asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further initiatives he proposes to combat crime.

The criminal justice working paper, which I published last week—copies of which are in the Vote Office—sets out my continuing strategy to combat crime and describes a range of current initiatives. Its main themes are the importance of measures to secure public confidence; the search for greater efficiency and effectiveness; and the retention of a proper balance between the rights of the citizen and the needs of the community as a whole.

What further measures are the police taking to counter brutal and illegal intimidation in the coalfields?

There has been a lot of nasty intimidation and the police are determined to do everything they can to deal with it. Miners are now being encouraged to report all such occurrences to the police, with an assurance by the police that they will be investigated and, wherever possible, charges brought. In many areas, teams of CID officers are being formed to investigate such allegations and to ensure that they are taken seriously. In addition, a uniform presence has been placed in villages which are identified as having high levels of intimidation. Officers are patrolling on foot throughout the day, with increased levels of activity during high risk periods.

Is the Home Secretary aware that it is little wonder that the police are unable to control drug pedlars and that three small kids could be abducted, with the police unable to find out where they have gone, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government are more concerned to draft 12,000 policemen into the midlands coalfields to bully miners who are fighting for the right to work? As the Home Secretary is prepared to bring new riot charges against miners—imposing a kind of feudal law on them—and is prepared to pay the police £500 a week to tackle—

Order. We cannot have speeches at Question Time.

What about the Home Secretary's long reply?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take points of order at the end of Question Time.

rose—

Order.

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be taken remotely seriously with questions that are not out of order, I should like to hear him condemn those involved in the mining dispute who have been responsible for threatening the families of innocent people, those who damage property and daub paint, and those involved in violent activity on a massive scale. When he does that, the House might be able to take him seriously.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is Gaddafi's puppet—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. We have a number of questions today on this dispute, and I ask the House to take them with calmness and seriousness.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take time to pay tribute to men and women from constituencies outside Nottinghamshire who are policing the picket lines and in particular are facing appalling intimidation from some of the barbarians on those picket lines?

I pay tribute to the many policemen from all over the country who on behalf of the community as a whole, are undertaking, a difficult and sometimes dangerous task, which has been made necessary only by the attempt by large numbers of people to prevent their fellow citizens from going about their lawful business.

What is achieved in the task of effectively combating crime by the forcible palm and finger printing of Mrs. Scargill, by the strip searching of women protesting against nuclear weapons and by two policemen entering a women's lavatory, closing it off, removing a grille from a men's lavatory, spying through it and then climbing over the lavatory cubicle to seize two men? How are our record levels of burglary and crime combated by such things? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with crime instead of invading civil liberties?

I am not in a position to comment on the first and third incidents which the right hon. Gentleman selectively mentioned. If he wishes to make a complaint, he is welcome to do so. As to the alleged strip search of female protesters at RAF Alconbury, I have asked the chief constable of Cambridgeshire for a report about the alleged incident at the police station, but I have not yet received it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will institute an inquiry into police activities in the present coal mining dispute.

No, Sir.

Will the Home Secretary accept that I appreciate the difficulties facing the police in the carrying out of their duties? Is he aware that many of us are deeply concerned about some of the actions and some of the conduct of some of the police in the mining dispute? Some of my constituents, many of whom are known to me personally as good, solid, respectable citizens who would not dream of using violence in any circumstances, have been subjected to unwarranted force and abuse. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that there is a widespread fear that there is now a de facto national police force, fostered by this Government for the restriction of personal and political liberties? In those circumstances, will he reconsider his decision not to institute an inquiry?

There is no question of a national police force. A number of people unrelated to the Home Office and representatives of Opposition parties have visited the national reporting centre and seen what is going on there and how it is being used by the police to provide reinforcements at the request of chief constables and in no other way.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his announcement last Friday of financial assistance to those police authorities covering the miners' dispute will still leave the North Wales police authority facing a severe financial crisis? In the first instance it will have to find 50 per cent. of the product of a penny rate — £316,000 — and that will consume not only its entire contingency budget of £200,000, but eat substantially into the main budget. Surely it cannot be right for the people of north Wales to have to pay even in part for the policing of this dispute.

