asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any proposals for increases in the television licence.

No, Sir.

As an application may be made, will the Minister accept that the BBC has a duty to provide an adequate amount of current affairs coverage on its main television channel? There is quite a lot of discontent over recent happenings. Will the Government accept that if there is an increase in the licence fee it will be all the more necessary to have a much smaller licence fee for retired people living on their own?

The hon. Gentleman's first point is entirely a matter for the corporation.

Does my right hon. Friend think it is correct for the Home Office to go on being the tax collector for the BBC when not one right hon. or hon. Member, nor even the Committee of Public Accounts, can question how the BBC spends the £700 million which the Home Office so kindly collects for it?

The system has been criticised and examined many times over. All I can say to my hon. Friend at the moment is that we have no plans to change it.

Following the right hon. Gentleman's unfortunate interview with The Sunday Times a little while ago, will he give the House a categorical assurance that the Government have no plans for the privatisation of the BBC, no plans for the introduction of commercial sponsorship of BBC programmes, and no plans whatever for the introduction of commercial advertisements either on BBC television or on BBC radio?

I have done so in the House before, and I did so again a minute ago.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish information on domestic nuclear shelters.

Information on domestic nuclear shelters is in the booklets "Domestic Nuclear Shelters" and "Domestic Nuclear Shelters—Technical Guidance" which were published in 1981 and are in the Library. We hope to publish information next year on a wider range of shelter designs and materials and on protective measures within the home.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that most of the designs which he has so far brought forward and are so far available are far too expensive for the average householder?

A range is referred to in the existing literature and some are specifically designed to be as simple as possible. Research is being undertaken into new designs for improvised shelters, some of which have been tested in simulated nuclear explosions in America.

Will the Minister consider publishing examples of less expensive designs to augment the publication which has been prepared?

The booklet "Domestic Nuclear Shelters" provides a brief guide to three basic kinds of shelter, one of which is a simple one for short-term indoor or outdoor use, which can be built from materials already at hand. Secondly, there are shelters which can be assembled from kits. Therefore, it is not right to say that the existing material is designed just for the most expensive kind of shelter. We shall consider the point made by the hon. Gentleman when it comes to the new publication.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the considerable expertise that has been gathered on this matter by firms in France and the fact that they are able to offer a package deal to communities in this area? Will he make himself aware of these experiments to see whether we might learn something from them?

We are always willing to learn. My hon. Friend has particular knowledge of these matters, and I shall be happy to consider the point that he has made.

In view of the Home Secretary's answer to a previous question, will he tell the House how one simulates a nuclear explosion?

I think that the information about that will be given when we publish the new design. It will explain the basis of the simulation.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider introducing legislation dealing with nuclear shelters as they exist, and have existed for many years, in Switzerland?

I think that circumstances in Switzerland are different from those in this country, and I am not sure that to go along the Swiss road would meet our own particular needs.

This is all realy a bit of a farce, is it not? It is a fantasy, a bit of propaganda. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believes that the mystic nuclear shelter can offer a substantial degree of protection in the event of a nuclear war, why does he not make them available for everyone, instead of leaving them, as they are at present, an option available only to the rich, while the poor in high-rise flats, like those in my constituency, will be left unprotected?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could conceivably have read "Domestic Nuclear Shelters", and the description of the basic kind of shelter, for him to put forward that proposition. To introduce the class war into the question of nuclear shelters is really straining the imagination a little too far, even for the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what subjects he discussed at his last meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Apart from social occasions, I last met the president of the association on 27 March when he reported to me, on behalf of his colleagues, on the police operation in relation to the miners' dispute.

When will the Home Secretary tell the chief constables to put a stop to police brutality during the miners' strike, otherwise public confidence in the police will be completely destroyed? How on earth can any Home Secretary justify a situation where millions of television viewers can witness a policeman repeatedly lashing out with his truncheon against a miner and be told that the policeman will not face criminal charges? Why is that policeman not being treated like a common criminal, because that is precisely what he is?

I do not accept the view that the hon. Gentleman has put forward about the conduct of policing operations, and the House had an opportunity last Tuesday to consider the matter at considerable length. Any allegation that a police officer has abused his power or exceeded it must, and should, be looked at properly, in the right way, through the proper channels. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that that includes coming to a conclusion on the basis of the limited facts that he has.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that on this side of the House at any rate, and in the country, there is warm support for the police in the difficult work that they are trying to do in allowing people to go peacefully to their place of work?

