asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the television licence fee; and if he will make a statement.

Some 200 hon. Members and 900 members of the public have written during the current Session about the level of licence fees. In reaching my decision on the BBC's licence fee application I shall also take account of the review by independent consultants which the BBC has commissioned at my request.

If the Government cannot see their way to abolish the licence fee completely and to fund the BBC from the Treasury, will the Home Secretary at least recognise that thousands of pensioners, who are dependent upon television as a source of information and entertainment, simply cannot afford the £65 fee being demanded by the BBC? Will the Government therefore consider the introduction of a concessionary rate or, better still, a completely free television licence for old age pensioners?

The cost to the Exchequer of a free television licence for pensioners would be £250 million a year. I do not think that I can anticipate doing that. The cost of financing the BBC generally from the Exchequer would be over £700 million, and I do not fancy increasing taxation by that amount.

Many Conservative Members believe that the BBC should continue to be funded by means of a licence fee rather than by advertising or any other method. However, we are concerned about some aspects of the areas now covered by the BBC. What consideration has been given to the possibility of holding a general inquiry into the role of the BBC in national and local television and radio, while accepting the need for an increase in the licence fee?

I am sure that the debate about the financing of the BBC will continue, but I reaffirm that, as the Prime Minister has made clear, changes in the method of financing will not arise during consideration of the current licence fee.

What would be the cost of giving free television licences to pensioner households? Does the Home Secretary agree that, unless there is a substantial reduction in the cost of television licences, especially to elderly people, many will be forced to stop watching television or, like one of my constituents, face a prison sentence for non-payment of the licence fee?

It would cost £160 million to provide free television for households comprising only pensioners. I understand the difficulties facing many pensioners. That is why I should like, once again, to draw attention to licence savings stamps, which are a convenient way by which to pay. There is also a scheme which enables people to pay monthly cash instalments at post offices towards their next licence. That scheme has been introduced recently.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most people are more anxious about the quality of the service provided by the BBC than about the price, although that is an important consideration? Does he agree that that policy might seriously be undermined if advertising were to be introduced?

No.

I suspect that people are anxious about quality and cost. As to the impact of advertising on quality, it appears from the response to my hon. Friend's question that opinions differ.

Cannot the Home Secretary for once show a little care and compassion for the more vulnerable and poor members of society? As the television licence fee represents such a high proportion of pensioners' income, and as so many pensioners are housebound, disabled or sick, can the Home Secretary not dredge up a particle of compassion from his cold soul and introduce free television licences for them?

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that those who have the greatest compassion do not necessarily wear it on their sleeve.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take regarding crime prevention as result of the recent survey of crime patterns in Merseyside.

The report of the survey is being studied by the chief constable and other agencies in Merseyside. The Home Office crime prevention unit is available to assist them with any initiatives they may take.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the survey clearly shows that the poor people of Merseyside suffer most from crime and that police services in poorer areas are inferior to those in better-off areas? Will he tell his colleagues in the Department of the Environment that the proposed cuts in grants and the suggestion that there should be 700 fewer police officers on Merseyside is nonsense? Does he agree that we need more foot patrols so that people in working-class areas can have a much better service than they are getting at the moment?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. He will be the first to understand that there is no barrier between classes in regard to crime.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of my constituents would be extremely worried if there were any likelihood of the number of Merseyside police being reduced? There are major problems in the city of Liverpool, but my constituents, who live on the outskirts, think that there are insufficient foot patrols in their area and they are worried about the possibility of any cut in the police force.

My hon. Friend is right to express anxiety about any threat to the numbers of police, but there is no such threat. The strength of the Merseyside police force, at 4,607, remains at a high levels and the establishment has been increased by 156 since 1979.

