asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in developing his Department's approach to crime prevention.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority he gives to crime prevention strategy; and if he will make a statement.

Crime prevention is crucially important, and there has been encouraging progress on the lines urged in our joint departmental circular in January. Police forces have launched a wide variety of local initiatives. Twenty-two forces have started neighbourhood watch schemes and 11 more plan to do so. We and the Schools Council have produced a teaching package for secondary schools. We shall be launching a television and press crime prevention campaign in London and the midlands in October.

As crime prevention has a vital role to play in our fight against crime and the criminal, what contributions have the neighbourhood watch schemes made to crime prevention, and is my right hon. Friend satisfied that these are being implemented quickly enough?

These schemes are gathering speed and there are now, for example, 390 neighbourhood watchdog schemes in London alone. I agree with my hon. Friend about their importance. They help to deter criminals and prevent crime, and they bring police into close touch with the communities they serve.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to prevent crime would be to block the loophole whereby criminals from this country are able to go to Spain without fear of prosecution? Would not the best way to block this loophole, rather than signing a bilateral treaty with Spain, be to sign the European convention on extradition, which, contrary to popular belief, provides a measure of protection to the suspect?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has taken an initiative with the Spanish Government and arranged that official discussions should take place. On the wider point, my right hon. and learned Friend has also said that we propose to issue a consultative Green Paper later this year, so that we may consider whether there are ways in which our own requirements on extradition might be relaxed. That is a necessary first step to clear our minds before we further consider the European convention.

Does not crime prevention depend to a great extent on public co-operation? Is there not in many parts of the country profound alienation between the police and the mining communities? What steps does the Minister intend to take to restore confidence in the police within those communities?

Of course crime prevention depends on co-operation, and that co-operation is forthcoming. As to the policing of the miners' dispute, the hon. Gentleman should address his questions to those who decided to run the dispute on the basis of violence and intimidation.

Does the Minister agree that the major role of the police in combating crime has been deeply affected by the provocative use of police on picket lines, and that crimes such as muggings, loan sharking and the use of drugs are not being dealt with because of the way that the police are being directed into a political battle against the miners?

There is no evidence for that. Once again, I do not think that many people would agree with the implication that the police should remain inactive when they see efforts being made illegally to prevent those workers who have decided to work—whether at the coal face or driving lorries—from doing so.

Given that there is growing public concern about the increasing number of armed robberies in which criminals use shotguns, why is my right hon. Friend reluctant to revise the law on shotgun certificates?

We do not see any clear connection between those two points. However, as we have already announced, we intend to introduce proposals for increasing the penalties available to deal with those who use firearms in the course of violent crimes.

How can it help crime prevention when incidents occur such as at Calverton colliery in Nottinghamshire, in which, according to our evidence, women pickets were humiliated, degraded and abused——

Order. I am sorry to stop a Front Bench spokesman, but this question concerns crime prevention.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources have been committed to the Government's accelerated programme of prison building and refurbishment.

We are currently planning to build 14 new prisons at an overall cost of about £246 million. In addition, we are spending almost £72 million this year on repair and redevelopment of the existing prison estate.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to resources to the prison programme. Will he comment on how that commitment will help the problem of prison overcrowding?

Fourteen new prisons will provide about 6,600 new places, and, in addition, some 4,000 new places will be provided at existing establishments. The effect of that, on present trends, is that we should eliminate prison overcrowding by the end of the decade.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that even when a prison extension is urgently needed, as at Leeds prison, it is hardly the most popular development in any neighbourhood? Might it not be a good idea to be generous to those whose homes will be demolished by such extensions, by giving them some compensation for the disturbance?

I am sure that it is right that proper compensation should be made. However, I think that there is an increasing understanding that arrangements can be made for building prisons in a way that does no harm to the local community. After all, prisons meet an important social need.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend estimated the resources wasted during new prison and extension building as a result of design changes being made after construction has commenced? That causes a significant increase in contract prices. With good management, those changes should be sorted out before construction begins.

I have not made any such estimate, but if my hon. Friend has an example of where excessive cost has been caused as a result of what he has described, I should naturally want to look into it very carefully.

Do the Government intend to implement the proposals of the past and present Select Committees on Education, Science and Arts in connection with prison education and improving the resources, buildings and refurbishments available to prisons?