I am aware of that. That support was expressed forcefully in the House on Tuesday. I am sure that it will have greatly assisted the police in the difficult job that they have to do.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the policemen on the picket lines are under great stress and strain at the moment? Does he agree that that was anticipated when he met the Association of Chief Police Officers? Did he inform the members of the asssociation that at the conclusion of the miners' dispute a national independent inquiry into law breaking by the police is likely, especially because of the activities of a nationally organised police force, into the prevention of free movement on the Queen's highway, into picket control methods and into the likely cost in compensation to the injured picketers? Did he tell them that?

I did not. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that is called for, but I certainly did not discuss it.

May I revert to the specific incident mentioned by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it crystal clear that when the Director of Public Prosecutions, in the proper pursuance of his duty, determines independently that a case should not be brought, it will be either because he judges that the evidence available is unlikely to produce a conviction, or that there is some other public matter within his purview which requires him not to prosecute? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is wrong for an hon. Member, with the privilege of the House behind him, to seek to try an accused man?

I agree. I find it impossible to understand how any hon. Member can take it upon himself to be judge and jury in a case of which he has limited knowledge.

In his discussions with the association, will the Home Secretary raise the question of the way in which the police use firearms? In particular, will he tell the association and the House when he expects to have the result of the inquiry into the recent shooting at Tottenham? Will he give an undertaking that the results of that inquiry will be made known to the House?

I announced last December that changes in the selection and training procedures for the use of firearms were required and that I would be discussing them with the Commissioner. The Commissioner's report describes the areas for improvement, and some of the changes have already begun to take place. For example, tighter screening procedures for officers who apply for firearms training has already been implemented. Some of the changes recommended require resources and cannot be made overnight; for example, increasing the length and extending the content of the basic firearms training courses. That is under way.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the police operations to ensure that those who wish to go to work during the current coal dispute have been able to do so.

Major policing operations have been necessary to ensure that people who wish to go to work may do so. Neither I nor the police welcome the need for these operations, but those who believe in the rule of law will be very gratified that they have succeeded in enabling all those who wish to go to work to do so.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that only hon. Gentlemen in the Labour ranks do not have admiration for the police for the courageous and efficient way in which they have safeguarded the going to work of 50,000 miners, despite the fact that in many pits they are under criminal siege? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making the dangerous tasks which the police have to do less dangerous by putting a legally enforceable limit of six on the number of people who may picket, in line with the agreement by the TUC and the National Union of Mineworkers when they undertook to make that part of a voluntary code? They have not lived up to their promise.

I welcome the opportunity once again to pay tribute to the truly remarkable achievement of the police in making it possible for 50,000 people to go to work. I do not think that at this stage it would be useful to introduce legislation to limit pickets to six—which was included in the code of practice—because the police have powers in common law to limit the number of pickets where necessary to prevent or deal with breaches of the peace. They have used those powers in appropriate circumstances.

Is it the rule of law when a car load of striking miners are refused permission to leave the M1 to go to the county council headquarters in Nottingham to talk to Labour councillors about free school meals for their children, and are then sent back up the M1 and again refused permission to leave it to go to their homes? Was it the rule of law when seven car loads of plain clothes policemen invaded houses in Meden Vale, Warsop this week and arrested miners sitting in their homes—including one miner who was not on strike—and took them away for questioning for several hours? Is that the rule of law in Nottinghamshire today?

If the police seek to stop any vehicle and it is alleged that they are going beyond their power to prevent a breach of the peace, that can be challenged in the courts. If people are suspected of having committed a criminal offence, the police are entitled to arrest them in their homes.

In view of the pressure on conventional policing during current operations, has any thought been given to extending the role of the Special Constabulary to help with conventional police operations?

The numbers in the Special Constabulary have increased recently. It has an important role to play in supporting the police by taking on certain duties to release police who need to be committed to a certain task.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the cost so far to Merseyside for policing the dispute is £4·7 million? What comfort can he offer to the hard-pressed ratepayers? Does he agree that it is a scandalous misuse of money for Keeva Coombes, the leader of the Merseyside county council, to hire a double decker bus to send 70 people to Point of Ayr for illegal secondary picketing? Does he further agree that that will not help to settle the dispute, that it will not contribute one iota to doing so?