Is the Minister aware that the Merseyside crime survey shows that there are three times more burglaries on Merseyside than anywhere else in the country and that it is very much a burglars' paradise? Will he consider having more neighbourhood police stations, more policemen on the beat, more alarms for elderly people and more effective neighbourhood watch schemes?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that neighbourhood watch and crime prevention is a matter of great concern to the Home Office and to the chief constable of Merseyside. The MCS, compared with the national pattern, not the pattern for equivalent metropolitan districts, showed that the figure was about one and a half times as great, not three times, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

If the Government go ahead with their plans to abolish the metropolitan county councils, surveys of this type will no longer be possible and, therefore, there will be no such recommendations on which to act. Is not the truth of the matter that the Government have abandoned all financial support for crime prevention schemes almost everywhere in the country?

The hon. Gentleman's statement in the last part of his supplementary question is outrageously wrong. The Government play a great part in trying to create conditions in which crime prevention surveys can be undertaken. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office helped to fund the Merseyside crime study. Under the new procedures, policing arrangements will be similar to those which are currently undertaken.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will encourage local authorities to allow their civil defence volunteers to organise themselves into self-regulating bodies, appointing their own officers and responsible for their own training under proper supervision.

I do not think that such encouragement would be appropriate at present, but the optimum form of local organisation will be kept under review, and changes may be made in the light of the experience and views of local authorities and the advice of the co-ordinator of volunteer effort.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is urgently necessary to provide more help and guidance for training civil service volunteers, with better advice on organisation and administration? Does he further agree that we should encourage our civil service volunteers in the worthwhile public service that they undertake?

I suspect that my hon. Friend is referring to civil defence volunteers, though improved training for civil servants may be an appropriate topic for conversation.

Has the Department taken note of the way in which civil defence is organised in other countries? In a nuclear exchange, presumably the United States and the Soviet Union would be seriously at risk from each other. Has the Department made any examination of how civil defence is organised in those countries?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my department is well aware of the manifold differences in civil defence preparation in many countries; but in particular we look to western Europe for comparability, and we see a great deal of it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to make a further statement on the Auld report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet able to make a statement about the Auld report.

My right hon. and learned Friend proposes to make a statement in the near future setting out the Government's position.

In the meantime, has my hon. Friend seen the results of the survey commissioned by the National Consumer Council, which show that a substantial majority of our fellow citizens, particularly the younger generation, are in favour of a reform of the Shops Act? May we have an assurance that the Government intend to sweep away the anomalies and absurdities which at present surround our Sunday trading laws?

I cannot at this stage give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks, as these matters are now under very active consideration. Concern about the anomalies in the law led to the appointment of the Auld committee, the report of which we are digesting with care.

In view of the considerable job creation potential of the relaxation in the Sunday trading laws and the fact that the majority of the population consider that the current law brings the law in general into disrepute, is my hon. Friend prepared to give the House a further assurance that he will put considerable "umph" behind the legislative programme and give priority to it at a very early stage?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has once again called for "umph". I have commended him before on that phrase. The Government's intentions will be announced very soon. My hon. Friend will not have long to wait for some "umph".

Does the Minister recognise that many in the country would prefer the Government and Parliament to pay attention to the principles of the "Auld Book" rather than the Auld report?

That is too well turned a question for me to make an adequate response to it.

Will the Minister give an assurance that in any proposals that are made the Government will not only try to meet the requirements of consumers but will take adequate steps to protect those employees who will have to work on Sundays if there is to be a major extension in that direction?

Yes. The position of the staff is a matter of considerable interest to the Government. The hon. Gentleman will know that a senior official of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers was an assessor for the Auld committee. We shall have regard to the views of workers' representatives before we make our final decision.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the law is so asinine that it invites contempt? Does he further agree that a law that is so irrational and silly that it tempts people to break it is dangerous and ought to be removed as soon as possible by sensible reform?

I certainly find it hard to disagree with that description of the law, since I used very similar words in the debate on the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) in February 1983. Certainly the law has not become any better in those two years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the Commission for Racial Equality report on immigration procedures.

I understand that the Commission for Racial Equality is arranging for publication of the report on 12 February.

When the Minister receives the report, will he look carefully at that part of it which deals with the treatment of immigrants at airports and other points of entry? Can he assure the House that in our civilised country all visitors and immigrants will at all times be treated with civility and courtesy by the authorities?