On that score, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the debate earlier this month.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to publish the report of the committee of inquiry into the proposals to amend the Shops Act.

As soon as possible after my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has received it—which we expect to be in the early autumn.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the present law has been brought into disrepute by random prosecutions on the part of local authorities? Should not the law be changed so that it is more in line with present shopping trends?

As I said in February last year, when the House unceremoniously turfed out a proposal to do just that, the present law is deeply anomalous and unsatisfactory.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, while most of us agree with him about the present law, there are plenty of divided opinions about the best way to solve the problem? Is he further aware that if he brings forward firm proposals to the House some of us will expect them to be dealt with on a free vote?

It has been the opinion of successive Governments that that is what should be done. It is not for me to anticipate what the climate will be like once the report has been received. One reason that lay behind our decision to establish the report was to try to find more common ground than was apparent when we last debated the matter.

When the report is received, will the hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the problems that arise for employees who are on rates and conditions under the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, compared with competition arising from places which are completely independent? Will he give serious consideration to the rights of workers in this respect?

The inquiry had the benefit of a number of assessors, including an assessor nominated by USDAW, who, I feel sure, brought that sort of point to bear on its deliberations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many more prison officers will be recruited to man the new and refurbished prisons which are planned.

Of the 5,000 extra prison officers whom we plan to recruit between 1 April this year and 31 March, 1988, 1,230 will be needed to man new or refurbished accommodation. I am circulating in the Official Report the establishments concerned, the number of prison officers estimated to be needed for each, and the year in which they are expected to come into operation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. It is important for the proper conduct of prisons that we have both the right numbers and morale in the prison service. Is my right hon. Friend happy in both those regards?

I am not happy yet. I agree with my hon. Friend that prison officers do a remarkably difficult job well and that both their numbers and morale are of high importance.

Is the Minister aware that excessive amounts of overtime are being worked by prison officers? What plans does he have to increase numbers so that workshops can be reopened and prisoners got out of their cells, in which they are locked for far too long?

I have just answered that question. Part of the increases that have been decided on are needed to man new or refurbished accommodation and part to deal with the kind of problem that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will report progress on initiatives to discourage the misuse of air weapons.

Consideration of any further initiatives must wait until we have a clearer indication of the success of the recent campaign. In the meantime, all the publicity material produced for the campaign, including the leaflet and television filler films, will continue to be available. Other local initiatives are a matter for chief officers of police.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that information. Bearing in mind the strong evidence that the number of cases of the misuse of air weapons escalates during school holiday times, will he give sympathetic consideration to an immediate national media campaign to warn parents of their responsibilities in respect of the use by their children of these weapons?

My hon. Friend does the country a service by keeping the matter of the misuse of air weapons in the public eye. We have not yet had the statistics of offences involving the misuse of air weapons since the time of the publicity campaign. It is probably better to wait until they are evaluated before deciding on what should be the next step.

It is estimated that there are 4 million airguns, shotguns, rifles and pistols in circulation in Britain today. Is it not about time that we took more positive action to deal with the matter? Is the hon. And learned Gentleman aware that it is estimated that the damage from airguns alone is costing the country between £3 million and £4 million a year?

The hon. Gentleman knows well that there are laws controlling the use of weapons of all sorts. Indeed, the number of laws is legion. The question is whether to produce new laws and thereby involve the police in the expenditure of more time on the enforcement of those new laws would be the best use of police resources.

Is my hon. and learned Friend about to prepare an analysis of the results of the last Home Office campaign? Will he put the results in the Library? Will he turn his mind to the question of whether enough money was spent on the campaign, which was run on a limited budget?

I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to give a full answer to that quesion now. I have said already that the next step must be to look at the statistics on offences involving firearms since the time of the campaign. We can then decide where we shall go next.

In view of the overwhelming evidence that the abuses and damage caused by these guns take place among young people, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the time has come, despite the publicity campaign, to change the law to restrict the access of young people to those guns and to make it clear to the country that the guns are not overgrown toys but dangerous weapons?

The hon. Gentleman is right to make that last point. One must not lose sight of the fact that there are already considerable restrictions on the purchase and hire of such weapons—for instance, they cannot be purchased or hired by people between the ages of 14 and 17. I must repeat the point that I originally made and emphasise that, happily, in 1981 and 1982 there was a fall in the number of crimes involving the use of air weapons.

