech when he said that it was wrong in principle that people on holiday should be unable to vote. As he will make clear in answering subsequent questions about the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, we believe that this cannot be dealt with piecemeal but must be taken together with the other reforms suggested The Government's response will be published in due course.

Do the Government intend that the European election should be fought not just on an inadequate system but on boundaries made out of date by the recent Westminster boundary changes?

The Boundary Commission can only work at a certain pace and those who object to what it recommends must enjoy their right to have those objections heard. The hon. Gentleman can do the arithmetic as well as I can and must know how short tame is. He will arrive at the same conclusion as I did—that it will be extremely difficult for any change to be effected before the date fixed for those elections.

Will my hon. Friend assure us that, in carrying out the review, he will not overlook the right of British citizens who live in Europe to vote at the European elections?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives chief constables for advising community volunteer leaders about law and order problems within the civil defence context.

Guidance on the role of volunteers and community organisation in war is in Home Office circular No. ES 2/1981. It does not cover law and order, which are the responsibility of the Government and the police. It is for chief constables to decide on any advice they might give to community volunteer leaders.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that law and order are matters of concern to community civil defence workers and that the advice they receive from chief constables varies? Will he consider issuing guidance to chief constables on this matter?

We must stick to the principle that problems of law and order are, in any circumstances, the responsibility of the Government and the police. It is natural that chief constables should want to give what information they have to community volunteers. I should like to think about my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to consider the cost of the operation, in that when local authorities carry out duties on behalf on civil defence they often generate a substantial penalty against the rate support grant? Is he aware that they sometimes incur a penalty of £3 for every £1 that they spend? Is he further aware that that will remove the 75 per cent. funding from central sources?

I am not sure how often my hon. Friend's theory is likely to occur in practice. The House will have an opportunity to discuss that when we debate the new regulations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the report of the Home Affairs Committee on the Representation of the People Acts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the report of the Home Affairs Committee on the Representation of the People Acts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Her Majesty's Government expect to have concluded their consideration of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee report on the Representation of the People Acts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the report of the Home Affairs Committee on the Representation of the People Acts.

Shortly, Sir.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the sense of injustice felt by many people who were deprived of the right to vote at the general election campaign because they were on holiday? Is he further aware that there is a difference between elections for local government or the European assembly, the dates of which are known in advance, and general elections, the dates of which are not known in advance? Is he aware also that for the latter people are not able to make appropriate arrangements? Will he introduce legislation as soon as possible to implement the change recommended in the report?

I am not simply aware of the concern, I share it to the full. It is helpful of my hon. Friend to point out the practical implications of doing something about different types of elections. Changing the timetable for a general election would raise wide issues. The problems of change are not insuperable, but they are considerable, for fixed elections. Nevertheless, I share my hon. Friend's anxiety.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are linked.

When considering the Committee's proposals on deposits, will the Minister bear in mind that parties that are less comfortably financed than the Conservatives would have a major problem in laying out more than £500,000 to fight an election if that proposal were implemented? Will he stand by the previous Government's assurance that such legislation being passed will depend on all-party agreement?

I am sure that the House will want to know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with a spirit of altruism, because the Liberal-SDP alliance lost 19 deposits whereas the Labour party lost 119. The objective of any change would be to reflect changed circumstances since 1918, when the deposit was fixed at £150. It would not be intended to jeopardise the legitimate operations of democracy.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the report shows that inaccuracy in the register from 1951 to 1961 increased by 9 per cent.? Is he worried about that? If so, what does he propose to do about it? Does he agree that it is interesting that we should be considering the detailed mechanics of electoral law which disfranchises about 9 per cent. of the population, when the first-past-the-post system disfranchises far more?

When the electorate had the opportunity to vote for parties that advocate proportional representation, 70 per cent. chose not to. We can do something about the accuracy of the register in advance of legislation, because much can be done by administrative means. We held a seminar with some registration officers to discuss some aspects of this issue. We shall hold more meetings with other registration officers and review the design of some of the electoral forms. Those are the practical steps that can be taken in any event.

