asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to announce his proposals for new legislation on public order.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has not yet completed his review of public order law.

If the Minister were to find a small group of highly motivated trade unionists holding meetings in secret and coming to decisions about which no one else knew on the upholding of Britain's criminal and civil law, would he not rightly be alarmed? Is that not just what the chief constables are doing at the national reporting centre, and is it not time that they were made accountable to the local police committees and to the House?

That matter was exhaustively explored in the debate on Tuesday and it has been made clear that the operations at the national reporting centre are not unprecendented and fall well within the tradition of policing in Britain.

May I ask a question that is more pertinent to the original question on the Order Paper? The Law Commission's report on public order offences deals simply with offences of riot, rout and affray which, by and large, are not used much as a means of preserving public order because most courts are involved with offences under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1963. May I make this request?

Briefly.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. In considering the reform of the law on public order, is it not possible to have a comprehensive reform of the Public Order Act at the same time as the law on riot and the other common law offences?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Law Commission's report on offences against public order. The report that he mentioned and the review that we are undertaking are parallel but separate. They overlap in some respects.

Is the use of tens of thousands of policemen in the mining areas a recognition by the Government of a deficiency in industrial relations law, or are they simply too scared to use what they have put on the statute book?

It is a recognition of the situation created by the decision to encourage very large numbers of pickets to operate in circumstances which could, without the police action, amount to intimidation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the level of recorded crime.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, when he next meets the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis he will discuss the level of recorded crime in London.

The number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in 1983 was 1 per cent. less than in 1982. In London, notifiable offences recorded were 4 per cent. down. We should not make too much of a single year's figures, but I am encouraged by them. I discuss these matters with the Commissioner when we meet, and his strategy for tackling crime in London has my full support.

I agree that it would be wrong to draw a general conclusion from the movement that has occurred. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, however, that it is encouraging to have had a 1 per cent. fall after 10 per cent. increases in recent years? Will this encourge him to persist with his policy of stronger deterrents against serious crime, thereby giving greater protection to the law-abiding public?

The change in the long-term trend is encouraging, even making all the allowances and qualifications that one must, and I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the measures of deterrence and effective policing that the Government are pursuing.

When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, will he congratulate him on the success of the neighbourhood watch schemes, which were launched in London last September? It has recently been reported that in one London area there has been a 60 per cent. drop in the number of burglaries. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that neighbourhood schemes highlight the important role that public awareness has in police work?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is significant that the concept of the neighbourhood watch scheme has been followed, sometimes under different names, in many other parts of the country. It is not just a London or even an urban phenomenon; it has been popular and found to be helpful wherever it has been followed.

Is the Home Secretary aware that, despite all the Government's rhetoric and the money that they have thrown at law and order, they have failed significantly to make our society a safer place in which to live? Will they now change direction and look for methods of preventing crime and making areas, particularly inner city areas, safe for people to live in?

The dangers of rhetoric are well illustrated by that supplementary question. I agree, however, with the hon. Lady about crime prevention. One of the major thrusts of our strategy has been to give increased attention to crime prevention, and the neighbourhood watch scheme is such a development. I have set up a crime prevention unit at the Home Office. We are giving increasing attention to crime prevention, and to that extent I agree with the hon. Lady.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the change from specialised squads in west Yorkshire to the movement towards involvement with the community has led to a significant improvement in the rates of recorded crime and detection? Will he encourage the police to be more involved in the whole process of the inhibition of crime by involvement with the community?

I agree that involvement with the community is important, and that is why the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, currently going through the House, provides a statutory basis for consultation between the police and the community. It is designed to achieve precisely the objective that the hon. Gentleman has identified, and I hope that the Bill will now commend itself to the whole House.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the police on the improvement in the serious crime figures. Is my right hon. and learned Friend nevertheless aware of reports of a serious deterioration in respect of drug abuse? Will he take steps to ensure that this evil trade, which leads to an expectation of life of five years in its victims, is brought under control very rapidly indeed?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that drug abuse is an extremely worrying phenomenon. The gravity with which it is regarded is reflected, for example, in the fact that drug traffickers are among the categories whom I have identified as being people who should not normally get parole if they are sentenced to terms of imprisonment of more than five years.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that in 1979 he campaigned on the legend that crime under the Labour party was too high and that his party would reduce it? Is it not a fact that the rate of serious crime is now 30 per cent. higher than it was five years ago, with the number of burglaries 50 per cent. up? When will he bring the level of serious crime and burglary down to the levels which five years ago he said were intolerably high?