A contribution from the Government in the ordinary way of over 50 per cent. —50 per cent. through the police grant and any further money from the rate support grant—plus the further payment of 40 per cent. of any additional expenditure over the penny rate, is by any normal standards an extremely generous and reasonable response, which has been welcomed by most people.

In spite of the heavy rhetoric that took place at the beginning of this Question Time on both sides of the House, is the Home Secretary aware that we have good, solid citizens in Nottinghamshire who like their civil rights as well and are fed up with the intimidation, the damage and the threats to their families that are taking place? I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party for condemning that yesterday. I hope that the House and the trade union movement will condemn it as well.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the great proportion of the House believe in peaceful picketing, which if carried out would mean that the police would have a small job to do? Will he further accept that if six people talked to one that would be a discussion, but if 600 did so it would be coercion? The job of the police is to stop coercion, and the sooner Mr. Scargill stops 600 people coercing other people, the less work there will be for the police, with no need for an inquiry.

I agree.

Is not the request for an inquiry justified in one or two cases? One is the pro forma used in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, which has been heavily criticised in the Police Federation magazine, a copy of which I have, and the broad widening of the conditions of bail during the dispute, which if they were taken to their limit could put people under house arrest. That has restricted people moving about even in Yorkshire. The other case arises from the fact that Chief Inspector Bob Lax, a representative of the South Yorkshire Police Federation, said that he was not sure that his members were carrying out the law in relation to road blocks and felt that the matter should be cleared up by an inquiry.

In any case where it is suggested that the bail conditions that have been imposed are unreasonable, it is always possible for them to be tested in the courts. Bail conditions are imposed by a court and that is the right arena in which they should be investigated. Similarly, if any police officer or individual member of the public has doubts about the legality of any action, as opposed to any other aspect of it, that again is, classically, something which the courts, not the Government, determine.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say something about the police and the photography? A constituent of mine who is a prominent official in the National Union of Mineworkers has complained to me about his members having their photographs taken while on picket. I told him that I had often seen his picture on the television alongside Mr. Scargill and that I did not know what he was worrying about. Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the police and their cameras?

Very often it is difficult to identify people who may have done, or are suspected of doing, particular things, and I think that taking a photograph in many circumstances is a reasonable thing to do.

Will the Home Secretary consider again the use of the Police Complaints Board as a way of investigating these complaints? Does he not agree that this highlights again the need for an independent police complaints procedure?

I agree that improvements are necessary in the means of looking at complaints against the police. It is for that reason that we have substantially changed the present arrangements in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, by setting up an extremely powerful Police Complaints Authority, which will be able to supervise in as much detail as it wishes the investigation of any complaint against the police. It is exactly because of the understandable concerns expressed not only by the hon. Gentleman but by hon. Members on both sides of the House that we are revising the arrangements in this rather radical way.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the Opposition that they must have more common sense and moderation in this matter? The British police force has acted with great restraint and good sense. To realise that one has only to compare its activities, which are generally supported by the whole country, with those of some of the police forces on the Continent, which adopt a far tougher stance against law breaking.

My hon. Friend is right. I think that those involved in this matter have to ask themselves whether it is right for them to engage in action to such an extent as to necessitate a police presence on such a scale in order to prevent breaches of the law. I think that those who continue doing that bear a heavy responsibility. I can assure the House that the last thing in the world that anybody wants—whether the police officers concerned, or anybody in Government—is to have to deploy police power for so long and on such a scale, but it is necessary because of the action that is being taken by others to seek to deny people their basic rights.

In refusing an inquiry, do I understand that the Home Secretary is absolutely satisfied that everything that the police have done so far—stoppages on the highway, activities against the pickets in Nottinghamshire—has been within the law?

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no Minister could possibly say that he was satisfied that everything was absolutely right on all occasions on an operation of this scale. What I am saying is that, if one takes into account the opportunities to challenge in the courts, any alleged illegality, and the opportunities to challenge by the complaints procedure any alleged impropriety, I do not believe that there is anything left that calls for an inquiry.

Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he is extremely concerned about the harassment of miners' families, and the criminal damage done to miners' cars and to their property? Is my right hon. and learned Friend completely satisfied that there are sufficient police resources to prevent this kind of incident?