My right hon. and learned Friend has told us when he will reply to the Select Committee's report. Will he be a little more specific about when he will act on its recommendations, especially in respect of votes for holidaymakers? Does he appreciate that that matter is urgent and that there is strong feeling in the country about it? Does he further agree that we cannot let the matter drift for much longer?

I assure my hon. Friend that it will not drift. Equally, he will understand that it is not for me to announce the legislative intentions of the Government, still less their timing. I hope that by what I said during the debate on the Queen's Speech and by what I have said today I have communicated my anxiety about the matter and my belief that action is necessary.

Are these not matters which, not being wholly neutral politically, ought to be considered by a conference under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, before there is any consideration of a change in the law?

Experience of these matters shows that the best advice was given by Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd, who did not commend such a practice to the House. The new Select Committees and their reports are a new development. I do not believe that the course that the right hon. Gentleman commends is necessarily the most appropriate.

While we await legislative proposals on votes for holidaymakers, would it not be useful for the Home Secretary to explain now what has been considered the essential difference between being on business in Birmingham, which has entitled me to a vote, and being on vacation in Ventnor, which has not?

I have been unable to find a rational distinction between the two. The only basis is that it is thought possible to prove the one and not the other. The law is founded on that. That is not a satisfactory distinction or a satisfactory basis for such discrimination.

Is the Home Secretary aware that what he said about examining inaccuracies in electoral registers at the recent general election is most welcome? Is he further aware that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have complained about what they learnt of the electoral registers in their constituencies? Will he keep the House informed of any progress that he makes in improving the quality of the registers?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall do what I can to keep the House informed. Many of the issues are technical and involve minor administrative matters, but collectively and cumulatively they will, I hope, lead to welcome improvements in the registers.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any changes in our electoral system that led to the permanent domination of the: Government by a minority party would be undemocratic?

Yes.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend fly in the face of the precedents set by all Home Secretaries and actually do something? Will he say now that he accepts that the pressure for postal votes is so strong, and the justification for them so clear, that he will do everything he can to persuade those who are responsible for Government business to act, and that he will not wait for the entire report to be accepted because he accepts the urgency and the wholly exceptional nature of the problem and will do something about it?

I have made my views on those matters clear. I do not necessarily accept that this aspect of the matter should be dealt with on its own. The Select Committee report made three principal recommendations, and I should not wish it to be thought that I regard the other two as less important.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with chief constables concerning the publication of memoirs by senior police officers.

The Association of Chief Police Officers shares my concern about the publication of Mr. Gregory's memoirs. It told me that it was already considering the complex issues which it raised. This study, which I welcome, will continue, and the association will keep in touch with my officials.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the general feeling of distaste at this regrettable display of what might be called cheque book chief constablism by Mr. Ronald Gregory? Does he recognise that it is difficult to deal with such a matter by introducing new legislation? Might not the remedy lie in encouraging police authorities to have much stricter contractual terms of appointment for senior police officers?

I agree that what happened was deplorable and I took the earliest opportunity to make my views clear. My hon. Friend is right to mention the difficulty of proceeding by means of legislation. There is some information that an ex-chief constable can usefully give, but it becomes objectionable when he discloses information that is prejudicial to police operations or, as in this case, is damaging or distressing to individuals. We must find a way to deal with that.

I was interested in this matter because the Yorkshire Ripper was brought to a police station in my constituency. I was alarmed when Mr. Gregory prejudged the man, although his judgment proved to be correct. May we have an inquiry into the entire affair so that nothing like it can occur again, and so that someone cannot make a great deal of money out of the terrible misery of those poor people who suffered because of the inadequacy of the search for the Ripper, under Mr. Gregory's poor leadership?

I do not know what sort of inquiry the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but the Association of Chief Police Officers is considering the matter and consulting my Department, which I hope will lead to a practical solution to the problem.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that as long ago as 1979, when Mr. Gregory was chief constable of West Yorkshire, he was preparing the series of articles with the help of officers employed by the police authority, and that in January 1980 he forbade all officers to publish anything because it was the copyright of the chief constable, although he is now in breach of the present chief constable's copyright? Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that Mr. Gregory arranged early retirement with a golden handshake of £50.000, and retired on 8 June, that the journalist with whom he collaborated left The Mail on Sunday to work with him full time from February, and that the first article appeared three weeks after his retirement? Will my right hon. and learned Friend investigate that scandal?