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that trends can be reversed quickly—

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it.

he must be quite ignorant of the matters on which he purports to speak. He knows perfectly well that the increase in police manning levels and the changes in the handling of the matters that we are discussing take time to have their effect. I am glad that there are some signs that the trends that existed when the right hon. Gentleman's Government were in power are now coming under control. As I have said, it is wrong to regard one year's figures as the determining factor.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve police efficiency and effectiveness.

Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary are encouraging forces to apply the principles of efficient and effective management contained in the guidance that I recently issued to chief officers and police authorities. My Department contributes to improved efficiency and effectiveness through its work in such important areas as crime prevention, police training, new technology and research.

That is a helpful answer. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that on Humberside all the work that he is trying to do through the inspectorate will be undermined because the police committee is deliberately withholding the funds necessary to ensure adequate policing in the county?

I am very well aware of the activities of the Humberside police committee, as I have visited Humberside quite recently. Of course, those activities have forced the chief constable to decide on the allocation of resources that it has made available. In the light of subsequent developments, I shall look to the inspectorate to report on the effect of the reduction in resources on the efficiency of the force.

Will the Home Secretary consider sending another circular to the police suggesting that the inspectorate's reports be made public?

The value of the reports would be diminished if it was not possible to include confidential material in them. Home Office circular No. 114/1983 readily makes clear the factors which I think can assist in improving police efficiency and effectiveness.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most successful ways of increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the police in dealing with the sort of crime that alarms people in large cities is to put even more policemen on the streets? What steps is he taking to achieve that?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. However, exactly how to carry out that policy will vary according to the needs of particular forces. The operational plan for moving in that direction must be a matter for each chief constable. It can be done. For example, the police commissioner in London has redeployed his force in such a way that many hundreds of policemen are back on the beat—something that has not happened previously.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the efficiency of the police force is, to some degree, dependent on the amount of investment in both manpower and facilities in the police service? If local authorities are restricted on the amount of money available, and if the Home Secretary wants an improved and more efficient police force, will he consider putting more central Government funds into the police service?

Local authorities decide their priorities between services. The amount that the Government have provided is carefully designed to ensure that if the Government's priorities are reflected in local authorities' decision making, the effectiveness of police forces throughout the country will be enhanced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Sussex concerning the commandeering of a Southdown bus by police in Brighton on Tuesday 13 March to take peace movement demonstrators to the local police station; and if he will make a statement.

No bus was commandeered. On 13 March, 25 people sat down in Preston road, Brighton, bringing traffic to a halt. Police officers arriving on foot or by motor cycle arrested 11 people, but no police vehicle was able to reach the scene. The driver of a nearby bus readily agree'! to carry the people arrested to a police station.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Transport and General Workers Union, by whom I am sponsored, and the busworkers are gravely concerned about the possible use of public vehicles for police purposes. Will he, as legal person, consider the propensity of bus men to suffer injuries and to be involved in actions against the police for false arrest.

One must get one's priorities right. This is a good example of the way in which the vast majority of people are prepared to afford every assistance to the police in carrying out their duties. The bus driver was willing to help the police, as I expect every reasonable bus driver would do.

Will my hon. and learned Friend not take this question too seriously? Would not the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) have been even more upset if the demonstrators had been required to walk?

That may be so. Clearly, one must not take this question too seriously. This was a potentially serious matter, because the entrance to the fire station was blocked.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respond to that point?

Order. I shall hear points of order after questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider developing the Civil Defence College as a centre of excellence for civil defence.

Yes, Sir. Following the retirements later this year of Air Marshal Sir Leslie Mayor and Mr. Frank Armstrong, the college will assume responsibility for fostering voluntary effort in civil defence and advising on the training and exercising of civil defence volunteers. The Civil Service Commission will advertise after Easter an open competition for the post of college principal.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. In view of the increasing worry expressed by many local authorities, is my right hon. Friend contemplating taking any further steps? Will he consider expanding the library facilities at the college to include an information service?

