asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to state whether Her Majesty's Government intend to renew in January 1986 the right of individual citizens to petition the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are currently considering the matter.

Why are the Government not of a final mind on this matter? Why are they seeking to put in doubt the protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the convention, which have been protected by the right of individual petition since 1965? Does the Secretary of State accept that that right was intended to supplement the protection of those fundamental rights and freedoms in our domestic courts? Will he consider incorporating the convention and allow that to come to fruition?

The Government are not putting anything in jeopardy. The due date for renewal is January 1986. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a decision will be taken well before then.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the European Court has stretched the convention to a quite unreasonable degree by interfering with domestic matters—for example, corporal punishment in our school and the sanctity of our immigration laws? Will my right hon. and learned Friend not close his mind to our withdrawing from that rather ridiculous convention, whereby British issues are being decided by foreign judges who have no knowledge of our domestic affairs?

It is certainly true that the jurisprudence of the Court is extended more broadly than was anticipated 20 years ago. However, the fact is that we are bound by the convention. The question of the right of individual petition is one that must be decided from time to time, and a decision on that will be taken before January 1986.

Is it the Government's view that this decision should be debated by the House?

I understand the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question to be that he thinks that it should be decided by this House. I shall communicate that view to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Instead of accepting the pious platitudes which are so beloved of continental lawyers who know nothing about our system, would it not be desirable for my right hon. and learned Friend to consider a review of all our existing legislation and an examination of whether our machinery for the redress of grievances is adequate? If our legislation could be overhauled so that there was no real criticism of it, there would be no need for individual petition.

My hon. Friend seeks to set me a Herculean task. I am not sure that I would respond to that challenge in a positive way.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that he fully accepts the last decision of the European Court of Human Rights regarding sexual discrimination in our immigration rules? When does he propose to respond to that decision?

I made it clear at the time of the decision that we would take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that we were complying with the convention as interpreted by the Court. I hope to announce our plans for doing so shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had on the level of funding allocated to the voluntary service unit.

None, Sir.

Does the Minister accept that there is a great need for co-operation between Departments, and especially with the Department of the Environment, about the urban programme, so that voluntary bodies concerned about the effects of the Government's policies on capital and revenue spending on local voluntary bodies can be taken into account?

The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman in his supplementary question go far wider than the main question. I take his point, but there is an inter-ministerial committee, which I head, which discusses how we can best deal with and respond to the needs of voluntary organisations. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the deaths and serious accidents resulting from police car accidents.

A road accident involving serious injury or loss of life, whether to police officers, members of the public, suspects or criminals being pursued, is always tragic and a matter for great regret. Police drivers are trained to a high standard, and it is a basic tenet of training that no emergency is so urgent as to justify an accident.

Does the Minister accept that there is a conflict about the number of accidents that have occurred, in that there have been between 20 and 30 deaths in the past 12 months as a result of accidents within the terms of the question? They are all tragic. Is it not time for a full inquiry into police processes to ascertain whether they always follow the rules which they are given and must observe in chases? Can other measures be taken, such as making the public more willing to secure their cars, to try to prevent many of these accidents happening?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the co-operation of the public, which I fully endorse. The central statistics cover all accidents from the slightest to those involving injury or death. In 1983 there were 17,000 accidents, from the slightest to the most important. I have asked that we maintain central records of accidents involving serious injury or death. The Metropolitan police figures show that in 1984 there were no accidents following emergency calls, and I suspect that that is an improvement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we are relieved to hear him say that the same laws apply to the police and to the fire brigade as to anyone else? Is he further aware that in my constituency last weekend four people's lives were written off by the fire brigade going to a fire in a warehouse and not to them? Surely it is not fair to leave these decisions to the drivers of police or fire brigade vehicles. They tend to do what they are told, as they should. Should not the police and the fire brigade adopt the view that drunks, break-ins and warehouse fires are not as important as saving the lives of innocent people? Surely the time has come for the police not to speed just to stop a drunk, when innocent lives are often lost.

My hon. Friend is straying a little far in assuming that the police have such precision of knowledge in relation to the person they are pursuing and that fire brigades have similar knowledge about the incidents to which they are called. I accept that the House—my hon. Friend is not alone in being concerned—recognizes that in any pursuits, whether the police are pursuing a vehicle which may have been stolen or which may or may not be driven by a drunken person, they have a hazardous task. It is our duty and their duty to ensure that they do not hazard life.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to more accurate figures in future. Many people are deeply disturbed about the numbers of accidents, and the Policy Studies Institute has much to say about the possible reasons for them. The police training manual states that no accident and no call is so urgent as to justify an accident. Is the Minister saying that that manual is to be reconsidered and rewritten? Will he give a commitment to the House that the manual will be maintained, that an inquiry will be made into accidents which take place, and that the Government will tell the House what they intend to do in the light of the inquiry?