We cannot take action retrospectively to deal with the matters to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred. However, we must ensure that it never happens again.

Does the Home Secretary agree that it is uniquely distasteful that Mr. Gregory could cash in on his own incompetence? Does not the incident illustrate that chief constables are not only non-accountable to elected representatives, but, from what the Home Secretary has said, are not accountable to him? Will he do something about that?

It would be wrong to draw general conclusions about chief constables on the basis of this episode, and there is no evidence for doing so. The fact that action is necessary has been recognised by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The hon. Gentleman did less than justice to the fact that the association readily denounced the activity, which has been universally condemned, and is considering ways of dealing with it. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman might think that greater prominence should have been given to that aspect of the matter if he wished to be fair to the entire police service.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received urging legislation on animal welfare.

We have received a number of representations suggesting the need to reform the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 and comments on the proposals for updating the Act contained in our recent White Paper, as well as a few proposals concerning other aspects of animal welfare.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there was widespread expectation of legislation in the previous Parliament, but that all we got was the White Paper? Is he further aware that there was great disappointment that no such proposal was included in this year's Gracious Speech? As the Home Office now has a much-reduced legislative burden because of last night's vote, will my hon. Friend give the House a clear assurance that the Government will introduce legislation on this matter during the next Session of Parliament?

During the previous Parliament considerable progress was made. There was agreement on the Council of Europe convention on animal experimentation. Many of the animal experiments carried out in Britain depend upon the export trade, so we must have common standards in the Western world. That was a major step forward. The Department's advisory committee reported on standards in Britain, which enabled us to bring forward a White Paper dealing with the difficult question of drawing a fair balance between those who must carry out these experiments and those who are concerned for animals. After considering the responses to the White Paper, we hope to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits.

Does the Minister accept that the majority of the experiments carried out on animals are for purely flippant, literally cosmetic reasons? Will he give an undertaking that within this parliamentary Session, which ends a year next November, legislation will be brought forward to restrict and confine these experiments to serious scientific purposes?

It is all very fine for the hon. Gentleman to say that experiments are carried out for flippant reasons, but there is no reason to believe that that is true. On the contrary, the present system, with a Home Office inspectorate, has led to a decline in the number of experiments. If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to read the White Paper he will see that it represents a real step forward in the protection of animals, while ensuring the protection of the public through necessary experiments. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman believes that the public do not need protection against dangerous products.

May I tell my hon. Friend that I am tired of making excuses to constituents and others for the snaillike progress of the past four years? What guarantee can my hon. Friend give that there will be better progress this time?

We have published the White Paper, and representations on it will be received by the middle of August. The Government will then prepare legislation. I cannot say when it will be introduced, but I believe that it should be introduced as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications from fiancés from the Indian subcontinent to enter the United Kingdom for the purposes of marriage there have been so far in 1983; and what was the comparable figure for 1982.

One thousand and seventy new applications for entry clearance were received from male fiancés in the Indian subcontinent in the first five months of this year, compared with 360 in the corresponding period in 1982. Those figures are broadly in line with the estimates given in the debate on the immigration rules.

Does not this threefold increase show that either the marriage habits in the Indian subcontinent have undergone some change or, alternatively, that marriage is being used as a means of migration to this country? Will my hon. Friend, in any event, reaffirm the statement made by the previous Government that the figures will be watched carefully and that if a change in legislation is needed it will be brought forward?

I remind my hon. Friend of what Viscount Whitelaw, as he now is, said during the debate on the immigration rules:

"Our policy will be subject to continuous re-examination in the light of changing circumstances … in order to achieve our objective, which is strict immigration control." — [Official Report, 15 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 191–212.]