I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's second point, and I am inclined to agree with him.

Would it not be helpful if the Leader of the Opposition could get into his head the difference between violent disorder and the legitimate use of force to suppress that?

That is a distinction which we would all be wise to bear in mind al all times.

Is the Home Secretary aware that his assumption that picketing miners are blacker than coal and that picket-line policemen are whiter than snow is naive and foolish? Is it not also dangerous, because it polarises both sides in the dispute? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not judge the issues so simply.

I refuse the temptation to equate those who break the law with those who preserve and maintain it. It is a spurious equality to try to say that there is one and then the other. As I said earlier, there is no doubt that the weight of sheer numbers—thousands and thousands of people—is bound to lead to breaches of the law. Those responsible for that have a heavy burden on their consciences.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the integration of voluntary members of police forces from other areas into the areas where picketing takes place? Have they not contributed a great deal to the keeping of order in those areas? Has my right hon. and learned Friend any idea of how they have integrated with the local forces and what contribution they have made?

The aid given by forces from other parts of the country to those who are at the cente of the areas in dispute has been substantial and deeply appreciated. It has been successful in the sense that policemen going from one part of the country to another have been able to make a most effective contribution.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the time is right to try to gel the police back to performing their normal duties? It depends, of course, on where one lives and whom one represents what view one takes of the activities of the police at present. Will the Home Secretary use his influence in the Cabinet to get it accepted that now is the time to start getting reconciliation instead of confrontation, so that the police may return to their normal duties?

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sooner the police return to their ordinary duties, the better. I assure him that as soon as there is no threat of a breach of the law by obstruction and by the other criminal acts that take place the police will return to their normal duties. The most useful step that any of us can take to bring that day nearer is to call on those who have been responsible for threats to breach the peace to desist from doing that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to carry forward his criminal justice strategy.

My right hon. and learned Friend is taking a wide range of administrative measures to increase the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and public confidence in it, and he also plans to bring forward legislation on a range of other issues—for example, on prosecution arrangements, sentencing and the treatment of victims—during the lifetime of the present Parliament.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What plans has he to extend the neighbourhood watch scheme? Is he aware that this seems to be one of the best ways of maintaining public confidence in the police, with members of the public working side by side with law enforcement officers?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The neighbourhood watch scheme has been a striking success in the metropolis, where there are 390 schemes in operation and a further 590 planned. The House may be interested to know that in one scheme alone—in the Hurlingham part of Fulham—in the quarter from September to November of last year there was a decline in burglaries of about 50 per cent. compared with the same three months of the previous year. I am glad to say that the scheme is now being extended outside London. One is planned in Cumbria, in my hon. Friend's constituency.

When will the Government's criminal justice strategy include a response to the overwhelming and reasonable demand by judges that they be given power to pass suspended youth custody sentences?

I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has strong feelings about this issue. It is a matter about which, I am aware, a number of members of the judiciary feel strongly, and the subject is under consideration.

In view of the alarming and worrying increase in the carrying of firearms by criminals, and the consequent issuing of larger numbers of firearms to the police, will consideration be given to the possibility of bringing in a mandatory strong sentence for criminals carrying firearms in the pursuit of robbery?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that, at a convenient time in the lifetime of this Parliament, we shall propose that the maximum sentence for the possession of firearms be increased from 14 years to life imprisonment.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Home Secretary, as part of his criminal justice strategy, is considering increasing the penalties for child sex offences? If not, will he consider doing so for those who commit such vile offences?

We share the hon. Gentleman's concern about those offences, but we have no reason to think that the law is inadequate in that area. The matter is under consideration by one of the committees which consider these issues, and we shall bear in mind what it says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to strengthen police powers to combat intimidation of those not on strike carried out away from picket lines.

We do not believe that the present law is inadequate. The acts of intimidation which have been reported involve the commission of offences under existing law. The problem often lies in obtaining evidence. My right hon. and learned Friend reported to the House on 17 May the steps taken by police to strengthen there efforts on this.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he at least undertake to keep the law under review, bearing in mind that to the majority of British people the extension of intimidation to miners at home, to their wives and to their families is especially nauseous?