I shall consider of expanding the library facilities. We shall be advertising at the Home Office for a new post of civil defence adviser, who will concentrate initially on reviewing the progress made by local authorities in carrying out their functions under the new civil defence functions.

As the weight and pattern of a future nuclear attack cannot be predicted, will my right hon. Friend comment on contingency National Health Service planning? Is he satisfied that sufficient attention is being given to that matter?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. With the cooperation of the British Medical Association, he is carrying forward the work of planning medical services in case of war.

Is it not now time to stop all this nonsense and the waste of time and money? Is it not time to drop the pretence that there is any adequate defence against nuclear war, when the only real defence is to work for peace and not, as the Government are doing, to prepare for war? Is it not now time that the Government devoted the same degree of energy to the disarmament talks as they are giving to the creation of a Dad's Army?

The hon. Gentleman is making himself look very foolish if in the House he starts to rubbish the concept of civil defence, which is supported by all parties as a commonsense, humanitarian response to the possibilities of either conventional or nuclear attack.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce legislation to increase the part played by reparation in the sentencing of offenders.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take for encouraging reparation by offenders to their victims.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals for the victims of crime to receive greater attention within the criminal justice system.

We plan to encourage and monitor experimental schemes for reparation by offenders to victims within existing powers. The experiments will show whether legislation is needed. We want also to enhance the ability of the criminal justice system to respond more generally to the needs of victims. My right hon. and learned Friend is examining various ways of achieving this objective.

Many of my constitutents feel that there should be much greater awareness of the suffering and loss of victims. Will my hon. Friend encourage the courts to take sufficient account of the opportunities within present laws to help the victims of crime?

I warmly endorse my hon. Friend's comments. We believe that more should be done for those victims. We have increased the amount of money for victim support schemes. We believe that thought should be given to keeping victims more closely in touch with what is happening at trials. The courts possess many powers to ensure that victims are adequately compensated for offences committed against them. We have doubled the sums that magistrates can award from 1 May.

Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to young offenders who are convicted of acts of violence and vandalism?

We have to be cautious about reparation. There are some offences, especially those of violence, when only the normal penalties available to the courts will do. We believe that efforts by young people to make direct reparation to the persons they have harmed in acts of vandalism would be useful. Some acknowledgment on the part of the offender of the trouble that he has caused to the individual and society might lead to a greater awareness in his mind of his duties and obligations and the need not to behave irresponsibly.

Will the general review include a review of the operation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? That might make a contribution to the overall review.

My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. and learned Friend has announced that we want to take the opportunity during the lifetime of this Parliament to put the criminal injuries compensation scheme on a statutory footing. As a prelude to that we have set up an interdepartmental working group to study the way in which the scheme has operated in recent years. We shall shortly be inviting interested bodies to submit evidence so that we can go forward after a full review has been carried out.

As thousands are to be deprived of their right to claim from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board by the large increase in the lower limit, what steps will the Government take to ensure that the Judicial Studies Board brings to the attention of judges the importance of passing a sentence of compensation as a substantive sentence in cases where injuries have been significant but not severe?

We want the judiciary to make use of its power to compensate. It has recently been reaffirmed once again that compensation should take priority over fines when means are limited. I think that the hon. Gentleman has been rather hard in his condemnation of the scheme. Much more money has been going into the scheme year on year, and more people are being dealt with. It is not right to suggest that the scheme is not playing a large part in properly compensating victims.

Why have the Minister and his Department restricted the numbers who can seek compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?

The scheme has always had a lower limit, which has to be increased in line with inflation. That is a commonsense approach. It is important that there should be a lower limit, to keep the administration of the scheme speedy and to ensure that it focuses on those who suffer most from crimes of violence.

Does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties faced by the victims of violent crime is that they often do not know their statutory rights unless they are specifically informed of them by the officer in charge of the case at the end of the trial, and are specifically told of their rights for claiming compensation? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that victims of crime are told by the officer in charge of the case of their rights to apply for compensation?

Part of the fresh review of the treatment of victims will be to ensure that victims are properly informed of their rights. Whether the police or others should do that is a matter for discussion. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a valuable suggestion.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the present scope of the scheme in terms of the crimes that are covered by reparation in the sentencing of offenders? Will he remind the House more precisely of that scope?