No hon. Member, least of all myself, would be able to act as a judge in relation to the many incidents to which the police are required to respond. Many which are thought to be in the emergency category turn out in due course not to be of that nature. However, all the police respond to a given call. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to maintain the highest possible standards in training and execution, and that must mean taking better note of the statistics to which we have been referring.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of convictions for offences under the Litter Acts for each year since 1983; and if he will indicate separately the number of convictions which resulted from the institution of proceedings by the police.

In 1983, the last year for which figures are available, there were 1,685 convictions under the Litter Acts, of which 1,640 followed prosecutions by the police.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is up to the police to enforce these Acts? One cannot expect a refuse collector or street cleaner to effect a citizen's arrest of someone throwing litter around. Does he also agree that there ought to be many more prosecutions of and stinging fines on people who are making our country one of the dirtiest in Europe? We are in danger of winning that award. The sooner we do something about it the better, because many people are fed up to the back teeth with wading ankle-deep through beer cans, fish and chips wrappers, newspapers and the like.

From what my hon. Friend has said, I appreciate that there is a great deal of support for the proposition that we would do well to become a much cleaner country. The Government share that view, and the Department of the Environment supports the Keep Britain Tidy group and others whose aspirations are entirely in line with what my hon. Friend has said.

Do community service orders cover the collection of litter?

I cannot say whether there is a community service scheme that does. I suspect not, because the collection of litter is part of the duties of local authorities. Perhaps my hon. Friend has some ideas to that effect. The aim of the community service scheme is to provide useful community work, and that would seem to be a candidate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any further proposals to reduce the incidence of crime.

The various preventive and other measures which we are taking under my crime strategy hold out the best prospect of reducing crime. We shall continue to pursue them vigorously. In particular, I am encouraged by the 11 per cent. fall in domestic burglaries in January to March this year, compared with the same period last year, in the police areas covered by the "Magpies" crime prevention campaign. This compares with a 0·7 per cent. increase elsewhere.

How many men compared with women received prison sentences in the last year for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has figures available? Can he explain why far heavier doses of behaviour-controlling drugs are given to women in Holloway than to men in any male prison.

I do not have the figures to hand, but I shall write to the hon. Lady and give them to her.

What would be the likely effect on the level of crime if the Miners' Amnesty (General Pardon) Bill in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) were to be passed, given that the burden of that Bill is that people will be entitled to commit murder provided it is in pursuit of objectives that are central to those of the national executive of the Labour party?

The passage of that Bill would totally undermine confidence in the rule of law. Indeed, its introduction casts severe doubt on the commitment to the rule of law of those who favour it.

In his efforts to reduce crime, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman place importance on the presence on the roads of motorised vehicles, panda cars and motor cycles? If so, is it true, as I have heard, that instructions have this week gone out from the Metropolitan police to highway patrols and other motorised units to reduce the amount of mileage covered by each vehicle, other than in emergencies, by an enormous amount—in some cases as high as 20 per cent.? If that order has gone out, will the Home Secretary take steps to see that it is revoked?

Many people regard the move to have policemen on foot as opposed to being in panda cars as one to be encouraged. Of course cars have an important role, but I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman should not be too anxious about reducing the number of cars in the Metropolitan police area when he takes into account the fact that 50 million miles of car driving by the police took place last year.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that pilot schemes involving the interviewing of suspects being tape-recorded, such as we have in Leicester, have been very successful? Early police misgiving has been overcome. Does he also agree that this contributes to a reduction in the incidence of crime? Can he give the House an indication of when the pilot schemes will be extended?

My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. I have not seen the Leicester scheme, but I have seen and spoken to those involved in a similar scheme in another part of the country. The schemes are extremely encouraging. I think that they will avoid damaging and untrue accusations being made against the police, save police and court time, and lead to more pleas of guilty. The knowledge that the criminal justice system will be improved in that way will be beneficial. I cannot give dates as to when the scheme will be extended, but of course my hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the commitment to do so in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Does the Home Secretary expect crime rates to fall to the level at which they were when the Labour Government left office?

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the average annual increase in total recorded offences went up in the 10 years to 1984 by about 6 per cent. As there has been a steady increase in crime since the early years of this century, he will realise that the question is rhetorical.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received following his statement of 6 June on the licensing laws.