Yes, but the horrifying scenes that we have all witnessed on television are not dealt with by Parliament changing the law. They will be dealt with by the National Union of Mineworkers and its members stopping their systematic defiance of the law.

Let us also consider intimidation by the police, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), against those who are on strike but away from the picket lines. We have given example after example of the police pulling out people who have lodgings for the night and attacking them because they happen to be on strike. Can we consider that intimidation, or can we look only at the other side?

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made plain again and again, including today, there are procedures for dealing with complaints that the police have exceeded their powers, and these procedures are being used. It is not right—this is what is done by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues constantly—to equate the efforts of the police with the efforts of the strikers in breaking the law.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that last Friday, at the Cadley Hall pit in south Derbyshire, pickets descended in their hundreds in what was clearly a well co-ordinated programme? These pickets came from all areas of Britain. As a result, the local villages were full of police vans. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the atmosphere of fear that was prevalent and tangible in those villages was not fear of the police, but fear of what would happen if the police were not present.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. That is why the police have, unfortunately, to spend so much time which they would wish to spend otherwise in trying to protect the public from this sort of intimidation.

Will the Minister comment on the slogan that is now doing the rounds of mining communities, which is, "Do yourself an injury—save police time"?

I think that it is ludicrous.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much, in grants, was paid by his Department to the Richmond Fellowship in the last financial year.

Just over £142,000.

Before my hon. Friend grants any more public money to the fellowship, will he consider its suitability for receiving it? Will he bear in mind our experience in Peterborough, where a so-called cured and model patient was sent by the fellowship to reassure my constituents about a proposed halfway house? A few weeks later that "model patient" stabbed and strangled his companion to death and has now been sentenced. We were assured by the fellowship that its halls were well supervised, yet the body lay in one for three days before it was even discovered.

My hon. Friend has raised this matter with the Department and the fellowship. His remarks will be given the most careful consideration. It has been our experience that the fellowship deals effectively with many difficult resettlement cases. It has been on that basis that successive Governments have granted it money, which sum presently constitutes about £142,000.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Council of Europe Ministers of Justice in their study of international terrorism plan to seek to consult other involved countries, including the United States of America.

The conduct of the study will be a matter for the Council of Europe, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will remind our colleagues in that organisation of our related initiatives, including the declaration at the London economic summit, to which the United States of America subscribed.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that international agreements, because of reciprocity problems, are becoming more and more difficult to achieve, not least in the reform of the Vienna convention? Will he accept that this is not the best news that I can give him, but these problems are coming more and more on to his desk? Will he comment on whether concerted national action that is internationally concerted with his colleagues in various countries is perhaps the best way of achieving progress, bearing in mind that action is expected?

I agree that the process of agreeing changes in the Vienna convention is likely to be a difficult one. Progress might be made more effectively and rapidly by agreeing internationally on the application of unilateral national measures which are not inconsistent with the convention; for example, what is to be done if it is found that a diplomat has plainly acted in support of terrorism.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that there is little attraction for the United States of America in signing such an agreement when at least one of the countries in the EEC—the Republic of Ireland—has not yet ratified the convention on terrorism?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Has not my right hon. and learned Friend's belief in the sanctity of diplomatic immunity, expressed at the time of the siege of the Libyan embassy, been dented by the Foreign Office admission that it had, after all, the power to search Libyan diplomatic baggage?

Not in the slightest. It is true that the Libyan Government entered a reservation with their signature to the convention in 1977 which would allow them, in certain circumstances, to have a bag opened, but they never operated that reservation. Such reservations are intensely undesirable, and that is why it has always been our practice to respect the inviolability of diplomatic bags in order to protect our own diplomatic bags.

Does the Home Secretary expect European countries to take seriously our protestations of concern about international terrorism when for three years the Libyan Government proclaimed that they were using their premises in St. James' square as a base for terrorism and the British Government did nothing about it?

The action of the British Government compared very favourably with that taken by other countries that I could name, where there were incidents of great gravity involving the grave abuse of diplomatic immunity by countries other than Libya. The hon. Gentleman has only to travel across Europe to find how wide and recognised a response there has been to the lead that this country is taking in securing international cooperation on terrorism.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that civil defence resources are adequate to deal with the consequences of a possible terrorist nuclear attack.