The Minister must be aware that it is considerably easier to purchase shotguns than other kinds of firearms. The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to imposing more difficulties on the police. Is he aware that, for example, the Lambeth police community liaison committee has made representations to him about the issue of shotguns? Will he respond to those representations?

When one is considering imposing more controls on shotguns, one must remember that a determined criminal will try to evade any level of control. That is clear from the fact that hand guns are used frequently in the commission of crime, although there are very stringent controls on their possession and use.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to reduce prison overcrowding; and if he will make a statement.

I have accelerated the major building programme initiated by my predecessor. By 1991 this will provide 6,600 places in new prisons and a further 4,000 as a result of redevelopment in existing prisons. I have reduced the minimum qualifying period for parole from 12 months to six months and I am pressing ahead with measures designed to reduce the number of drunkenness offenders, other fine defaulters and mentally disordered offenders in prison.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for reaffirming his long-term strategy. Does he agree that some prisons, such as Northeye in my constituency, which was designed to hold 250 category C prisoners and now takes 400 prisoners of all types, are not only overcrowded but seriously understaffed? Is he aware that the governor of Northeye, the board of visitors and the Prison Officers' Association are anxious to have adequate staffing ratios in the interests of local communities as well as prison employees?

There is no doubt that a number of prisons experience the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. The only way to deal with those difficulties is to embark upon the building and refurbishing programme that I have described and to provide the necessary staff, which, as the House has already heard this afternoon, is being done.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the rehabilitation of offenders is impossible in the grossly overcrowded and disgusting conditions that obtain in all our male prisons today and have obtained for some decades? What are the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals for alternative methods of treatment, without waiting for new prisons to be built?

New prisons are being built. The Government have addressed themselves to the problem mentioned by the hon. Lady, rather than merely paying lip-service to it. I have repeatedly stressed every time that I have an opportunity to do so the importance of alternatives to custody. In addition, recently I issued the Green Paper on intermittent custody, more popularly known as weekend or day imprisonment. I am glad that, although it has met some criticism, the Magistrates' Association, for example, has followed the distinguished lead of the all-party penal affairs group in welcoming proposals of this kind.

Will the control review committee's report on difficult prisoners make any difference to my right hon. and learned Friend's decision?

Yes, I regard the report of that committee as an extremely important document. I am glad to have had the opportunity to welcome it and to set some of its proposals in action. By enabling better control of the small number of difficult and disruptive prisoners in the prison system, the life of prisoners and staff will be greatly ameliorated.

Does the Home Secretary accept that, if some of the recommendations of the Hodgson committee were accepted, they would significantly reduce the prison population by allowing the courts to confiscate the proceeds of crime and thereby impose shorter sentences across the board?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, during the course of this Parliament I intend to introduce legislation to deal with the confiscation of the proceeds of crime The Hodgson committee report will be studied carefully to decide the form that such legislation should take.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a more effective and supportive after-care system would result in fewer prisoners going to prison? Has he any plans to improve or change the after-care system?

The financial and staffing support that the Government are giving to the probation service is an earnest of our interest in what my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Does the Home Secretary agree that, despite his various proposals for prison building and changes in parole, he still expects the prison population to increase substantially over the next few years? What does he think the prison population will be in 1990?

Forty-seven thousand.

Will the Home Secretary tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that, unless he relents on rate-capping, local authorities will have no resources and many of the alternatives to custody projects will be thwarted by lack of resources in the community?

The Government's proposals that affect local government are designed to accommodate the Government's proposals as they affect the affairs of the Home Office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to visit the Channels Islands.

I am planning to visit the Channel islands in the early autumn.

Hear, hear.

I wish the Home Secretary well on his visit. However, is he aware that, when he arrives, he will find that he has stirred up a hornets' nest by, quite rightly, asking the Channel Islands to contribute to the foreign affairs and defence costs of the United Kingdom? While I welcome that, as I am sure many hon. Members would welcome it, in view of the anxiety expressed in the House at the way in which those islands encourage tax dodging, and as we are defending Guernsey in the European Court of Human Rights on a strange decision that it made, would it not be better for the Home Secretary to institute an investigation into the constitutional relationship between those islands and the United Kingdom?