I think that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this aspect. I cannot believe that any decent person in the country, for example, would approve of actions such as stealing paint, daubing it on doors and windows, and pouring the reminder over a litter of kittens so that one of them died. That is simply barbaric. The police are now deploying their forces in the way that I indicated in the answer that I gave to the first supplementary question in order to give effective protection as far as possible against intimidation, because plainly that is a priority that has now been identified.

Why is the Home Secretary so complacent and one-sided about this matter? Does he not acknowledge that it is in the interests of the police that an inquiry should take place, in view of the allegations that have now been brought by many responsible people, by my right hon. and hon. Friends this afternoon, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), a former Secretary of State? Allegations have been brought about the creation of no-go areas, the prevention of freedom of movement, intrusive and oppressive photography of people, pro forma documents of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has mentioned, and the gross misuse of the Riot Act. All these are matters that need inquiring into. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has condemned violence and intimidation. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be a Home Secretary and show justified concern, instead of being a Tory party hack?

The right hon. Gentleman should contain his wholly synthetic indignation. He was notably long on rhetoric and short on facts, and might perhaps have acquainted himself with the fact that the Riot Act was repealed in 1967 — just for starters. He should also realise that although he has paid lip-service to the condemnation of violence, I think that that is about as far as it goes. In calling for an inquiry while not specifically dealing with the incidents of intimidation that I have drawn to the attention of the House, he is not exactly doing justice to the office to which he aspires.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department does to encourage police visits to schools.

All forces already recognise the importance of liaison with schools and devote considerable resources to school visiting.

What about the Warwickshire miners? There are 5,000 there.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not shout at me.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that educational visits to schools by the police can do nothing but good in giving the children an appreciation of the difficult job that the police do and of how they can be of service to both the children and the community? Is he aware that there is sometimes opposition to the police making educational visits, and will he do all that he can to overcome that?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a worry that in a small number of schools, such as those in Hackney, London, the authorities concerned are still refusing, for what appear to be political reasons, to allow police officers to visit them.

If the police go to the schools in any numbers, will the Home Secretary ensure that they are not allowed to group themselves in such a way as to draw their batons and beat up the children?

Oh really.

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, coming from his profession, should take that line. We are talking about police officers visiting schools to give lectures, to play football and so on.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently in prison.

On 11 May 1984 there were 44,493 persons held in prison department custody in England and Wales.

Does the Minister agree that there is serious overcrowding in the prisons and that there are not enough proper facilities for work and education, which is bad for the morale of both prisoners and prison officers?

As a Government we are tackling that problem by embarking on a prison building programme that will ease it enormously. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the minimum qualifying period for parole will be reduced on 1 July 1984.

Although I welcome the Government's prison building programme, will my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the provision of prison places will not act as a limitation on sentencing policy, and that if we find that there is a need to imprison more people for longer in order to deter crime we will provide appropriate prison places for that purpose?

Clearly, it is the Government's duty to enable the courts to impose the sentences which they consider right. Obviously, that is the object of the exercise. That is why we have embarked on the prison building programme, which involves 14 new prisons planned or under construction, and the provision of 10,600 additional places by 1991.

Does the Minister accept that in Britain a higher proportion of the population are in prison than is the case in any other European country? Does he agree that the Government should, therefore, address themselves to the problem of reducing the prison population and, in particular, to dealing with the vast numbers of people remanded in custody who are not subsequently given a prison sentence?

The hon. Lady knows that the Criminal Justice Act 1982 enhances the powers of courts to impose non-custodial sentences. We shall shortly publish a discussion document on the possibility of introducing new sentencing options such as day and weekend imprisonment. That must go some way towards meeting the hon. Lady's argument.

Is not the truth about the prison building programme that the new prisons will be in the wrong places and will be of the wrong type? Does the Minister agree that most overcrowding is in local prisons? Does he seriously believe that the prison building programme will do anything other than encourage the judiciary to fill the extra places?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. I do not believe for one moment that our plans will encourage magistrates and the courts to send to prison people who should not be sent there. It is our clear duty to ensure that the courts have the power to send people to prison when that is necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to issue detailed guidance on the new civil defence functions.