Our main aim must be to become aware of any impending such attack and be in a position to avert it. If an attack none the less occurred, effective civil defence and emergency service planning would play a vital part in minimising and alleviating its consequences.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend sure that the county emergency planning officers are aware of all the contingency plans?

It is very important indeed that the police and all other agencies involved in countering terrorism in all its forms, such as the officers to whom my hon. Friend refers, should have the appropriate contingency plans. Certainly I am anxious to ensure that they do.

Does the Home Secretary agree that his answer shows that there is no clear defence against nuclear attack, whether by terrorists or in any other form? The shelters, which I prefer to call personal crematoria, are certainly no defence. The only defence is to work as hard as we can here and in other Parliaments to rid the world of all nuclear weapons.

I agree that progress towards arms limitation is by far the best route. However, a terrorist nuclear attack would be the sort of attack against which a substantial measure of protection could be provided, and there can be no doubt that the proper use of our civil defence mechanism would greatly mitigate the consequences of such an attack.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the new regulations, and in particular the 100 per cent. grants, are making a useful and prudent contribution to the improvement of civil defence? However, why did my right hon. and learned Friend drop the provision for local authority staff to participate in the training exercises and all the other activities associated with improving our civil defence effort?

Because we had received very strong representations to that effect from the local authorities themselves.

When will the Home Secretary wake up to the fact that if we did not have nuclear weapons terrorists could not get their hands on them? On the question of the resources devoted to civil defence, when will the Home Secretary persuade his Government that there is no need to spend money on civil defence because no defence against nuclear weapons is possible?

It might have occurred to the hon. Gentleman that terrorists would not necessarily help themselves to our nuclear weapons—they could conceivably get hold of other people's.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and how many women are in prison at present.

On 15 June 1984 there were 42,743 males and 1,537 females held in prison department custody in England and Wales.

Does my hon. and learned Friend think it necessary or desirable to lock up so many people in prison?

It is obvious that we should always examine alternatives to custody. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in the Criminal Justice Act 1982, the courts were given new powers to impose non-custodial sentences.

Would not any reforming Home Secretary be absolutely determined that, except for capital offences—which women do not normally commit—women should not be put in prison? Does the Minister agree that it is pointless putting men or women in prison for drugs or drink offences and that what we really need are far more facilities in the community to keep women out of prison?

As I have already said, we should always examine the possibility of non-custodial forms of treatment, but it is unrealistic to imagine that we shall swiftly arrive at a state of affairs in which it will not be necessary to send some women to prison. That is inevitable.

When my hon. and learned Friend examines alternatives to custodial treatment, will he see how much scope there is for extending the requirement for people to report for a number of hours during the week, as that is often a much more effective way in which to deal with people than taking them out of employment for long periods of time, thus creating the problem of how they use their spare time?

That is obviously one of the many matters that ought to be considered and kept under review.

Is it not the case that one reason why there are more men than women in prison lies in the burgeoning crime that has occurred under this law and order Government? When will the Government take real steps to bring down the level of crime?

The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. He should be aware that, on 1 July this year, there will be a reduction in the minimum qualifying period for parole, which might mean 7,500 additional adults and 2,700 young offenders getting parole. The hon. Gentleman knows that the courts now have great powers to impose non-custodial sentences, and efforts have been made to reduce the number of fine defaulters who go to prison. That is not the record of a Government who do not recognise that we should try to reduce the prison population wherever possible.

What progress has my hon. and learned Friend been able to make to empty prisons of alcoholics, inadequates and the mentally ill?

It is most important that we always consider the possibility of non-custodial forms of treatment. It is our job to put as many forms of treatment as possible at the disposal of higher courts and magistrates.

As there are many mentally ill people among the 46,000 who are in prison, does the Minister agree that it is scandalous that there are only about 25 registered mental nurses employed in the prison service? Will the Government undertake a thoroughgoing review to ensure that proper mental nursing provision is available in the prison service?

I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important point, but it goes far wide of this question. Perhaps he would like to table a question on the matter at another time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the independent radio operators since his decision to permit foreign based stations to broadcast in the United Kingdom by means of land lines.

Officials have had a number of discussions, and I met representatives of the Association of Independent Radio Contractors on 13 June. Among other matters, we discussed their continuing concern over the question mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Is it not clear that companies such as LBC, Radio Essex and others, which contributed more than £6 million last year in levies and rentals, and the programmes of which are strictly controlled by the IBA, are now to face unfair competition from offshore companies such as Radio Luxembourg, which do not pay one penny and are not controlled by the IBA in any way?