I remind the House that the report has not yet been published, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman, from what I know of the report, that it does not contain criticisms of the conduct of individual immigration officers. What is suggested is that there is something wrong with the system as a whole because there is more pressure to emigrate from one country than from another. I should have thought that that was patently obvious. Plainly, people are more likely to want to get into this country from poverty-striken countries than, for instance, from New Zealand. As a result, it is obvious to everybody that it is more likely that people from Ghana will be refused admission than will people from New Zealand.

Does the Minister accept that a fundamental principle in the report is that there should be no discrimination on grounds of sex and that those who wish to come to this country to join female fiancées ought to be treated in the same manner as those who wish to join male fiancés?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that matter is at present before the European Court and that we shall have to wait and see what the court says. I believe it is well known that if we allow young men to come here as husbands and fiancés who would have been unable to come here under the work permit system, we are really allowing primary immigration, which we are continually telling people we have stopped.

Does the Minister agree that one of the things that is wrong with the immigration system is that its massive delays deprive people of rights to which in theory and in law they are entitled? Will the Minister apply his mind to this gross inefficiency in his Department?

Obviously we are concerned to ensure that the system of entry clearance operates as efficiently as possible, but the hon. Lady is being very unfair if she is suggesting that in the last few years the position has worsened. In fact, the position has improved. In 1979 the waiting time for entry clearance in Pakistan was 22 months; in 1983 it had dropped to nine and a quarter months. In 1979 the waiting time for entry clearance in Bombay was seven months; in 1983 it had dropped to six months. In 1979 the waiting time in Delhi was 10 months; in 1983 it was seven and a half months. In 1979 the waiting time in Bangladesh was 24 months; in 1983 it had fallen to 20 months.

The Minister will be aware that Parliament has recently decided to make racism by police officers a disciplinary offence. Will he make the same provision for racism by immigration officers?

That is a nonsensical and thoroughly irresponsible question, because the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the first rule in the immigration rules enjoins immigration officers to carry out their duties without regard to race.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from the chief constables concerned as to what measures the police are taking to deal with intimidation during the miners' dispute.

I have received a number of such reports. Significant police resources have been deployed to deal with the problem of intimidation, and substantial numbers of prosecutions have been brought.

I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to establish the facts of the matter. Is it not an outrage and a disgrace that the European Assembly should have announced its own inquiry into the policing of the dispute, which is aiding and abetting those Opposition Members who have been carrying out their back-stabbing campaign against the police? Will he give an undertaking to the House that he will refuse to co-operate with that inquiry?

The policing of the dispute is outside the competence of the European Assembly, and the Government will make no facilities available for the inquiry.

Is the Home Secretay aware that intimidation should always be condemned, even by the European Assembly, but that to suggest that the police are always right and that miners are always wrong is crucially misleading and is an oversimplification of what is happening in coal areas today?

It would be, but it is not a suggestion that the questioner or anyone else has made.

Has not the burden on our police forces been made much more irksome by the conduct of Her Majesty's Opposition?

They have not helped.

When the Home Secretary asks the chief constables for reports, will he also report on the intimidation of members of the NUM by some police officers? I say that because 75 per cent. of the cases in my local magistrates' court that have been brought against pickets from my area are now being dropped because there were no grounds for them going there in the first place.

That does not prove what the hon. Gentleman has said. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of cases of the kind that he describes, I am sure he will want to pursue them through the complaints procedure, which has been substantially strengthened by the Government under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate the chief constables on making it possible for so many courageous miners to go back to work, realising that there are jobs for them? Will he also ensure that there is no intimidation by the European Assembly in denying the rights of those working miners to go to work?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he last sought. I agree with him that in the past 11 months there has been a major threat to one of the most fundamental civil liberties that we enjoy—the right to go to our workplace. The fact that that threat has not been successful is due in large measure to the courage and success of the police force.

Is the Home Secretary aware that I wrote to him on 10 December 1984 asking him to give me an assurance that all those mineworkers who have been arrested and since acquitted should have their photographs and fingerprints erased from the record? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's private secretary sent me an interim reply on 28 December informing me that he was contacting the chief constable of Nottinghamshire and asking for a report. Since then, silence. The Home Secretary is supposed to be in charge. Is he not big enough and has he not the responsibility to assure all those chaps who I described who have been acquitted of all charges that their photographs and fingerprints will be expunged from the record?