Since 6 June we have received four letters from hon. Members on behalf of constituents and six from members of the public. Of the 10, five supported relaxations in the law relating to permitted opening hours and five were against any change which extended the present closing time of public houses. Ministers have derived great benefit from this correspondence.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does that not confirm that constituents make representations direct to their Members of Parliament rather than to his Department? When can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the licensing privileges enjoyed by hon. Members will be applied to ordinary members of the public?

That matter has been under consideration for some time. I hope that it will be possible to make a decision on it when we have finally evaluated the report on the Scottish survey, which has considered the situation prevailing in Scotland where licensing hours are much more generous.

Does not the current tourist season emphasise the enormous need for a relaxation of the licensing laws? Would it not benefit not only tourists but our wine industry and the British people themselves if we were to have a sensible relaxation? My hon. Friend has referred to the Scottish experiment. When will we have official figures about what is happening there?

I hope that the figures will become available by the autumn, although it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, not for me. There is a strong case for doing this. My hon. Friend has made the point compellingly. Other hon. Members feel equally strongly that the problems of alcohol abuse are such that any change in licensing hours should be the subject of the most careful evaluation. That was the view of the Expenditure Committee when it considered the matter in 1977. We shall try to make progress after we have had a chance to consider the Scottish report, which should shed light on what I regard as a difficult matter.

Do the Government hope to legislate on the subject in this Parliament?

That is not a matter for me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operation of the prison medical service.

Yes, Sir, although we recognise the need for improvement in some areas.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the growing evidence of the inadequacy of the treatment and facilities available to the prison medical service? Is he further aware of the great concern of the Select Committee on Social Services in its recent inquiry into the misuse of drugs, in which evidence was received that the only treatment available to many drug addicts in prison was cold turkey and that the clinical guidance to prison medical officers was not being implemented? Will he assure the House that further steps will be taken to include treatment for drug addicts and the implementation of the clinical guidance?

The basis upon which medical officers operate in prison is no different from the basis upon which doctors operate in the community. They use their clinical judgment. It is not for us to issue diktats to that effect. However, we wish to ensure that we have a properly resourced and highly competent and proficient prison medical service. As I acknowledged in my initial reply, there is always room for improvement. We shall look at the Select Committee's report and see whether it is on the right track. We shall make our response in due course.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the prison medical service refuses to pass on medical information about prisoners when they leave its care? The medical records of one of my constituents who committed suicide in a National Health Service hospital had not been transferred from the prison medical service. Does he agree that that is unacceptable, that it serves nobody's interests and that it can severely affect the care of patients?

It would be wrong of me to comment upon an individual case about which I had not heard until the hon. Gentleman raised it. If he cares to write to me about it, I shall look into it. The same rules apply to the transfer of a prisoner from one doctor's list to another as apply to the generality of the community. If there is evidence that the normal rules are not being applied, I shall want to look at it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me know.

I recognise the skill and expertise of the prison medical service, but can my hon. Friend confirm that in a special case where a certain skill is required from outside the service there is no hesitation about obtaining it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because it shows the care with which the prison medical service approaches its task. A panel of outside consultants is available to see prisoners. No fewer than 98,000 referrals to external consultants were made in the last year for which figures are available, 1983. That shows just how much care is exercised.

If the Under-Secretary of State is satisfied with the prison medical service, he must be about the only chap who is. Is he aware that the British Medical Association has received an enormous number of complaints from prisoners and former prisoners about the way that they have been treated in prison? The Select Committee intends to look at the prison medical service. I hope that we shall get a better response from him when it does.

I do not think I made the remark that has been attributed to me by the hon. Lady. However, I am satisfied that the prison medical service is provided with better resources and is better able to cope with the demands of the prison population than it was in the days when the Labour Government were in office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Peacock committee intends to publish an interim report on the progress of its inquiry into the financing of the BBC.

Such questions are for the committee to decide, but my right hon. and learned Friend has not asked for an interim report; nor, I understand, does the committee at present anticipate producing one.

Is the Minister of State aware of the damage that is done both to the BBC and to ITV by uncertainty about their future funding and markets? What makes him believe that Peacock will be able to reach a decision so very much more quickly than Annan on the same sort of problem? Will he assure the House that the committee has sufficient finance to allow it to look at the effects on public service broadcasting when it has to compete for commercial revenue?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the committee has not been asked to make a decision. It is being asked to provide a range of options for my right hon. and learned Friend in relation to possible alternative sources of finance. In that respect the committee is quite unlike the Annan committee, which was required to take a broad view of broadcasting issues. The committee is on schedule to report by the beginning of next year. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's view that there is uncertainty, but I remind him that my right hon. and learned Friend recommended, and the the House accepted, a licence settlement which could have a three-year reign.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, rather than contemplate interim reports from the Peacock committee, we should look ahead to the report that is to come to Parliament, with Parliament and the Government then evolving for the first time a complete policy for public service broadcasting?