Reparation in the terms in which my right hon. and learned Friend was talking in his important speech a few weeks ago is not tied to any particular offence. It can take place immediately after the offence, before the decision to prosecute has been taken. That may determine whether it is in the public interest that a prosecution should go forward in a minor offence. Under their existing powers the courts can ensure that direct reparation takes place in any case by, for example, deferring sentence for six months to ensure that promises that are made to make reparation are kept. The sentence of the court can be made dependent on the honouring of that promise. The courts have that option as well as being able to make conventional compensation orders.

Is the Minister aware that many of us who have argued for years for more concern to be shown to victims welcome the Home Secretary's recent conversion to that cause? May I draw to the Minister's attention the recent report by the all-party penal affairs group, called "New Deal for Victims" and commend it to him, as it formed the basis of the speech made some time ago by the Home Secretary? May I urge upon the Minister the need to convert his fine words about victims into specific and direct action?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman must couch what is really a welcome for all that we are doing in rather tendentious language, but even a half-hearted welcome is a step in the right direction. It is not true that we have only recently been converted, as our concern for victims has been a constant theme in our policy. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made his speech before the report of the all-party group was published.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has had from local authorities about Sunday trading laws.

The committee of inquiry that my right hon. and learned Friend has set up to consider what changes are needed in the Shops Act has received evidence from four local authority associations, and from 22 local authorities. He has passed to the committee the letters that he has received from a further six local authorities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that certain aspects of the Sunday trading laws are the object of widespread ridicule and that the law is ignored by many and respected by relatively few?

Oh! Not just miners, then.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that legislation will be introduced next Session and, in the meantime, will he advise local authorities such as Stockport, in my constituency, when and in what circumstances the law should be implemented?

My hon. Friend has a very real point. I made it clear to the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) introduced his private Member's Bill at the end of the previous Parliament that the law on Sunday trading was in tatters and in grave need of reform. That is why the committee of inquiry was set up.

Does my hon. Friend realise that local authorities have real difficulties in deciding whether to prosecute? Will he give an assurance that legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after the committee of inquiry has reported?

As my hon. Friend knows, unfortunately it does not lie in my mouth to promise legislation. All that I can say is that I am firmly convinced that the law on Sunday trading must be modernised. I hope that as a result of the committee's report a consensus will develop behind the changes that should be made. I hope that that will go further than the scrappy debate on the private Member's Bill, which revealed no consensus at all.

I appreciate that the Minister has seen evidence from the local authorities, but has he taken full cognisance of evidence from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the non-party Retail Consortium? Will he take that evidence fully into account when legislation is being prepared?

The hon. Gentleman knows well that we are taking into account evidence submitted by those groups, so much so that Mr. Flood of USDAW is one of the assessors on the Committee. Plainly, the view of the shopworkers is an important factor and has proved to be one of the difficulties in making the changes that many think should be made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received since December 1983 about the operation of the law relating to the stopping of motorists by the police and taking breathalyser tests.

Since 1 December 1983 we have received 32 representations about the powers of the police to stop motor vehicles and to require breath tests and a further 68 letters commenting on the Lion Intoximeter 3000.

Is the Minister aware that in some parts of the country the police are using the Road Traffic Act to carry out a policy of random breathalysing? Is he aware, for example, of an incident just before Christmas in which the police set up what amounted to a road block just outside the town of Hornsea in my constituency and that motorists were stopped regardless of whether they had committed a moving traffic offence? One man was breathalysed as he went for his evening meal and again when he came back. Of the 30 breathalyser tests carried out, only four were found to be positive. Is that not,against the spirit of the Act, as Parliament did not intend to have random breathalysing?

The police have a wide power to stop vehicles under section 159 of the Road Traffic Act. Broadly speaking, an officer can ask a motorist to take a breath test if he has reasonable cause to believe that the driver has caused a moving traffic offence, has alcohol in his body or that the vehicle has been involved in an accident. If my hon. Friend's constituents have complaints that the police went beyond those powers, there is a procedure for investigating such complaints.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many coal mining pickets have been arrested in and around the coalfields since the miners' dispute began; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the maintenance of public order during the coal miners' strike.