We are preparing a consolidated circular bringing together and updating all previous guidance, and adding new. This is a big task. We shall consult local authority associations on a draft in the summer and intend to issue the circular in the autumn.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is a wholly unsatisfactory answer? Are not the Government being exceptionally dilatory on a matter about which there has been grave public concern for a long time? Will my right hon. Friend please tell his civil servants that the contents of the document must be enforced before the House rises for the summer, or he will let down all those who want to do civil defence voluntary work?

The regulations in force are those that were passed by the House in December. The consolidated circular is intended to help local authorities to carry them out. We intend to proceed in an orderly but effective way. Local authorities should have no doubt— I think that they have no doubt—that we have both the will and the power to make the new regulations work.

Does the Minister realise that many local authorities are sitting on the fence, waiting until the guidelines are issued?

We shall send out a questionnaire to local authorities asking what progress they have made in implementing the regulations which Parliament passed. In the light of that, we shall consider what further action may be needed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the alarm and concern expressed by emergency planning officers, for whom he has frequently expressed admiration, at the announcement in the House on 4 May that responsibility for emergency planning in the GLC area is likely to be vested in the fire brigade committee when the GLC is devolved?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought that up, because it gives me the opportunity to say that although the linking which he mentions seems to be a sensible solution to the problem in London, it certainly does not imply the downgrading of the importance of civil defence.

Is the Minister aware that many local authorities share my view that civil defence is largely irrelevant over huge areas of need? Is he further aware that that is why the local authorities are resisting the Government's proposals, and, what is more, that that is the view of the general public, who rightly feel resentful because money is being spent on building nuclear shelters to protect a few bureaucrats in areas such as Manchester, which would be totally destroyed in the event of a nuclear war?

If the worst came to the worst, which we think is highly unlikely, effective civil defence could make all the difference to many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effectiveness of civil defence depends very much upon information being available at local level? Is he aware that many emergency committees and county councils are ignorant of how to deal with a range of civil emergencies? Will he therefore disseminate regulations and plans from his Department down to local parish level?

That is certainly our intention.

Is not the Minister's failure to issue these guidelines six months after they were promised an admission both of the low priority that the Government accord to civil defence and an acknowledgement that such defence is a waste of time and money when far more serious and pressing problems confront local authorities and their citizens? In any event, how can local authorities plan properly for civil defence against nuclear war when the Government refuse to share with them their assumptions about the nature, scale, likely targets and potential consequences for any local authority area of such an attack?

When we discussed the regulations, the deputy leader of the Labour party said that the Labour party supported civil defence in principle. We are always willing to listen to suggestions, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in his new and exalted position, will do his best to back up his deputy leader's statement, instead of rubbishing a programme that is humanitarian and responsible.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what non-police civil defence grant was paid to county councils in 1982–83; and what estimates he makes of grant payable in 1983–84 and 1984–85.

The total civil defence grant payable to county councils in England and Wales in 1982–83 for non-police expenditure as submitted for audit was £5,127,460. The corresponding figure for 1983–84 based on provisional claims was £7·8 million in round terms. For 1984–85, county councils' preliminary estimates indicate a figure at 1984–85 cash prices of £6·86 million, but this will have to be adjusted as the year proceeds.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he satisfied that those sums are being used effectively? Does an analysis of the figures reveal which local authorities are fulfilling their obligations on civil defence?

My hon. and learned Friend is right in his inference. That is one reason why we asked the House: to pass the new regulations and why we are strengthening the division in the Home Office that monitors performance.

Has the Minister seen the findings of the international conference in Washington on the effects of a nuclear war on the environment? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the conference's predictions that there will be an environmental disaster of unparalleled magnitude—a climatic disaster? Is it not ludicrous to talk about giving grants to local councils when the world will be destroyed by any nuclear conflict? Is that not nonsense?

The hon. Gentleman knows that scientific discussion on that thesis is continuing and is not yet completed. The money which we are allocating and which local authorities are spending on civil defence could, if the deterrent were to break down—I repeat that we believe that that is highly unlikely — make all the difference between life and death to many hundreds of thousands of people.

Will my right hon. Friend comment more generally and further on the response by, and reaction of, the county councils to the civil defence measures that were passed by the House last December?

Not yet.. but I hope that we can do so later.

Will my right hon. Friend urgently consider ways of improving the status of and increasing the resources available to civil defence volunteers? That form of public service deserves and should command more widespread support. We are spending on civil defence only one tenth of 1 per cent. of the money that we spend on the major Departments. We should provide better encouragement to our civil defence volunteers.