The decision flowed mainly from the larger decision taken by the House and the Government to abolish the monopoly in telecommunications in this country. We understand the strongly held anxieties that are felt about the matter. Despite the difficulties, we are considering whether we can find a way of meeting those anxieties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Civil Defence college, Easingwold will be offering courses for the volunteer training officers who will be required to train local authority civil defence volunteers required under the new civil defence regulation 1983.

Yes, Sir. The working party on the training of civil defence volunteers is now considering how that should be done, and it will report soon.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for volunteers to come forward and to be trained, under the provisions of the 1983 civil defence regulations? If he thinks that it might be helpful for college staff to go into the field to meet volunteers on their own ground, will he encourage them to do so?

That is an excellent idea, which is put into practice already to some extent. When we have received the working party report, and when a new principal of the college has been appointed, we shall consider how to take the matter further.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.

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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, to many, the miners' dispute seems to be going from bad to worse? We have all viewed scenes that bring fear to those of us who believe in democracy. Can the Prime Minister, from her great office of state, think of any initiative that could be taken to prevent this desperate dispute going on into the winter months?

The strike will end when the miners return to work and accept the very good offers that have been made, as 50,000 miners have already done. More are returning each day. Two of the three unions are already sitting down with the National Coal Board and are prepared to work out a revised "Plan for Coal". If more would follow their excellent example and take advantage of a very good pay offer and the best-ever redundancy terms—already some 16,000 people have inquired about redundancy—the strike would be over. That would be a great relief for everyone.

Is my right hon. Friend broadly satisfied with the performance of Ministers at the Department of Transport? If so, does she believe that they could do a better job than the GLC in regulating traffic in London, especially in the Talgarth road-North End road area, where motorists from my constituency are being caused much disturbance?

The Department of Transport is doing an extremely good job. I do not think it is the Department's task to sort out the Talgarth road problems.

As the Contingency Reserve that was announced in the February public expenditure White Paper is being so rapidly depleted, how does the Prime Minister propose to meet the Government's commitment when the reserve is finally exhausted? Will that be done by increasing taxes, increasing borrowing or, as we fear, by another public expenditure review?

I am not quite certain, if the Contingency Reserve were to be exhausted—which it is not—which course the right hon. Gentleman would be recommending. The Chancellor laid out the choices in the Budget very effectively. The Government believe that they must contain public expenditure within the plans that we have already published. The Contingency Reserve is not exhausted.

The frivolous way in which the Prime Minister deals with this does nothing for international confidence in the British economy. She must know, that the dispute in the coal mines has already cost £1 billion. She must know that there is a substantial payment to be made to the EEC which was not anticipated when the Contingency Reserve was set up. She must know that the Government's estimate of public expenditure, pay, and unemployment payments has already been exceeded. How do the Government intend to meet the shortfall?

Our intention is to keep public expenditure within the planned totals. The Contingency Reserve is not exhausted. I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do or say, but he must be pretty desperate to have asked his second question.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some 30 pits have already suffered serious physical damage as a result of the strike in the coal, industry? As we plan to invest £2 million per day in the future of coal, is it not a tragedy that so many pits and jobs should be put at risk in that way?

Yes, it is. Three faces have already had to be closed—one at Rossington, one at Bold and one at Tilmanstone—and others are in danger. One hopes that the miners will return to work before any more faces have to be closed. So long as they stay out, more jobs will be in jeopardy, because strikes destroy jobs not just in the coal industry but in steel and other industries and in British Rail. Indeed, strikes are the greatest job destroyer of all.

The Prime Minister constantly prays in aid the 50,000 miners who are at work, as though they believed in her policy, or Mr. MacGregor's policy. Is she aware that that is not so and that their problem lies elsewhere? [HON. MEMBERS: "Put it to the vote."] It has been put to the vote in my area. Is she further aware that some of us are not against Government interference in the dispute but that it is the way in which the Government intervene that matters?

As the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit, the miners in his area put the matter to a vote and abided by the result. In our view that is because they believe, as we believe, that coal has a very good future and that this Government have done more than any other to improve the prospects for that future, having invested £2 million for every day that we have been in power.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 June.