Between 14 March and 10 April. 897 people have been arrested for offences connected with the dispute. These figures available centrally do not distinguish between miners and others or identify the precise place where the arrests were made.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that among the hundreds of pickets who have been arrested, considerable numbers have been arrested for using the word "scab" in relation to other workers? Does that not compare violently with the fact that on Monday night in my constituency, at Cresswell, a 12-year-old girl on her way to an ambulance class, as she was passing the police buses, was told by a policeman to "eff' off? Is it not time that there was some even-handedness from the police and the Home Secretary, and is not the incident to which I have just referred also a breach of the peace?

I have no reason to believe the accuracy of what the hon. Gentleman has said——

Here is the name and address.

but if he wishes to make an allegation of that kind in a proper form it will, of course, be looked into.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the serious allegation that the police are using agents provocateurs among the strikers, thereby causing unnecessary unrest? As the Home Secretary, should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman take some action and take the police in hand?

As I made clear in the debate, there is no evidence whatsoever of what the hon. Gentleman has said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes there is."] In the proper sense of the world, agent provocateur means someone who instigates someone else to commit a criminal offence. That is the proper use of the phrase, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that any policeman has instigated the commission of an offence. The presence of plain clothes police officers is quite a different matter, and the phrase agents provocateurs should not be used if that is what the hon. Gentleman means.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that in March 1974 the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), as Secretary of State for Employment, commended to the House the rule on picketing laid down by the NUM during the 1974 dispute, which limited the number of pickets in any local situation to six? Would it not help to reduce the conflict between pickets and police in the coalfields in the present dispute if, in 1984, the union were to lay down the same rule?

I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. If that wise advice, which came from the union itself, were followed today, a lot of the trouble that we have seen would be avoided.

Are not the chief police officers now totally in control of industrial relations? Does the Home Secretary agree that they have decided not to use the Tebbit and Prior Acts but instead to arrest the 900 and to take them to court, thus making the matter sub judice, thereby controlling the picket lines? Surely that is totally against the will of, and resolutions passed by, this House?

It would be difficult to make a more inaccurate statement than that. The so-called Tebbit and Prior laws are not in the hands of the police. They are civil laws, and whether they are used or not is a matter for the civil agencies and not for the police. The question is also strikingly inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman and others said in the debate on Tuesday. On Tuesday, I was accused of being in control. Today, it is the chief of police. Hon. Gentlemen ought to make up their minds.

Who is in control?

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one of the consequences of the amount of policing which violent picketing makes necessary is that other areas of the country cannot be policed effectively? Is it not true that any increase in crime which may follow from that must be the direct responsibility of hon. Members on the Labour Benches?

There is no doubt at all that the use of large numbers of police in this dispute has imposed a strain upon police services, but the areas from which police have moved to the mining areas have been able to meet that strain. Tribute should be paid to the police for ensuring that that is so.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House how many of the alarming number of people who have been arrested and charged during the dispute have been arrested close by the plainclothes policemen who have been infiltrating the picket lines?

That information is not available.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one great problem for the police is that the miners' leaders have made it clear that they will hold the law in contempt? If Scargill and his crew agreed to abide by the law, would not the job of the police be easier, and would not people be able to go about their lives in peace? The situation is not the fault of the police; it is the fault of those who wish to break the law.

I entirely agree that the presence of such large numbers of policemen is made necessary entirely by the fact that if they were not present there would be mass disorder and intimidation.

Who is in control? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain where accountability lies? There is a national reporting centre in New Scotland Yard, for which he is responsible. That control room is controlled as a result of orders given by the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Forty-three police forces are co-ordinated by him without any reference to the elected authorities of the 43 police forces. The president's only accountability appears to be to the executive of the professional association — the trade union—of which he is the temporary president.

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the national reporting centre, which he has visited, is a mechanism whereby the chief officer of police in one county is able to call on assistance from his brethren in other counties. That reporting centre is simply a clearing house for obtaining assistance. The right hon. Gentleman also knows from an answer that I have given that in every case assistance has been given at the request of a chief constable who has asked for it. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the handling of such issues is an operational matter over which the chief constable of the area concerned has control. That is something that was warmly applauded by the House on Tuesday.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss the role of the police during the miners' dispute.