I shall look into the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, and respond to him as quickly as possible.

When my right hon. and Learned Friend asks chief constables for a report, will he also ask for a report on a case in Cleveland where an ex-miner, who had been on strike, was to be brought before the Crown court but the judge refused to hear the case on the ground that he would not be able to put together a jury which would not be influenced or intimidated?

I regard that report as a matter of considerable concern.

Is not the worst intimidation that has taken place during the strike the intimidation of the crime victim and the taxpayer? Is it not a fact that policing the coal strike has cost £200 million and has in addition resulted in a huge increase in crime, as frankly stated by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister's policy of provocation and confrontation has produced an exacerbation of the worst crime wave on record, and cost taxpayers and ratepayers far more than the Prime Minister ever hoped to save through the butchery of the coal industry?

I do not think that anyone will be impressed by that sort of rhetoric. As the right hon. Gentleman talks about provocation, he should address himself to those who have assembled in hugh numbers to frighten their fellow workmen and prevent them from going to work. If he is genuinely concerned about the cost of the dispute and its impact on crime generally, he should have been at the forefront of those urging the National Union of Mineworkers not to condone or support in any way violence on picket lines or anywhere. He has been singularly absent from any such activity.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inadequate nature of the reply by the Home Secretary, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were serving sentences of under one month for non-payment of fines in each of the last three years for which he has records.

In 1981 about 12,700 persons were received into prison having been committed for less than one month in default of payment of fines, costs or compensation. About 15,200 such persons were received in 1982, and about 14,600 in 1983.

Does the Minister agree that custodial sentences for fine defaulters should be used only as a very last resort? Will he look at some of the imaginative community service schemes that are being carried out in other countries, such as Australia, to see whether he can learn something from them?

The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, we have acted on that advice. Last year a circular was sent out to magistrates' courts reminding them that the use of imprisonment was a last resourt in fine enforcement, and suggesting other ways to improve the position. We are actively investigating the prospect of the use of community service as an alternative to imprisonment for failure to pay fines, and have issued a document for consultation to interested organisations. We shall make a final decision based on their response.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a period of imprisonment in default of payment is an important sanction, which results in payment in the majority of cases?

Yes, Sir. As my hon. and learned Friend is right to say, we are talking about a final way of enforcing payment, which works remarkably well. In 1983, 1·5 million fines were imposed on males, and there were only 22,000 admissions to prison. That is a small proportion. However, we still believe that those admissions to prison are too many and that more effective administration could reduce that number further. That would be in the interests of good management of the prisons.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been deported or removed during the last 12 months who are parents of British-born children.

I regret that the information requested is not available.

Does the Minister agree that the media tell us increasingly about parents being separated from their children and sent back to their own countries? May I draw to his attention the case of my constituent, Mr. Kamul Kumar, who has lived in Britain since 1978 and who has been served with a deportation order? He has appealed to the tribunal. He has a three-year-old child, who he will probably never see again if he is deported. Will the Minister have some compassion in such cases?

Many cases are mentioned in the media. Unfortunately, all too often, the reports of those cases are one-sided. I do my best to redress the balance. As to the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, he will know perfectly well that no one is deported from Britain without first being able to take his case to appeal and have his case heard by an adjudicator, and often also by the immigration appeals tribunal, which can have regard to all the compassionate circumstances.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that many of the parents of British-born children were illegal immigrants when those children were born?

My hon. Friend is right. We often deal with cases of children born to poeple who were illegal immigrants before the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force. The parents say, "I dare you to deport me. If you do, I will leave my child here as a charge on the state". There is nothing honourable in that.

Does the Mininster recognise the agonising choice of parents who, if they are returned to their countries, are likely to starve? They must decide whether to leave their children here, where they will at least eat, or to take them home, where they may well die?