I see no need for any such investigation. The request that I made for the islands to consider contributing to the United Kingdom costs, not just in respect of defence but in respect of international representation on their behalf, has nothing to do with the other matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If what I have done is the work of a hornet, my imagination does not allow me to describe the insect that would be an appropriate description of the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept from me that he will receive a nice welcome in the Channel Islands? Will he take no notice of the views of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about taxation? The islands are an independent nation in respect of their own taxes. They are allowed to run their own tax system and they should be allowed to continue doing so.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reassurance. I assure the House that I much look forward to my visit and am heartened by the round of cheers that the announcement evoked.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the changes in the level of drug addiction in Hampshire over recent years, and, in particular, whether there has been an increase in the use of heroin.

As in many other parts of the country, it appears that there has been an increase in the level of drug addiction in Hampshire and that heroin is now more readily available than hitherto.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation is much worse than appears from the official figures that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) yesterday? Is he prepared to initiate joint action by Government Departments and local authorities on a matter which falls between various spheres of authority and clearly needs to be master-minded by someone?

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. We acknowledge that the figures for registered addicts underestimate the number of people addicted to opiates to the extent that they should probably be multiplied by five to give an accurate idea of the situation. In exactly the spirit of my hon. Friend's question, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is setting up an inter-departmental working group of Ministers, to be chaired by me. We intend to develop Government policy especially on the crucial aspect of co-ordinating the various agencies which must work together if the problem is ever to be defeated.

Is there not an element of complacency in the Minister's remarks, in view of the enormous increase in addiction to hard drugs in the past 10 to 15 years? Do the Government intend to wait until we reach the situation that obtains in some parts of the United States before action is taken to hammer the problem so that the youth of this country can be protected?

I do not believe that there is any complacency. If there were, I should greatly regret it, because the last thing that we feel about this problem is complacent. Since the Government took office we have taken a range of initiatives which have led to a dramatic increase in the seizure of heroin. The Misuse of Drugs Act has been amended to control barbiturates, under the schedule. The aim of the working group is to develop our policies. We are in no sense complacent about what we have achieved so far. We wish to build on those achievements, recognising that we are dealing with a serious and deteriorating situation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should provide more resources for rehabilitation and consider much harsher sentences for drug trafficking? Will he also investigate accessibility to drugs, including the misuse and abuse of doctors' prescriptions, with a view to tightening controls on the lines of the apparently good control of ammunition and firearms certificates?

We are taking action on all those matters. There are powers to send drug offenders to prison for a very long time and we propose to take action to allow the courts to deprive traffickers of the proceeds of their crime. On the prohibition of drugs, as I said earlier, barbiturates are now controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act and we shall continue to take action along similar lines if drugs now freely available become subject to abuse. Firm action will be taken against doctors issuing prescriptions negligently or for ill motives, including prohibiting them from practising while disciplinary proceedings are taking place, if that seems appropriate. I am sure that all those measures will be welcomed by both sides of the House.

What faith can we have in he Government's determination to reduce the flow of heroin into Hampshire and other parts of the country when they have reduced the number of uniformed customs staff by 900 and when the Home Secretary makes a well-publicised announcement in December that he will be sending one full-time customs officer to Pakistan but does not send him there until 13 April and brings him back on 15 May?

As ever, the hon. Gentleman trivialises the situation. Since the Government took office the number of specialist customs investigators dealing with heroin has doubled. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet, I will give him the answer that he needs. As a consequence, 38 kg of heroin was seized in 1980, 212 kg in 1983 and 193 kg so far this year, including 100 kg in May and June alone. That is a measure of our success, although it also reflects the increase in the amount of heroin coming into the country. That is why we propose further measures. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that simply increasing the number of customs officers in the green channel will help when 40 million people pass through London's airports every year, that is certainly wishful thinking.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report from the management consultants who have been investigating the cost benefits of the proposed independent prosecution service.

The consultants' report is expected early next year. I should make it clear that they are investigating, not the cost benefits of the independent prosecution service, but what structure and working practices it will be most efficient and cost-effective io adopt.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of county prosecuting solicitors feel that they can offer a full and cost-effective service within their existing local responsibilities? Will he therefore do his best to ensure that, under the new national system that he has announced, as great a degree as possible of local control and autonomy will be retained?