On 27 March, on behalf of his colleagues in England and Wales, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers reported personally to me on the whole range of police operations in relation to the miners' dispute. On 29 March I discused the cost of the operations in Nottinghamshire with members of the police authority. The chief constable was present.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he convey the deep thanks of the House to the Association of Chief Police Officers for the way in which police throughout the country have managed to make it possible for miners who wish to go to work to exercise their right to do so? Will he also convey the sympathy of the House to the 57 police officers injured to date, and, finally, will he look at the cost—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions already.

I am sure that the House would like to express its appreciation of the fine job that the police are doing in difficult circumstances. I cannot imagine that it would be in any way a matter of controversy to say that the House would wish to express its sympathy to those police officers who have been injured in what has happened so far.

How often has the civil contingencies committee met to co-ordinate the work of the Association of Chief Police Officers in the national recording centre in the arrest of 900 miners who are attempting to save their jobs and the living standards of their families?

The answer is not once.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that miners who work at the Littleton colliery in my constituency have been in touch with me to ask me to pass on to the Home Secretary their appreciation of the work of the Staffordshire police?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I assure the House that that expression of appreciation is by no means unique.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 April.

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 attending a state banquet given by the Amir of Bahrain.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents who work at the Littleton colliery will be extremely disappointed at the decision of the National Union of Mineworkers this morning not to hold an immediate national ballot? Is she further aware that the proposal to alter the rule book will be regarded by many people simply as an attempt to coerce out on strike men who, in my constituency, have voted by three to one to carry on working to support their families?

I agree with my hon. Friend that many miners will be greatly concerned that the chance for a national ballot has been delayed still further.

Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the fact that a national ballot of the National Union of Mineworkers is now a clearer and closer prospect than it was before today's meeting? Will she accept that it is a much clearer and closer prospect than are ballots for the election of the council to run London in the next few years? Will she address the real issues of the coal mining dispute? She has clearly instructed Mr. MacGregor to run down the coal mining industry in substantial part, regardless of the cost. Does she understand that the price of that strategy for the industry, the communities dependent upon it and for the country is immense? Will she therefore now change that strategy and instruct Mr. MacGregor to do the appropriate thing?

I assume that if the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that a national ballot is clearer and closer—that is his phrase—he would have preferred it to have been decided today. Perhaps he will make that clear in his next supplementary question. "Plan for Coal" is as it has always been. The right hon. Gentleman will know that in the 11 years of Labour Government some 300 mines were closed and that in the nine years of Conservative Government 92 have been closed.

In giving me instructions on ballots, the right hon. Lady is rather in the position of someone in a glasshouse throwing stones. With regard to comparisons of rundown, the fact is that during the Labour Government there were some jobs for redundant miners to go to, whereas there are now none. If she is anxious about cost, does she not realise that the cost of replacing 4 million tonnes of coal is likely to mean the purchase of Australian coal and that even if that resulted in a saving of £120 million, the resulting redundancies would cost £160 million a year, apart from redundancy payments of £300 million over the next couple of years?

There have been no compulsory redundancies so far. Redundancy money offered by this Government is more generous than that offered by any Labour Government. Investment in the future for coal mines is far better under this Government than under any Labour Government. Coal mines have a better future under Conservatives than they ever had under Labour.

Does the Prime Minister realise that the investment that she is supposed to be sponsoring, of which she is so proud and which is welcome, relates to production in the 1990s at a few specific, limited sites? The problem is here and now. Will she instruct Mr. MacGregor to alter the pace, scale and method of change in the coal mining industry to ensure its future and save coal mining communities?

The Government are ensuring the future. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when a Labour Government invested £800 million a year in coal mines?

Has my right hon. Friend this week had the opportunity to read about the incident involving nails stuck in pieces of wood, which were left in various places and designed to cripple horses? Will she condemn that as heartless cruelty? Does she agree that that is not peaceful picketing, but cruel and violent, and justifies the presence of every policeman on the beat to get my constituents to work?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that that happened at one mine. That behaviour is disgraceful and callous.

Will the Prime Minister immediately consult the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the tragedy that has overtaken the milk industry in Northern Ireland because of the European Community package? Will she now comment on what the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler)—said when he appeared before the Agriculture Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly about her statement of 3 April in the House:

"Clearly, the statement made by the Prime Minister was not in line with the facts; there must have been some misunderstanding."