The hon. and learned Gentleman poses the dilemma, and that is precisely why we have an appeals system and why our law allows an independent tribunal to consider all the circumstances. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not inviting me to tell the House that, in every case where a person is liable to deportation, he should not be deported because of the existence of a child. That would be nonsense, and it was certainly not the policy of the Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Govenment's current policy on the licensing law.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans for legislation on the licensing law. He is, however, keeping the matter under review, and will consider carefully the result of a survey, commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, into the working of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the experience of Scotland is that the liberalisation of its licensing laws has led to less drunkeness and crime and more employment? Is it not about time that the Government rid England of this resrictive hangover from the first world war, followed Scotland's example, and liberalised the licensing laws?

The Scottish experience is being analysed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We shall be in a better position to know whether my hon. Friend's confident assertions are correct when we have that evidence.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner the licensing laws are changed to take account of many of the proposals of the Errol committee, which are over 12 years old, the better?

I regret that I cannot agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend. There were a number of proposals of the committee which successive Administrations, including, may I say, some of those of which my right hon. and learned Friend was a member, did not feel able to accept. We are in the same position.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a change to improve the licensing laws would revolutionise the tourist industry, substantially improve the brewing industry and do a great deal to reduce crime?

All of that depends on the impact that increased opening hours would have on alcohol abuse, because we also have a serious problem of alcohol abuse. What the Government say — and I believe it to be responsible — is that we should await the evidence before we reach a conclusion. We shall not have the evidence until the research by the Secretary of State for Scotland has been completed and published.

I am sure the Minister appreciates that most sensible people would welcome a reform of the licensing laws on the Scottish model. Does he appreciate also that among the most vociferous opponents of such a reform would be the brewers, who are the paymasters of the Tory party today as they have always been?

Not for the first time, I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. In fact, the Brewers Society is one of the prime proponents of the change. I do not know where that leaves the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not quite as he made it, I suspect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department which authorities will be consulted before he reaches a conclusion about the report on the standardisation of training of civil defence volunteers.

We have formally consulted the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils, the London Boroughs Association, and the Greater London council. Copies of the report have also been made available for information to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives; the County Emergency Planning Officers' Society; and the Association of Civil Defence and Emergency Planning Officers.

Does my hon. Friend not believe that the working party on the standardisation of training for civil defence volunteers should have been given an indication of the number of volunteers who should be trained?

I accept my hon. Friend's point. It is a question of how far local authorities might wish to alter the way in which they perceive the need for training for the volunteer movement. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are about 17,000 members in the volunteer movement and that the distribution of the movement is very different between one area and another.

Why will the Minister not give way to the great demand on the Government Benches to bring back Dad's Army? Is he not aware that Dad's Army was popular and funny and that we would welcome it because it would show what nonsense civil defence is?

I note the hon. Gentleman's robust defence of the position that he would wish to see, which would be that of no preparation whatsoever, so that the maximum number of people, presumably, would be put at risk.

I know how keen my hon. Friend is to ensure that civil defence is provided for the benefit of the population as a whole. Can he say what he would expect by way of training for these volunteers in numbers of hours per year?

This is one of the matters on which we shall be consulting in the light of the working party's report. My hon. Friend will be aware that the college at Easingwold runs courses which so far have a capacity of the order of 700 per year.

Is there not an overwhelming case for advice on civil defence to be reviewed radically in the light of recent scientific evidence that any nuclear conflict would probably be followed by a nuclear winter?

Advice at any given time is taken in the light of informed opinion. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that there are differing views about some of the surveys to which he has referred obliquely.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest figure for numbers of police hurt in policing the coal mining dispute.

Between 13 March last year and 30 January this year inclusive 1,333 police officers were injured in incidents connected with the policing of the miners' dispute.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that these figures are disgraceful and that in almost any year other than the last one they would have met with universal condemnation by every hon. Member? It is sad they do not now.

They are disgraceful and I believe that they do meet with virtually universal condemnation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been disciplined as a result of actions in relation to the policing of the miners' strike.