Volunteers are an essential part of civil defence. I am glad to say that there are now 35,000 of them. It is precisely to give them that encouragement, which my hon. Friend lightly advocates, that we put great emphasis in the new regulations on the need to bring together the training and exercising of volunteers.

Is the Minister aware that the figure that he cited of £6·86 million in 1984–85 for civil defence amounts to 12p per man, woman and child per year spent on defence, whereas the Ministry of Defence spends £6 per man, woman and child per week on arms? Does that not show how little hope the Minister has of anyone surviving a war?

The hon. Gentleman has not followed either the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) or my answer, which related to a small part of the total of civil defence spending.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been acquitted of shoplifting in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

In 1982, the latest year for which figures are available, about 6,200 persons were acquitted of shoplifting charges in England and Wales. About 80,200 persons were found or pleaded guilty in the same year.

Given the increase in the number of people who are wrongly charged with this offence, is it not time for the police to undertake all prosecutions? Is the Minister aware that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis told me that he would be prepared for the Metropolitan police to take on the responsibility if he had the necessary resources? Will the Government give him the resources so that London can have the same system as Essex, Leicester and elsewhere, where it is being implemented decently, properly and fairly?

Without casting aspersions on the way in which matters are handled in London, may I say that I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's belief that it would be better if the police were to take on a much larger role in prosecuting these offences. We are discussing the matter with the Commissioner. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we are bringing forward proposals to create an independent prosecution system. I have no doubt that a central part of that in London will be that the police should take over the prosecution of shoplifting offences.

As 12 years have passed since the Home Office accepted the validity of the proposition that self-service shopping encourages shoplifting, what is the view of the Home Office of people and organisations which, for their own trading purposes, introduce systems which result in an increase in crime?

I cannot agree that supermarket shopping, which many find convenient, is an invitation to commit crime. I remind my hon. Friend that an essential part of the offence of theft is dishonesty. If someone places a package in the wrong basket merely by accident, that will be a valid defence if it is believed by the magistrates or a jury.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the further assessment of the possibilities for reparation by offenders to their victims.

I have already indicated my intention to encourage and monitor schemes for reparation by offenders to victims. I shall be making a limited amount of money available to help experimental schemes designed to test different approaches and I am considering a number of proposals which have been put to me.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that helpful answer. It is essential that defendants should be made aware of the dreadful harm that they inflict upon their victims. Will he make funds available for setting up a direct reparation scheme in King's Lynn, where, with the help of a home watch scheme on the Fairstead estate, the police are now winning the local battle against crime?

I do not promise to support a particular scheme. However, if my hon. Friend sends me the details I shall consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce measures to amend the Bail Act so that magistrates may not impose unreasonable bail conditions.

No, Sir. The Bail Act 1976 specifies the purposes for which conditions may be attached to the grant of bail. A defendant who considers conditions imposed on him are unreasonable can apply to the High Court to have them varied.

Is the Minister aware that during the current miners' dispute the Bail Act is being used to challenge certain fundamental political rights? Does he know, for example, that in some instances miners have been restricted from attending or speaking at meetings that relate to the industrial dispute? With that evidence, which may not have been available to the Minister before—it is clear that certain evidence is not available to the Home Office—does he feel that it would be sensible now to amend the Act, so that people do not regard it as a means of enforcing the Government's industrial policy and a means of defeating the miners in the present dispute?

That is a fanciful suggestion, because the Act was introduced by the previous Labour Government. If the hon. Member had been a member of this place at that time he would no doubt have voted for the enactment of the measure. Magistrates have a duty to attach conditions to bail to try to ensure that further offences are not committed by a defendant while on bail. If a defendant is aggrieved he should go to the courts, where proper redress is available if the circumstances permit it, and not complain to me.

Will my hon. Friend note that my constituents would like to see the Act tightened rather than relaxed? One of my constituents was put to death by a man on bail who was already on licence from prison, having committed arson. He subsequently knifed a man because he did not like the way he was looking at him. Finally, he put another man to death because he involved himself in a fight. If he had not been granted bail, the young man would still be alive. We want bail conditions to be tightened, not relaxed.