The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food secured a special quota for Northern Ireland, consequent upon the extra quota given through the European Community to the Republic of Ireland. It means that the milk industry in Northern Ireland will not be as severely affected as it would otherwise have been. I hope that the announcement about the quotas for separate parts of the United Kingdom will be made shortly.

Why did the Government reject the amendment to the Trade Union Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), which would have allowed for trigger ballots when a significant group in any industry wanted a ballot? Is it not clear that the tactics of the national executive of the National Union of Mineworkers are to create such chaos in the union that eventually even moderates will vote for a national strike to unite the union? If a trigger ballot existed, those moderates would have the right to force a ballot and would probably have come out against a strike.

Trigger ballots would give rise to many complications and were dealt with during the debate. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important to have a ballot as quickly as possible, especially when that facility is in the union's constitution.

When the Prime Minister next sees the Queen—[Interruption.] will she tell the Queen that when she is no longer Prime Minister she does not intend to accept a hereditary peerage? Or did she reintroduce grossly undemocratic hereditary peerages to guarantee a future for her son when she is no longer Prime Minister? [Interruption.] Will——

Order.

rose——

The hon. Gentleman has asked one question. That is enough.

I am delighted with the previous hereditary peerages that I recommended to Her Majesty.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 April.

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

The Secretary of State for the Environment, while introducing the paving Bill in the House yesterday, said:

"The question of precedent is very important."—[Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 411.]

Yesterday's debate revolved round the transitional arrangements. It seemed to be agreed by most people in the House that it would be absurd to hold special general elections for a body that would not exist a year later. Therefore, the answer was either to extend the terms of office of those who had been elected beyond the period for which they had been elected, or to put the charge of the functions being transferred into the hands of local councillors whose period of office had not terminated. We took the latter view, which I believe was the correct one. It would have been bad to extend the period of election beyond the term of election of councillors.

Does my right hon. Friend find it ironic that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who, more than any individual, was responsible for adding a further tier of government on the backs of the overburdened British people, should object to our removing one?

I thought that yesterday's debate was only about the period of transition. In so far as there was a difference between my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and myself, I am sure that I was right.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 April.

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

Has the Prime Minister seen the report on page two of The Times today, in which the eminent theologian, the Archibishop of York, has pledged support to the NUM in its fight against the National Coal Board's ferocious policy on pit closures? Is she so conceited that she proposes to ignore the advice of even the bishops?

I do not propose to tangle with the Archbishop of York. I would say only that unless coal is as cheap and competitive as it can be, many jobs will be lost in other industries.

Does not my right hon. Friend find the affectation on the part of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), in setting the pace in the direction of trade union reform, remarkably unconvincing given that, as a member of the Labour Government, supported the illiberal and oppressive trade union and labour relations legislation, including the closed shop? Does she believe that in such matters a complete change of heart is credible, or does she see it as political opportunism on his part?

I welcome any change in people's Labour affiliations, and I hope that in time they will change a little more.

asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to York.

I have at present no plans to do so.

York's citizens will naturally be very disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend's reply. As the European Parliament elections will be held in nine weeks' time, will my right hon. Friend stress to the President of the Council of Ministers the importance of placing the EC on a proper financial footing for ever?

It is vital, when own resources are at issue, to secure a fair and equitable distribution of the burden of financing the Community. That is the Government's objective, and I shall continue to press it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Amnesty International—[Interruption]—in York and in other parts of the country has launched an international campaign against torture by Governments? Will she give full support to this campaign, and will she ensure that the people of York, like the people of the rest of the country, are made aware of her repugnance for any Government who practise torture against their citizens?

I am glad to make it perfectly clear that this Government are against any torture practised by Governments or people.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list the official interviews and assistance given by civil servants and service men to Desmond Rice and Arthur Gavschon, authors of the book, "The Sinking of the Belgrano".

No such official interviews or assistance were given to the authors of "The Sinking of the Belgrano" specifically in connection with their book, apart from providing comments on an article in International Defense Review by an Argentine military historian.

Is General Haig right in asserting that acceptance had been gained from both parties in relation to the Peruvian peace proposals before the Belgrano was sunk? Is the Prime Minister's admirer, General Haig, right?

I do not answer for General Haig.

Answer for yourself. It will come out, darling.

Order. If the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) does not desist from this behaviour, I shall have to ask him to go, and I should not like to do that just before Easter.