I take my hon. Friend's point. Our intention is not merely to retain the local autonomy which already exists, but to enhance it. We want more decisions to be taken locally.

In considering the future of the independent prosecuting service in England and Wales, will my hon. Friend take as an example the independent prosecuting system in Scotland that system has existed for many years and commands widespread public support and confidence, not least because it removes the invidious situation in which the police have to lead in prosecutions?

As ever, my hon. Friend pats his country of origin on the back. On this occasion, I cannot deny the truth of what he says.

The establishment of the independent prosecution service is to be welcomed, but how much will it cost? If it is to be done properly, huge sums of money will be involved. How do the Government reconcile that fact with their present policy of cutting public expenditure in every sphere?

We are introducing the new system because we accepted the Royal Commission's view that an independent prosecution service is a crucial safeguard of the integrity of the criminal justice system. We brought in the management consultants to ensure that there is no waste. We believe that liberating police officers currently engaged in full-time prosecutions will be beneficial, and we do not believe that the additional cost of the service will in any sense be burdensome.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received about charges for television licences in private sheltered housing.

We have received rather more than 100 representations from hon. Members, and about 40 from members of the public, about concessionary television licences for retired people in privately managed sheltered housing schemes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an inconsistency, and indeed an injustice, here? In the case of private sheltered housing for the elderly a licence fee is charged for every television set, but a concession has recently been granted to private hotels with up to 15 sets to allow them to pay only one licence fee. Will my right hon. Friend now consider granting the same concession to private sheltered housing for the elderly?

Under the new arrangements that we propose, hotels which are now in practice paying for only one set will, above the threshold of 15, pay for one set in five. I hope that—in Bournemouth as elsewhere—that arrangement will be seen to be fairer. We are, at the same time, extending the concession to disabled people in sheltered accommodation and to certain types of housing association housing not now covered.

Why does not the Minister grasp the nettle and abolish television licensing altogether for old-age pensioners, with a view to phasing out licences for everybody?

If we introduced the scheme which the hon. Gentleman suggested in his first breath, the colour television fee for other licence holders would rise to £70 for that reason alone.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the introduction of advertising would ensure that the BBC would not have to raise the licence fee and that the cost of living of virtually every family in the country would be reduced by £1 a week?

That is a wider question, which no doubt we will have other opportunities to discuss.

We certainly do not want advertising on BBC television or radio. Why can the Government give tax concessions to the richest people in the community—as they have done in four of five Budgets—and yet deny to many people, including the elderly who live on their own, the natural justice of not having to pay the full television licence fee?

A free licence for all pensioners, such as the hon. Gentleman has consistently argued for, would reduce licence revenue by about £250 million a year—one third of the total. His argument would be more complete if he told us how that money was to be found.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have suffered serious injury while on duty in connection with the miners' strike since he last answered oral questions.

Of 100 police officers injured between 20 June and 17 July, four of the injuries are recorded as being serious.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in paying tribute to the courage and commitment of police officers who are serving on special duties in connection with the miners' strike? Does he share the growing sense of public outrage that police officers, whose real work should be the prevention and detection of crime, are being put in the front line and receiving violence from politically motivated pickets who are in the pay of Mr. Arthur Scargill?

I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm my highest regard for the work that the police are doing in this respect. I also welcome the opportunity to repeat that we do not want this to go on for one moment longer than is necessary and that we deeply regret that persistent and organised violence by those who are running the strike has necessitated such a police presence and response.

Although I regret any injury to police officers and hope that no further injuries will be experienced, does the Home Secretary agree that other people who are involved in the miners' strike have suffered injury or have had unsatisfactory experiences in circumstances that arouse deep concern? In view of that and the need to ensure that relations between the police and the public in the coalfields are satisfactory once again in the future, does he agree that there should be an independent and impartial inquiry into law and order in the dispute?

I do not accept that. I should accept without hesitation that, if the number of pickets of each place of work were reduced to the six that the National Union of Mineworkers recommended, policemen would not have been injured and nor would anyone else.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, of the four pits in the Bolsover constituency, three are now working, thanks to excellent policing? Is he able to assure miners at the fourth—the Whitwell colliery—that they will benefit similarly if they wish to return to work?

The job of the police is to ensure that anyone who wants to work is able to do so and is not prevented from working by bullying or violence. They will continue to do that job everywhere.