I understand my hon. Friend's view. He can rest assured that the options which are to be provided by the Peacock committee will undoubtedly lead to discussions. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will wish to involve the House at the appropriate stage.

Does the Minister of State understand that many hon. Members will have little regard for whatever may be the findings of the Peacock committee, in view of the poor quality and subtle loading of its membership, in contradistinction to the excellent membership of the Annan committee?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's pre-emption of the quality of both the committee and its findings.

In considering the financing of the BBC, will the committee take into account the enormous libel damages which the BBC is able to stand, which in the end fall on the taxpayer, and which mean that the BBC can libel anyone it wants to its heart's content?

The point that my hon. Friend raises does not come within the terms of the committee's inquiry, which is confined to looking at options for financing, rather than at what the corporation might do with the money with which it is financed.

Why do the Government persist with this farce, when all the evidence shows clearly and convincingly that the introduction of even a small amount of advertising on the BBC would have serious financial consequences for the independent companies, could be potentially calamitous to independent local radio and regional newspapers and would lower programme standards both of the BBC and the independent companies? What is the ideological motivation for this vendetta on the part of the Government against the BBC?

It stems from a not unnatural reluctance to accept the word of the hon. Gentleman as really being the fact in this issue. We have appointed a distinguished body of people to examine the actuality of the case and to offer different opinions on the options provided. In that way we shall arrive at a considered judgment, which, I am sure, is not the way in which the hon. Gentleman would like to see things happen.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent meetings he has held with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the likely impact of cash limits on policing in London; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and what matters were discussed.

I last met the Commissioner on 1 July, when we discussed recent developments in relation to terrorism and the Metropolitan police cash limit.

If, as we are told, the purpose of cash limits is to facilitate tax cuts in due course, will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me that the great majority of my constituents would much prefer even more resources being devoted to the Metropolitan police and even better protection for their homes and families than a penny off the standard rate of income tax?

The purpose of cash limits is not what my hon. Friend said it was. It is to ensure that people live within their means, whatever those means are. The question of the level of resources that should be made available is a different matter. As the House will know, the level of resources made available to the Metropolitan police is higher than it has ever been, and rightly so.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that when he last met the Commissioner he found that morale in the Metropolitan police was extremely high, despite the carping and anti-police behaviour of the GLC police committee, which spends £1 million a year knocking the police all the time? Is it not a fact that the achievements of the Metropolitan police against terrorism have come about solely as a result of the police supporting the Prevention of Terrorism. Act, a measure which the Labour party never seems to have supported?

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I do not believe that the police are put off their job for a single moment by the activities and antics of the GLC, which we discussed at some length last Friday. I welcome again the opportunity to congratulate the Metropolitan police and all the other police forces involved on their successes of the last couple of weeks in the campaign against terrorism. The Prevention of Terrorism Act has an important role and I hope that when these matters come to be considered again the Opposition will come to a wiser conclusion than has been the case in the last couple of years.

In view of the persistent abuse, racial and obscene remarks and disruption levelled at speakers at Hyde Park, and clearly organised by some members of the Young Conservative movement in Greater London— [Interruption.]—will Ministers, and particularly the Prime Minister, make it clear to those Conservative activists who have only contempt for free speech and fair play that they should not act like storm troopers?

The hon. Gentleman's observations are a classic example of diversionary tactics brought about by his dislike of the fact that the GLC has been exposed for what it is.

My right hon. and learned Friend will of course be aware by now of the considerable concern caused by the enunciation by a chief inspector at Heathrow of the rather strange doctrine that a jocular remark has now become a criminal offence. Has this matter been discussed with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, either previously or when my right hon. and learned Friend last met him?

I did not discuss this matter with the metropolitan Police Commissioner when I met him on 1 July, but I have to say to my hon. Friend and to the House that I do not think that jokes in relation to bombs and terrorism can or should be treated lightly.

When the Home Secretary discussed terrorism with the Commissioner, did he discuss the bomb that was found recently in the Rubens hotel, and was the Commissioner able to advise the Home Secretary from which country the detonators and explosive came?

The answer to the first question is that I did discuss that bomb. The answer to the second question is that I cannot say anything further without being in breach of the sub judice rule.

When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the Commissioner, will he thank him and all those who took part in the recent operations, and will he draw to his attention the fact that the Strathclyde police were able to——

Order. I give the hon. Gentleman a warning. The question concerns London.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the police who were involved in all these operations. The point I am making is that the terrorists were arrested under powers contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.