Whatever Parliament may decree, the granting of bail depends on magistrates' discretion in the circumstances of individual cases. It is to be hoped that magistrates always get these decisions right, but occasionally there are distressing examples of things going wrong. I am not sure whether the amendment of the Act would have prevented the tragedy which my hon. Friend has put before us.

Will the Minister tell us why bail conditions given in March by magistrates in Mansfield that applicants should not visit National Coal Board premises other than their place of work have been broadened considerably five weeks after that? Is it not wrong for the Minister to say that aggrieved applicants may apply to the High Court if the bail conditions are any different, when more than 2,000 people have been arrested and movement is now restricted?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be blissfully unaware of one of our fundamental freedoms, which is that Ministers do not adjudicate on the validity of court decisions. I am sorry that that approach to our freedoms is finding little sympathy on the Opposition Benches.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 17 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the brutal Gulf war, with hundreds of thousands of casualties and the vile abomination of chemical warfare poses a major threat to world peace? Should not the major powers insist upon an immediate arms embargo and call the Security Council into force to get one?

The Government are seriously concerned about the Iran-Iraq war, the loss of life and the implications for Western security, especially in view of the recent attacks on neutral oil tankers. We are willing to support any initiatives in the United Nations that are likely to achieve peace. Britain does not supply lethal weapons to either side in the Iran-Iraq war, and we have refused to export eight different chemicals which might be fabricated into weapons of chemical warfare.

Will the Prime Minister, if she has not already done so, read the speech by her right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), in which he denounced the Government's unemployment policies, the demise of the GLC and the latest policy appertaining to the public sector? Bearing in mind that his speech was in accordance with the sentiments of the Opposition, will the right hon. Lady take cognisance of that fact and attempt in some way to change the policies of Her Majesty's Government?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

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

Following the leaking of yet another confidential report — [Interruption.] With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat my question. [Interruption.]

Order.

Following the leaking of yet another confidential report, "A Review of Benefit Visiting," will the Prime Minister assure the House that copies of the report will be made available to right hon. and hon. Members and, in the meantime, will she assure the House that DHSS staff will be retrained so that supplementary benefit claimants will be fully and adequately informed of the benefits that they can claim?

The answer to the first part of the question is no, Sir. The answer to the second part is that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, if supplementary benefit claimants are dissatisfied with the amount awarded to them, sufficient appeal procedures are available. I shall, of course, bring the other matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider her policies towards Europe in the light of the manifestos now being prepared and published by the opposition parties? Will she reassure the House that she will continue to steer a middle way between the extremists of the Labour party, who wish to leave Europe, and the equally extreme policy outlined in the alliance manifesto of abandoning or severely restricting the veto and handing over to the European Assembly the right to raise taxes without this House having any say in the matter and the policy outlined by alliance spokesmen of doubling our contribution to own resources?

We shall continue our present policies in Europe. We believe that it is to the advantage of Britain to remain in the Community. There is no doubt about that. We also believe that this country needs a strong voice in Europe, and we believe that it has just that.

It is now seven weeks since 31 March when our £457 million rebate from the Common Mark et was supposed to be paid. When does the Prime Minister expect our money to be paid to us?

The date on which we were expecting it was 31 March, but I am afraid that that is not a legally enforceable date. [Interruption.] I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the facts. One does not normally make fun of legal facts. That is not a legally enforceable date, but we hope that the money will be paid by the end of this year.

The Prime Minister is right in one respect. The absence of the £457 million that is due to us is not in the least bit funny. Will she tell us whether she thinks that the money is actually due to us—yes or no? In view of her entirely dilatory attitude towards reclaiming it, does she believe that we shall get the money—yes or no? If the money that is due to us is not paid, will she withhold that sum, so that we can spend it on necessary objectives in Britain—yes or no?

Under the terms of the Stuttgart communiqué, 850 million ecu were reserved from this year's budget to be paid to Britain. The normal practice has been to pay it by 31 March. That is a matter of practice. It is still in the reserve European budget.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the fact that this year is an exception is due entirely to her abrasiveness and utter incompetence in defending the interests of this country?

No, Sir. Without a strong voice we should never have got the promise of payment. I believe that that promise will be honoured. The Opposition were not much good at getting rebates of any kind at any time.