Will the Minister ensure that the interviews are arranged at the earliest possible date and the applications are processed with expedition, and also that complaints about the standard of interviews are fully investigated by his Department, with a view to ensuring that they are conducted fairly and objectively?

I hope to go to the Indian subcontinent soon, because I wish to compare what I see there with what is being said by members of Select Committees who have investigated this matter and visited the Indian subcontinent in recent years. They have told the House that they have been greatly impressed by the work carried out by the entry clearance officers.

If, after a year, my hon. and learned Friend finds that the new rules are allowing a large and increased number of fiancés into this country, will he undertake to ensure that the rules are tightened?

I repeat to my hon. Friend what I said earlier. We are determined to stick to our policy of strict immigration control, and we shall keep our immigration policy under continual review so as to achieve that aim.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have carried out surveys of the protective factor of residential accommodation as recommended in circular ES3/81.

No central record is kept. The new draft regulations laid on July 12 will, if approved, require local authorities to make plans for instructing and advising the public on protective measures to be taken against the effects of hostile attack.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that such surveys require a substantial resource base and, even using voluntary levy, the authorities concerned may require assistance? Will my right hon. Friend's Department see that discussions take place to ensure that this happens?

I agree with my hon. Friend. These surveys would attract civil defence grant in the usual way.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future of the probation service.

My right hon. and learned Friend intends to support and encourage the service in the effective performance of its important tasks.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if serious overcrowding in our prisons is to be reduced there must be an increase in the number of convicted people going on probation and greater use of parole and attendance centres with, in consequence, a greater strain on the probation service? If these changes occur, and there is a general agreement that they should, must there not also be a general increase in the resources available to the probation service?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and there is that increase in resources. I remind hint that in the past four years the number of probation officers has increased by 11 per cent., the number of clerical support staff by 10 per cent. and the number of ancillary workers who run the community service order scheme by 35 per cent. Before I hear too many jeers from the Opposition Benches, I point out that that is a far better record than any Labour Government achieved.

When will the Minister recognise that our courts wish to refer more and more people to the probation service, but cannot do so, because the service does not have the manpower to do the job properly? When will the Home Office stop interfering and messing about with the salary levels for probation officers, so that we can encourage people to go into the service?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have listened to my previous answer. I wonder when last in a four-year period the number of people working in a service increased by so much. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick on the salary issue, which was concerned with a small number of Home Office-sponsored trainees. The probation service has amicably accepted the reasonable pay settlement offered to it for the coming year.

Will my hon. Friend do his best to liaise with the DHSS and other agencies to get people out of ineffective residential homes, which cost about £10,000 a year per person, and spend the money more effectively on rigorous forms of intermediate treatment that have about twice as good an anti-recidivism rate?

As ever, my hon. and learned Friend makes a valuable point. The amount of money being spent on intermediate treatment this year is double what it was last year. My hon. and learned Friend touches on another important aspect of this matter. It is not sufficient just to make further resources available—they must be used to the best advantage, and this is what we are Trying to achieve.

Does the Minister accept that, although the number of probation officers has increased along the lines that he has suggested, there has been an even greater increase in their work load and responsibilities and in the number of serious cases that they are handling? Is it not a fact that in many areas non-custodial sentences cannot be implemented because of lack of probation officers to supervise? This particularly applies to the introduction of the new community service order for 16-year-olds. Will he assure us that no one will go to prison, or to a young persons' establishment — when they could be properly supervised in the community because of the lack of probation officers?

We are always vulnerable to the charge —one always is—that we could do more. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's expertise and interest in these matters, but, to be fair, he should recognise what we are achieving in bringing about the introduction of community service orders for 16-year-olds. In 14 areas this is already available and will be in 10 more at the end of the summer. I have just attended the conference of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, and it is not making the same points as the hon. Gentleman. It recognises that probation officers have an increased work load, but equally recognises that it has had a fair deal from the Government in coping with that problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in his review of section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971; and if he will make a statement.

We are making good progress in reviewing the administrative criteria governing the operation of the repatriation scheme under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971, and hope to reach conclusions shortly.