Will the Home Secretary be a little more specific? How many police officers were injured at the Orgreave coking plant in my constituency on 18 June? How many miners were injured when they were brutally attacked by some of those police officers?

I do not have information about miners' injuries, as they are under no obligation to report them to me or anyone else. As to the hon. Gentleman's implied allegation about police conduct, he is entitled to make a complaint under section 49 of the Police Act 1976. No doubt he will do so, in which event it will be considered properly.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the disturbing facts is that although a great many people have been charged with offences arising out of the miners' dispute, including offences involving violence, very few cases have been decided by the courts? Does he agree that justice must be seen to be done, and that it must be seen to be done as soon as possible and not several months after the event?

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it is desirable that cases be brought to court as soon as possible. Delays in bringing people who are charged with criminal offences to trial are always a matter of concern. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are ready to consider what assistance or advice might be given to any court that finds it has an exceptionally heavy load of cases. I know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is prepared to meet requests from the courts for the assistance of stipendiary magistrates.

the Opposition greatly regret and sympathise with the police who have been injured on the picket line, just as we sympathise with all others who have been injured there, including relatives of the two miners who have died on the picket line. In view of the many allegations about police action on the picket line that are coming forward, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, first, that a public inquiry into what is taking place on the picket lines and into police activity is now essential? Secondly, is he aware that the best way of bringing these incidents to an end is for the strike, which has been deliberately provoked by the Government, to be settled by the Prime Minister?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that complaints made against the police have not yet been determined, I cannot see how he can possibly say that there is a case for a public inquiry without knowing the results of the ordinary constabulary procedure.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.

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

Is it not a fact that the Tory Government, having prepared for and provoked the miners' strike in the hope of starving the miners back to work and demoralising other sections of workers, have utterly failed in that intention due to the determination of the miners and their families, and to the support of other working people? Is not the Prime Minister, in her provocative action, heading rapidly towards a general strike, but one different from the general strike that was provoked by her predecessor Mr. Stanley Baldwin in 1926, in that the Labour movement is a hundred times stronger today? Therefore, is not the Prime Minister heading, not for an industrial Falklands but, like a Napoleon, for a political Waterloo?

No, this strike is not of the Government's making. No Government have done more for the mining industry. No Government have ever had such good plans for the future of coal than this one, whether in terms of pay, investment or compensation for voluntary redundancies. That is well known in the industry. With regard to the breakdown of the talks, at the end of last night's talks the only point at issue was the entirely unreasonable demand by the NUM that pits should stay open, regardless of whether they are beneficial to the industry. The NUM leaders must know as well as anybody that no industry can operate on such a basis. No Government could ever accept such a blank cheque upon the taxpayer.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to consider today, against the background of the dock dispute, the vital necessity to maintain a healthy horticulture industry, particularly in perishable fresh food production in this country?

I can understand my hon. Friend's concern for those who are trying to get perishable produce from one side of the Channel to the other, who have been the first to suffer as a result of the dispute. It is ironic that those driving such produce on to the ships across the Channel are members of the same union as the one that called the strike.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.

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

As it has become known that the Prime Minister will tell her Back Benchers tonight that there will be no change in the style and direction of her Government—[Interruption.]—will she tell the House what changes there will be in the overwhelming mandate that she claims for her local government policies when the Tory candidates fight the four GLC by-elections on 20 September?

I really thought that we had done rather well in our style, in winning two general elections and two Euro-elections. With regard to artificial stunts over GLC by-elections, we shall have nothing to do with such gimmicks at the ratepayers' expense.

Is my right hon. Friend surprised that the Opposition have shown no enthusiasm for Mr. Justice Megarry's decision yesterday in favour of the Nottinghamshire miners, in comparison to their mega-enthusiasm on Monday for Mr. Justice Glidewell's decision?

As I said very firmly on Tuesday, everyone must be subject to the rule of law, otherwise the rule of law is at an end. I hope that everyone will accept that, as I most certainly shall.