Is it not extraordinary that, having, against intense competition, obtained a contract to export 175,000 tonnes of coal to the United States, the National Coal Board now has to buy that coal on the open market because it cannot be produced in this country? Does that not throw doubt on the credibility of those in the NUM leadership who say that they have the interests of the coal industry at heart?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The National Coal Board obtained a valuable contract to export coke to the United States. An essential part of the contract was that the first shipment should leave this country by the end of May. If it cannot be produced in Britain at present, it clearly makes sense to keep the next tranche of sales within possibility for this country by purchasing the coal and exporting it from here. The NCB is trying to retain the possibility of those sales for this country. That is a very advisable policy, although it would be far better if all the coal could be produced here and sold from this country.

Will my right hon. Friend find time during her official duties today to convey to the other European Heads of Government that it is a gross discrimination against the United Kingdom to impose quotas for excess milk production, without also imposing quotas for the excess production of wine and olive oil?

My hon. Friend knows that one of the biggest items of the Community budget and of the common agricultural policy arose from the excess production of milk. It is right to tackle that matter first.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

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

Has the Prime Minister had a chance to consider the recently published report of the New Ireland Forum? Despite her commitment that the people of Northern Ireland will not become part of a united Ireland without their consent, does she agree that this veto should not apply to other political changes in Northern Ireland, including the development of closer ties with the Republic?

We try to work with the Republic of Ireland, because we believe that it is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland to do so. The constitutional future of Northern Ireland is a matter for Northern Ireland and this Parliament, and for no one else.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the matter was raised with her exactly a week ago violence and thuggery have continued unabated in the miners' strike? Is she further aware that all decent people are disgusted by this behaviour? Is it not time that any sort of illegal picketing was unequivocally condemned by all sections of the House?

Yes, Sir. That is correct. The right to picket is a right to picket peacefully to persuade people who are going to work not to work. Most people will agree that that is not what we are seeing. The criminal law on picketing has not changed. The law on crime relating to violence and intimidation has not changed. Most people —and this goes for the majority of miners, too—are grateful to the police and congratulate them on the excellent way in which they are carrying out their duties.

Is it not a shameful abandonment of principle, after everything that was said during the general election—[Interruption.]—for the Prime Minister and her Government—[Interruption.]

Order.

Is it not a shameful abandonment of principle—[Interruption.]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has an absolute right to be heard.

Is it not a shameful abandonment of principle that the right hon. Lady has changed the commitment that she made during the general election to the defence of this country and in two years' time will abandon the 3 per cent. increase in growth in the defence budget, will cut it to 0·5 per cent., will rely totally on nuclear weapons, and will not be able to make a contribution to the strengthening of European defence in a conventional war? Will she reconsider her decision on Trident?

No, Sir. At no time did we make a full commitment to the 3 per cent. increase for the years following 1985–86. The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that during our first years we fulfilled the NATO commitment of 3 per cent. and we shall continue to do so until 1985–86.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 May.

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

With regard to nurses' pay, does the Prime Minister think that a nurse's work is as valuable to the community as that of a policeman?

Most people's work is valuable to the community. Under this Government, nurses' pay has increased by 80 per cent., compared with only a 60 per cent. increase in the retail price index.

Given that the so-called peace movement declined rapidly once we deployed cruise missiles, will my right hon. Friend take time today to convey to the Dutch people and Parliament the vital importance of that country meeting its obligation to install 48 cruise missiles, because if it fails to do so Belgium might waiver, the Alliance upon which all our freedoms depend might be damaged and the sinister forces that threaten those freedoms might be given new heart?

If not today, we have brought, and will continue to bring, to the attention of the Dutch people and their Government the importance of their honouring their commitment on cruise missiles, for the reasons which my hon. Friend mentioned.

Has the Prime Minister protested to the Government of the Irish Republic at the most recent murder of a Protestant farmer and member of the UDR? If not, will she undertake to do so and seek the cooperation of the Government of the Irish Republic to have those responsible apprehended and extradited to Northern Ireland to stand trial for this terrible crime?

We have had great co-operation from the Irish Republic in apprehending criminals and in attempting to bring them to trial, and I have no complaints against the Irish Republic on that score.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 12 and 14.