In the course of my hon. and learned Friend's review of this provision, will he take account of the growing demand from the ethnic communities—not from their self-appointed leaders—for further assistance in the form of resettlement grants for those who genuinely wish to go home? How will he respond to that demand?

The introduction of a resettlement grant would require primary legislation. The present arrangements provide adequate assistance for those who genuinely want to go, and the fact that few actively seek financial assistance for travel shows that few want to go. The vast majority of the members of the ethnic minority communities settled here want to stay and have no interest in repatriation.

When other European countries such as West Germany and France are studying radically the consequences of the past large influx of alien population, is it not time for this country to move beyond the timidity and triviality of section 29?

The right hon. Gentleman is presumably referring to German guest workers and a scheme recently proposed by the German Government. There is no parallel between the situation in Germany and that here. The Germans are talking about people admitted on a temporary basis, but we are talking about people who, in the main, are settled here.

Is it not a fact that the great majority of those settled here are either Commonwealth nationals, and as such have equal rights with British citizens, or former Commonwealth nationals who have gone to the trouble of acquiring British nationality? That being the case, does it not behove us to make these people welcome and as fully a part of our society as possible?

I agree.

If repatriation is to take place, is the Minister aware that the people who need to be repatriated are race hate-mongers and mischief-makers, such as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) who asked the question?

Offensive remarks of that nature do not help anyone. It is quite appropriate for us to speak our minds in the House, and it is perfectly proper for people who believe that there should be more scope for repatriation to say so. It is also my job to speak my mind, and I believe that the provisions now on the statute book are adequate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the results of his inquiries into the convictions in relation to which Dr. Clift gave forensic evidence.

When the inquiries have been completed to my satisfaction, I shall inform the House of the results.

In the meantime, may we take it that any other prisoners who have been convicted on Dr. Clift's discredited evidence will simply rot in gaol until the Home Office meanders its leisurely way to the end of the very long inquiries?

That is certainly not so. A number of the people concerned have already had their convictions quashed by the courts, so the right hon. Gentleman is not justified in making criticisms of that nature. Indeed, it is as a result of my Department's desire to look into these matters so fully that we are looking into 1,500 cases, 135 of them contested cases. Since the Preece case received wide publicity, we expected other people to come forward claiming that they had been wrongly convicted, but they have not done so. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if any cases come to light in which a reference to the Court of Appeal is justified, or any other action of that nature, I shall immediately take action.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now give details of the number of nuclear shelters on Merseyside and on the number of people they will hold.

It is for the local authority concerned to provide any public nuclear shelters. So far as we know, there are none on Merseyside. The new draft regulations laid on 12 July will, if approved, require local authorities to make plans for using existing buildings, other constructions and natural features as shelters for the public.

Is the Minister aware that the general public feel that any shelters that are built will be used for VIPs, and that in the event of a nuclear attack they will be of no use to the majority of the people? Is he aware that civil defence will be useless in the event of a nuclear attack on our cities?

No, Sir. The nuclear deterrent works and, we believe, will continue to work. The risk of attack is not very great. However, it is sensible and necessary in our view to make plans, and to require local authorities to make plans, which could save lives and prevent suffering in the case of either nuclear or conventional attack.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depatment what guidance he gives to chief officers as to the length of training a police constable should receive before he is considered sufficiently trained to go on the beat; and if he will make a statement.

Present guidance, approved by the Police Training Council in 1973, has been revised from time to time. The Police Training Council has now held a thorough review and has recommended a period of seven months, including 10 weeks on beat duties attached to an experienced tutor constable. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering this recommendation and hopes shortly to issue revised guidance to chief officers of police.

Is that not a totally insufficient period of training for young men and women who have to go out in uniform and face the most subtle and difficult problems in a society that is experiencing great difficulty? Does not the Minister agree that the qualifications are very low, and that we shall not be able to handle police-public problems until there is much longer training and much higher qualifications are demanded for entry to that training?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman listened to my reply. My right hon. and learned Friend has recently received, and is now considering, new proposals that recommended a period of seven months, including 10 weeks on beat duties attached to an experienced tutor constable. That is in the light of experience such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea of the improvement in the number of polce officers on the beat now, as opposed to the time when we came to office?