Information is not yet available centrally. I understand however, that the Police Complaints Board will include in its annual report for 1984 statistics on the number of investigation reports received by it which it has identified as dealing with complaints arising from the policing of the miners' strike and on the outcome of the investigation.

Does the Minister agree that while an investigation against a police officer is taking place that officer should not be allowed back on the picket lines, since investigations tend to take months rather than weeks? May we have that assurance?

I understand the hon. Lady's point, but that is a matter for the individual chief constables. I shall consider the matter if the hon. Lady writes to me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority the Government give to dealing with the misuse of heroin and cocaine.

The Government continue to give the highest priority to combating the trafficking and misuse of drugs, including heroin and cocaine. The ministerial group on the misuse of drugs is co-ordinating action right across the board to tackle both the supply of, and demand for, these and other dangerous drugs.

In the light of that helpful reply, does my hon. Friend agree that the present number of customs officers should remain and not be allowed to fall any further?

The number of customs officers dealing with drugs matters has been increased this year. The number of customs officers making specialist investigations into heroin traffic has doubled since 1979. We continue to keep under review the operational numbers of customs officers needed to combat the menace.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.

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.

What explanation, excuse or apology does the Prime Minister have to offer for the appalling increase in unemployment figures announced this morning? Is this what the Foreign Secretary had in mind when, in a speech on Friday, he said that the Tory record on jobs was "second to none"?

This month's figures are, of course, disappointing, although there is always a substantial increase in unemployment in January. For example, in 1975 the increase was 118,000 and in 1976, 102,000. These figures emphasise all the more the need to control unit wage costs. Over the year to the second quarter of 1984 our wage costs rose by over 5 per cent. compared with between 2 and 3 per cent. in France and Italy, 0 per cent. in Germany, minus 0·5 per cent. in the United States and minus 5 per cent. in Japan.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that since many of the problems with which the nation is now grappling were caused by some of the policies followed by some of the Prime Ministers who have been honoured by Oxford university, it might be a vindication of her policies that she has not been so honoured?

I understand and appreciate the concern which prompts my hon. Friend to ask that question. I think he will agree that many distinguishing people have been honoured by Oxford and been given honourary degrees. Whether those degrees are offered is wholly a matter for Oxford university and it must remain that way.

In view of the appalling rise of 150,000 in unemployment over the last year and the remorselessly rising trend, will the Prime Minister tell us at what point she will change her policies and take the wise counsel of the Earl of Stockton and others of her elders and betters?

I noted what my noble Friend the Earl of Stockton said in the other place. May I point out that when he was in power there was one part of his policy which I would be absolutely delighted to adopt—

One?

Many. I was a member of the same Government — he honoured me in that way. Indeed, my noble Friend was careful to keep the proportion of the national income which was taken by public spending down to 33 per cent. Today it is 42 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition should join me in trying to get the proportion of public expenditure reduced.

Has the Prime Minister just made a policy statement, or is she going to continue with the vast decrease in public expenditure which has come about under her Government simply and solely because of her insistence on sustaining high unemployment? If she will reduce the levels of unemployment to those of the years when Mr. Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister, we will talk about a reduction in public spending.

My right hon. Friend had a low percentage of public spending and a low level of unemployment. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the difference between then and now in unemployment and spending can in fact account for 10 percentage points he really should study his figures. What he is trying to do is to increase the amount of public spending, which does not help to create an enterprising society. In the meantime, may I point out to him that the number of new jobs is still rising, the number of unemployed school leavers is lower than last year, and I am sure he will be pleased to know that the proportion of population of working age in work is higher than in West Germany, higher than in France, higher than in Italy and equal to that in the United States of America.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that never in her term of office has she had to cause her car to make a U-turn at Heathrow airport, following the example of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) during the sterling crisis?

I am glad to confirm that. That is where the Opposition's policies landed them and that is where their policies would land the country again if ever they were implemented.

Now that the Governor of the Bank of England has said that it would have been easier to check the slide in the pound if we had been a member of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, will the Prime Minister stop shilly-shallying and join the EMS within the next few days?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have always said that we shall join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS when we believe that the time is appropriate. It is kept under review from time to time, but I must make one thing clear. Joining the EMS would not obviate increases in interest rates, it would not obviate the need for financial discipline and, indeed, it might increase it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.