The Prime Minister will recall that on Tuesday she asked an hon. Member to withdraw. Will she use some of her valuable time today to reflect on an answer that she gave to the effect that a decision of Mr. Sam Silkin, a former Attorney-General—no longer in the House—was invalid, when she quoted the words of the Master of the Rolls? Was not that particular decision of the Court of Appeal reversed by the House of Lords and the propriety of Mr. Silkin upheld, particularly by Lord Dilhorne, a former Attorney-General? In the words of Lord Edmund-Davies, any observation by the Court of Appeal questioning the conduct of Mr. Silkin was to be deplored. In those circumstances, will the right hon. Lady unreservedly withdraw any suggestion of impropriety by Mr. Silkin and any suggestion of invalidity over his action?

Most certainly I shall withdraw. I note that Mr. Sam Silkin was wise enough to use the facilities of the law, and to the highest authority.

In her busy day, has my right hon. Friend received a delegation from Opposition Members, a telephone call, a letter or a kissogram, congratulating her Government on the provision of an extra 250,000 new jobs as a result of her policies?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to figures given yesterday illustrating that there were about 260,000 new jobs last year and, I believe, also some 330,000 new jobs in the service sector. It is indeed good news, but the reason why unemployment is not falling faster is that the number of people of working age is rising faster than the number of new jobs.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 July.

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that she still has no positive policies to deal with the real problem facing this country and that as a result of the Government's policy, the miners are out, the dockers are out, 3 million people are out of work and the Government were caught out over GCHQ? Unless the right hon. Lady has some real policies to offer, does she not think that the best answer would be "Maggie Out"? Would that not be welcomed throughout the country?

No, Sir. The miners are not out because of Government policies. They have a very good pay offer, excellent investment and compensation that are better than that offered under any previous Government. The miners have been called out—I believe that some of them do not know why, and I believe that many of them would thoroughly like to go back. It is strikes that destroy jobs. Opposition Members support strikes, so it is they who are destroying jobs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the worst developments in war occurs when each side digs in and trench warfare results? Does she not think that the time comes when the matter has to be taken out of the hands of the generals by the statesmen? Does not she feel that that is the time when a peace treaty can be drawn up which offers justice for the present and hope and prosperity for the future? Does she not feel that the present conflict in the coalfields——

Briefly.

No, Mr. Speaker. There have been seven days of talks, which included some 35 hours of discussion. The talks are stuck on one issue. That is the question whether the pits should stay open regardless of whether they are beneficial to the industry. One simply cannot have all pits staying open regardless of whether they are beneficial. It is not fair to Britain. It is not fair to the people who purchase coal. It is not fair to those who rely on reasonable energy costs. In the end the strike will have to be solved by management and work force. I do not think that any person intervening will help that process.

Will the Prime Minister recognise that she is totally misrepresenting the position of the talks, the NUM, and the response of the NCB when she makes the claim that no will accept pit closures in any circumstances? The cost of the strike is now nearly £2,000 million. When will she intervene to help a settlement instead of interfering to hinder a settlement?

I understand that it is agreed that pits should close if they are exhausted, that they should close because of geological faults, and that they should close for a third reason. It is over that third reason that the talks have broken down. The NCB has said that pits should not be mined unless they are workable and can be mined beneficially. That is not very different from the tripartite report on "Plan for Coal" which was signed by Eric Varley, the noble Lord Gormley and the noble Lord Ezra, which said:

"Inevitably some pits will have to close as their useful economic reserves of coal are depleted."

Answer the question.

Does the right hon. Lady not understand that all the arithmetic offered back in March and the arithmetic on which she is now working is redundant? Is she aware that the chairman of the NCB understands, as he said yesterday, that there are changed circumstances, and that as late as 11 o'clock last night the NUM asked that the talks be adjourned and resumed this morning, but that was refused? There are people working for a settlement. Why will she not use her power to create conditions in which a settlement is possible?

Because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the talks have broken on one point—the closure of uneconomic pits. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman now wants further talks, if further talks would resolve that one point. But does the right hon. Gentleman accept the tripartite report on "Plan for Coal" which said:

"Inevitably some pits will have to close as their useful economic reserves of coal are depleted"?

I understand the need for talks. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has been working for seven weeks to get talks going, against the will of the Prime Minister and in spite of the Government. We understand the need for talks and the need for a settlement. I am going to ask the Prime Minister again not to dodge the question and evade her responsibility—[Interruption.]—but to ensure that she provides the conditions which she has refused to do, in which a settlement on "Plan for Coal", for which we have been asking for 20 weeks, can actually be resolved. Will she understand? Will she work? Will she talk? Will she negotiate? Will she do anything but carry on the destruction that is still her only stock in trade.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman only too well. That is his trouble. Will he say whether he accepts—[Interruption.]