Certainly. The report issued by the Inspectorate of Constabulary this week showed that the total is now 121,000—I speak from memory—which is a substantial improvement. It neans that almost all forces are close to their establishment.

Will the Minister accept the value of keeping a police officer in one place? Will he re-examine the structure whereby the only way to get promotion is to move from the place that the officer knows to one that he does not know?

That is a matter for chief officers. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that circumstances vary very much from one force to another and that it would be wrong to lay down a general guideline.

Is my right hon. Friend convinced that a seven-months training period is long enough for the purpose, especially in areas of great difficulty such as the Metropolitan area? How does the seven-month period compare, for example, with police forces on the continent of Europe?

My right hon. and learned Friend will consider these matters when he looks at the new recommendations, but they are new recommendations put forward in the light of recent experience and developments, such as Lord Seaman's report.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

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

Will the Prime Minister, as leader of the nation and as a housewife, give us her practical advice and tell us what her practical advice is to the unemployed and their families about eating healthily within their means, in view of the assessment by the National Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education that the average British diet puts people at risk?

I do not think that those people need advice from me, and I think that it would be presumptuous of me to give it.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the United States is sufficiently representing Western interests in the middle east? If not, does she believe that Europe, and the United Kingdom in particular, should be taking an initiative in that area of the world?

There is no improvement whatever to report on the situation in the middle east. It is very serious indeed. The European Community will be considering whether there is anything that we can say or do to help to bring peace and security to that region.

When the right hon. Lady says that she is not prepared to give advice to some of the poorest people in the land, is that not what she sought to do last week? Has the Cabinet had a chance to consider the growing anxiety throughout the land about the way in which some of the poorest people may be treated under her Government? Will she give an absolute guarantee that supplementary benefit is to be sustained, because that provides the minimum needs that must be met if proper standards are to be sustained? Will the right hon. Lady give a guarantee that she will protect the standard of supplementary benefit throughout the coming years?

No. I cannot go further than the pledge given previously in the manifesto that pensions and other long-term linked benefits would be protected. Supplementary pension is such a linked benefit, and is therefore protected.

Does the right hon. Lady recognise that it is not only the protection of the standards of people on supplementary pensions; there are many other people who depend for a minimum standard of life on the protection of supplementary benefit? Does she accept that if unemployment continues to increase, as it has done under her Government, and if the value of the benefit is cut, as she is now suggesting, we shall soon have 8 million or 9 million people living on the poverty line? Is she content that such a thing should happen in this country?

There is no definition of the poverty line — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] — and there never has been under any Government—when they have answered from this Dispatch Box. We gave a pledge in our manifesto that pensions and other linked long-term benefits would be price protected. I cannot extend that pledge.

In the light of the anxiety, which can now only deepen as a result of her answers, will the right hon. Lady ask the Cabinet to look afresh at this matter to see whether the minimum standard of life of some of the poorest people in Britain cannot be guaranteed over the coming years?

I cannot go further than what I have said. The retirement pension and other long-term linked benefits are price protected. Those long-term linked benefits include widows' pension, industrial death benefit when it is paid by means of a widow's or widower's pension, war disablement and industrial disablement pension, war widow's pension, attendance allowance, invalidity care allowance and non-contributory invalidity pension.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that successive Governments, including her own, have understandably refused to give the House or the country any information on the British world trade in armaments. As the annual report of the State Department to Congress contains a detailed analysis of British world trade in armaments, will she comment on, first, the relevance of that rule and, secondly, the disclosure in that report that of the $3·24 billion worth of arms supplied to the so-called front-line states, $1 billion has been supplied by the United Kingdom? Will she comment on that, particularly in the light of the fact that most of those states are bankrupt and, therefore, we can only assume that the bill has been met by the British taxpayer?

If my hon. friend wishes to ask about a particular consignment, obviously we shall tell him. However, he knows that every order is looked at individually and on its merits. Certainly armaments have been supplied to the front-line states, but when each order was taken a judgment was made by whatever Government were in office as to whether, in all the circumstances, it was wise to meet it. That, again, has been the practice of every Government.