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

Will the Prime Minister again explain to the House why she is opposed to the resumption of negotiations without preconditions between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board? Is it because she is intent on trying to humiliate the executive of the NUM — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not"?] — no matter how long that prolongs the strike and how much further damage it inflicts on our national economy?

I am anxious that, if talks are to be entered into, following seven rounds which have not been successful, they should be successful. The hon. Gentleman talks of humiliation. If the miners have been humiliated, they have been humiliated by the executive, which did not allow them a ballot, by the executive which has prevented them from accepting the best offer since nationalisation, by the executive which has lost them an average of £8,000 per miner and has made their families suffer great privation and some intimidation and violence. That is the humiliation that they have suffered.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious concern among those who gave generously to assist Ethiopia that aid ships are being held up by Soviet weapon ships and that free aid food is openly being sold on the black market while starvation continues? Will she and other Western leaders take an initiative to impress upon the Ethiopian Government that the aid must get through to those who need it?

We make every effort to ensure that the aid gets through to those who need it and the Hercules are very material in ensuring that. So far as I know, most aid gets through and very little goes on to the black market. A number of ships have been unloaded recently. I understand that on 24 January one Soviet ship unloaded arms at Assab but that this was not to the detriment of the unloading of grain, which takes priority.

Will the Prime Minister take a few minutes out of her time today to re-read the prayer of peace of St. Francis of Assisi, which she read on the steps of No. 10 when she was elected? Will she relate it to her attitude to heating allowances for the old, the position of the unemployed and in particular her vindictive attitude towards the National Union of Mineworkers?

The hon. Gentleman's question contains its own contradictions. I understand that he is fully behind a strike which attempts to deprive people of power for industry and heat for their houses. His intention and that of others who support the miners' strike is to deprive people of heating in their houses. He attempts to masquerade as their protecter, but he is in fact depriving them of heat.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the overwhelming vote by which the engineering union has chosen to accept finance for ballots? Would not the Labour party and other trade unions do well to take note of that?

As my hon. Friend knows, we passed that legislation to ensure that ordinary members of trade unions would have the right to vote on certain occasions, always for the officers of their unions and sometimes before strikes. It is very good that main, big unions are taking advantage of that legislation, which was passed by this Government.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

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

How many more people must lose their jobs before the Chancellor of the Exchequer loses his?

The policy being run by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exhequer is the one that will restore enterprise to this country. If we do not get more businesses and expansion of businesses we shall never have a rising standard of living. My right hon. Friend's policies are the right ones. The Opposition would finish up at the IMF again.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

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

May I remind my right hon. Friend that next Tuesday is the 25th anniversary of her maiden speech, in which she introduced legislation to make council meetings open? May I assure her that many right hon. and hon. Members hope that her campaigning zeal in that area of accountability has in no way been reduced?

I am well aware of the significance of my hon. Friend's question. I shall look at the Bill very closely.

Does the Prime Minister believe that confession is good for the soul? [HON. MEMBERS: "What soul?"] If so, when can we expect a penitent Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box to confess to the nation that her economic policies have been generally a monumental disaster for the whole of the country and a crucifixion for the north-east of England?

I note that the hon. Gentleman regards the lowest level of inflation for 16 years and the highest standard of living as something that he does not like. We think it is rather good.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 31 January.

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

Will the Prime Minister admit that everything she promised in 1979 from her economic policies has failed to come about, that the economy has been gravely damaged, that people are suffering from unemployment and that she owes it to the country to change her economic policies?

The fact is that, far from those policies not having come about, inflation is at its lowest level, we have the highest standard of living this country has ever known, some 1·7 more million people are owner-occupiers, since 1979 there has been an increase of 20 per cent. in real terms in expenditure on the Health Service, pensioners have received increases in their pensions in excess of the rate of inflation and we have the highest amount of heating allowance that we have ever had. That is good, even if the hon. Lady does not recognise it.