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

After due reflection on the results of the European election, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the Conservative party achieved 13 more seats than the Labour party and half a million more votes? Does she agree, therefore, that in a general election the Conservatives would be returned to government and that only the Labour party leadership could describe such a defeat as victory?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would add just two things to his excellent list. First, it was the fourth parliamentary election in a row to be won by the Government. I refer to the general election of 1979, the Euro-election of 1979, the general election of June 1983 and the Euro-election of June 1984. That is a first-class record. Secondly, the margin by which we won the Euro-election was greater than that in seven of the past 12 general elections.

In view of the fact that British Steel now risks losing customers and its workers risk losing their jobs, and in view of the massive cost of the police operation and the growing strain on the police of having to resist picketing action, will the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country why she has not suggested to British Steel that it is time it invoked the provisions of the civil law against secondary picketing?

The right hon. Gentleman has asked the same question two or three times in one form or another and he will receive the same answer. Those in charge of the nationalised industries are free to invoke the law when they so choose. It is a decision for management to take.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members have been writing to trade unions inviting them to take additional steps, including industrial action, to clinch victory for the miners? In the light of the Government's record on investment in the mines, the new pits that have been opened and the NCB undertaking that there will be no compulsory redundancies, does my right hon. Friend agree that victory for the miners and their families would be a return to work in face of the political activities of Mr. Scargill and his bully boys?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The pay award keeps the miners 25 per cent. above the average industrial wage, which has always been an important point for them; our investment in the industry exceeds that of any other Government and shows great faith in the future of the mines, and for those voluntarily leaving the industry redundancy payments are better than ever before. Therefore, for all those involved in the coal industry there is a good future if they will only seize it and return to work, thus assuring the future of the industry and those who work in it and in associated industries such as steel and the many engineering industries.

In view of the recent report by the NEDC, which described Britain as becoming a Third-world industrial nation, will the Prime Minister consider the fact that there must be more investment in industrial development, especially in areas where coal mining has been run down and mines have been closed? Will she consider that report and agree to invest more capital in areas that need industrial development?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be aware that Mr. MacGregor has set up an organisation to achieve jobs in areas affected by closures. He will be pleased to note that total fixed investment grew by 10 per cent. in real terms between the first quarters of 1983 and 1984. It is productive investment that matters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of the importance of the Ravenscraig steel plant to the Scottish economy, which was highlighted by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs some time ago, any move to put it at risk may lead to substantially more unemployment in Scotland?

Moves to put any of the steel plants at risk will lead to substantial unemployment, not only in the steel industry, where it is easy to lose customers to the continent, but in the pits, because the steel industry takes 4 million tonnes of coal a year from the National Coal Board. Such moves would also lead to substantial unemployment in the railway industry, which carries coal from the pits to the steel plants. Unless those plants are kept working, we shall have widespread unemployment. It is interesting that Opposition Members often express anxiety about unemployment, yet they support strikes that increase unemployment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.

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

As the height of the tourist season is approaching, will the Prime Minister spare time to give attention to the harassment and frequent delays that beset lawful visitors to the United Kingdom at Heathrow airport? Is she aware that a constituent of mine waited from 3 o'clock one Sunday afternnoon until 1 o'clock in the morning for three Indian sportsmen who had come to take part in a tournament? Does she recognise that that is unworthy treatment and brings the country into ill repute?

I believe that the service at Heathrow airport is good, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will write to me about that specific case, I shall look into it.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to study today's reports, which describe how the activities of picketing teachers at a school in Kent have resulted in 400 pupils being turned away from school in the middle of their examinations? Does she agree that to jeopardise the educational future of children in that way is unacceptable?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is utterly disgraceful to jeopardise the future of children in that way. It is an appalling example to children when teachers go on strike. The children will think that they can do the same to get their own way.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that tomorrow I shall attend the funeral of Mr. Joseph Green, a picket who was killed on the picket lines last Friday? Will she bear in mind that she has the power to bring the two sides together and help them to come to a satisfactory and honourable settlement? If she fails to do that, does she realise that the mining industry and others will hold her responsible for future injuries and deaths?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not true. He will have a sorrowful occasion tomorrow, as will the family concerned, and he knows that everyone deeply regrets such a death.