Can the right hon. Lady recollect an occasion previous to last night when a Prime Minister was so mercifully saved from his or her folly by the votes of so many wiser colleagues?

I assume that the right hon. Gentleman used his freedom to vote in his own way. Does he seek to deny it to any other hon. Members of the House?

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

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

Where is the morality in squandering £280 million this year on tax cuts to the rich instead of raising child benefits by a further 50p per week and raising benefits for the unemployed?

Child benefit, as the hon. Lady knows, will be at a record level when it is increased in November. That is better than anything achieved by the Government that she supported. I imagine that tax relief is the subject of the Finance Bill which is now going through the House. The 1 million people who will be better off as a result of the Finance Bill include one-sixth of all stevedores and dockers, one-sixth of all transport foremen, 5,000 miners, a quarter of all journalists, many working couples, half of all medical practitioners, the heads of many secondary schools, and half of all university academics.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the press reports on the so-called public inquiry that was held by the Strathclyde region into the Coulport base for Trident, stating that the inquiry has been based on fundamental errors, which has led to a colossal waste of taxpayers' money and resources? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is another example of a Labour local authority spending public money for political dogma?

I have not read the complete report, but I have read the reports of it in Scottish newspapers. I understand that one of the defence economics lecturers at Strathclyde university said that it contained so many errors that it could not be seriously considered.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the road to home ownership passes through Bolsover and Birmingham, Sparkbrook? Is it not curious that some 18 months after the former agent of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) bought his council house, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made a speech this week agreeing that most council tenants want to buy their homes? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend take time today to invite Labour Members to condemn those Labour-controlled local authorities that are still denying council tenants the opportunity to exercise their democratic right?

Yes, gladly. If council tenants live within the area of such a Labour council, they should apply directly to the Department of the Environment to seek help with the purchase of their home.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 14 July.

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

Now that Brazil is suggesting a moratorium on her debts and the right hon. Lady is making offstage noises about not bailing Brazil out, will she give a guarantee, in order that action can speak louder than words, that she will bring in legislation to force the Inland Revenue to stop allowing tax relief to banks on all bad and doubtful loans? The Labour party will give a guarantee to help get such legislation through and provide her with a bigger majority than we got on the hanging motion last night.

Brazil is negotiating for another IMF tranche today and it is hoped that those negotiations will be completed by tomorrow. The President of Brazil made a statement today. We have not seen its full text but it looks as if Brazil has taken certain action. That may or may not mean that the next slice of IMF aid will be released. [Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

When my right hon. Friend has further meetings with her colleagues today, will she invite them not to enter into consultation with the new phoney Association of London Authorities, which is merely a front organisation for the Labour party, but to continue consultations with the long-established London Boroughs Association?

Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall pay due regard to his warning and also consult our many London Members in the House.

Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read the proceedings of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which contains the draft report of its chairman, her distinguished hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw)? As that draft report says that Fortress Falklands is untenable in the long term, will she give a clear indication now under what circumstances and in what conditions she and her Government would be willing to enter into discussions with a future democratic Government of Argentina about the future of the Falklands?

I understand that this is an uncompleted draft report to which the Government are not required to give a formal reply. However, we have noted that the draft conclusions end with the firm statement that:

"Your Committee cannot yet recommend the resumption of negotiations with Argentina on the sovereignty issue or any matters relating thereto."

Although I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no acceptable definition of poverty, does not she accept that the fact and presence of poverty is not in doubt? Since those who receive short-term benefits are at least as poor as those who receive long-term benefits, will she give an assurance that the fact will be fully taken into account when the Cabinet next considers public expenditure?

As my right hon. Friend will know, many of those who receive short-term benefits receive supplementary benefit if the amounts are inadequate for their purposes. For example, the unemployed often receive a rather larger proportion of their income from supplementary benefit than from unemployment pay. However, I cannot go further than the promises that I have given, upon which my right hon. Friend fought the last election.