Order. The House heard the question from the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister is seeking to reply to it.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to "Plan for Coal". I have it here. Will he refer to the tripartite report on "Plan for Coal" signed by Mr. Varley, Lord Gormley and Lord Ezra, which said:

"Inevitably, some pits will have to close as their useful economic reserves of coal are depleted"?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe this to be Prime Minister's Question Time. Now that she sees where real influence lies and where responsibility is accepted, she is turning this into—[Interruption.]

Order. I must hear the point of order. I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Can you rule, Mr. Speaker, that this is Prime Minister's Question Time and that the Prime Minister is not entitled to turn it into an evasive Question Time in which she tries to question the Leader of the Opposition?

Order. The Prime Minister answers questions. [HON. MEMBERS: " She does not."] Order. The Prime Minister answers questions that have been put to her. That is the plain fact of the matter.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question Time is not only about asking questions. It is also about hearing the answers to them. May I ask that at Prime Minister's Question Time, you preserve the right of the House to hear the Prime Minister's replies?

It is getting towards the end of July, but I seek to do that.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not only a question of hearing the answers. We should also like to hear the questions.

I do not think that we need persist with this. I am well aware that Prime Minister's Question Time is rowdier these days than it has been in the past. It is difficult for the Chair to control that. I must leave it to the good sense of the whole House to conduct our proceedings with decorum.

On a point of order, Mr, Speaker. You will recall that on Tuesday the Prime Minister referred to the Cheltenham affair and said:

"As the Government will be lodging an appeal later today it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment "—[Official Report, 17 July 1984; Vol. 64, c 171.]

I must stop the hon. Member. What goes on on television is not a matter for me.

If it is contempt of the House, it is.

What goes on on television is not a matter for me. The hon. Member knows that I am responsible for what goes on in this House, not for what goes on outside it.

I appreciate that, but I think that it is important for you, Mr. Speaker, to hear what the right hon. Member said.

Order. It is not a matter for me and I am not interested in it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have already expressed your anxiety about Prime Minister's questions. Will you do something about the trend that Prime Minister's questions are taking, through your powers as Mr. Speaker? Nowadays the Prime Minister tries to show the House that she has the ability to read, and today we had an example of that. The right hon. Lady was guilty of gilding the lily in her description of the "Plan for Coal". Therefore, will you have words with the powers that be about the Prime Minister's attitude at Question Time?

I cannot be held responsible for anybody's attitudes. I notice that there are no fewer than 104 questions to the Prime Minister, all of which are open questions. The matter is in the hands of the House. If the House wishes to put down definitive questions to the Prime Minister, hon. Members may do so. I have no control over the fact that all of today's questions are open questions.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister now seems to be asking the questions, I wonder whether it would solve the problem if she and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition changed places?

rose——

If the hon. Member seeks to raise a matter of privilege, he should write to me in the usual way.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate your guidance about matters that would clearly be a breach of privilege if said by an hon. Member in the House, but which, according to your recently expressed view, are not a breach of privilege if said outside the House. We seek your guidance as to what the rules of sub judice are when a distinguished and senior parliamentarian, anticipating a decision, said — [Interruption.]

Order. We have a busy day before us and, as I said earlier, if the hon. Member seeks to raise this as a matter of privilege, he should do so in the normal way and write to me.

Further to your ruling about the open question, Mr. Speaker, would it be more convenient if you took powers to call first those questions to the Prime Minister that were more specific?

That would have been impossible today.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we had the open question system every other question was transferred to the Department involved. Is it possible to table questions that are not open questions?

That has always been possible, and a few years ago that was frequently done. It would be much more profitable for the House if definitive questions were put down to the Prime Minister.

Yesterday I raised a point of order about the failure of the Scottish Office to advise hon. Members when questions were being linked. It would be wrong of me not to place on record today my appreciation of the profound apology that I received from the Scottish Office this morning.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just ruled that the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) can say things outside the House that he cannot say inside the House——

Order. I repeat that, if any hon. Member alleges a breach of privilege, he should write to me in the usual way.