I think that my hon. Friend has in mind the fact that the Metropolitan police, in their recent operation, were working in co-operation with many other police forces. I would certainly be happy to specify in particular the Strathclyde force as one that played an extremely important part in the operation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a copy of the report of Assistant Chief Constable Peter Smith to the West Mercia police on the case of the late Miss Hilda Murrell; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Mr. Smith's findings, which he has now presented to the chief constable and to West Mercia police authority, confirm the unsubstantiated nature of the considerable speculation which has arisen in this case.

In my recent Adjournment debate I asked careful questions about Sir Robert Armstrong and Mr. Gary Murray. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] What is the Cabinet Secretary's connection with Zeus Security, outlined in the Daily Star of 13 June? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does Zeus Security use subcontractors for Government work, and is there truth in Mr. Murray's claim that he was recruited for duties with a specialist Government intelligence department——

Order. The hon. Gentleman is very experienced. He must not read his question.

I am framing the question extremely carefully. Was Mr. Murray recruited for duties with a specialist Government intelligence department on a consultancy basis?

The hon. Gentleman, in the course of the Adjournment debate on 26 June, asked me 73 questions. I am not impugning one bit any of the hon. Gentleman's motives, but one of the questions related to the involvement in any way of British intelligence security, and the hon. Gentleman would know that that was an issue raised in the Adjournment debate on 19 December 1984 as well as in the Adjournment debate on 26 June this year. The hon. Gentleman received a categorical answer from me that in fact Sir Robert Armstrong had been involved in the investigations conducted by Assistant Chief Constable Smith, and I gave the categorical assurance, which Mr. Smith has now endorsed, that there was not a shred of evidence that British security operations were in any way involved in this affair.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider amending the primary purpose rule.

The Government see at present no need to amend the primary purpose rule. This rule and the other requirements for men seeking entry on the basis of marriage are necessary safeguards against the use of marriage to secure admission by those who would not otherwise qualify to come.

Will the Minister recognise that this rule probably causes more anguish and heartache than any other rule of immigration policy? Should not an immediate change be made to allow these husbands-to-be to come and join their prospective wives in this country?

I am sure that the vast majority of people in this country realise that it would be absurd, after having said that no young men should be able to come here without skills and go straight on to the labour market at a time of high unemployment, if we allowed the same young men to come here by using marriage as a device.

Is the Minister aware that the difficulty with the primary purpose rule, which causes so much anguish, is that it is not an objective test? It depends upon how an immigration officer feels. People trying to enter this country cannot determine how to answer questions. I hope the Minister will accept that it is impossible for people trying to enter this country to prepare themselves for the kind of questions that might be asked. The rule is monstrously unfair because it does not take account of the different cultures and the genuine need that people have to come here to join their families, set up families and enjoy security.

If it is so difficult to satisfy an entry clearance officer that one is entitled to enter as a husband, is it not extraordinary that over half the husbands who apply for entry are granted permission to come here?

Has my hon. Friend noticed how the vast majority of the Opposition always want to increase immigration, when the vast majority of people in this country want to see it decreased?

I am sure my hon. Friend is correct when he says that the vast majority of people in this country know well that we must have firm immigration control. The Government stand by that, and I can imagine nothing more irresponsible than the statements that have been coming from the Opposition Front Bench that if they came into office they would repeal the Immigration Act 1971.

The Minister used the expression "marriage as a device." Will he make it clear that we are talking about genuine marriages, where the primary purpose rule is used merely by Home Office and Foreign Office officials to pry into the motives for a marriage and make an arbitrary decision to exclude husbands? Will he confirm that we are talking about marriages which are, in all respects, genuine and proper?

We are talking about marriages where the primary purpose of the person applying is to get here. I repeat what I have said. It is an abuse of the institution of marriage if people enter into marriages merely to enter a country such as ours.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Later.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on the Metropolitan police in real terms in 1969, 1974, 1979 and 1984; what is the projected expenditure for 1985; and if he will make a statement.

The force's provisional outturn for 1985–86 is £726·1 million. This compares in real terms with £382·5 million in 1969–70, £508·7 million in 1974–75 and £579·4 million in 1979–80. The force's cash limit for 1985–86 is £763·2 million.

May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on those splendid figures? Does he agree that it is clear that it is Conservative Governments who put real resources into fighting crime, including terrorism, in the metropolis, but that it is the Labour party which always knocks the police and starves them of the resources necessary to do the job?

That is entirely true. The only addition I would make is that it is not just in the metropolis that we have provided the resources.

Will the Home Secretary explain, therefore, why, with all the additional resources being pumped into the Metropolitan police, the crime rate in London has continued to increase?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the answer that I gave earlier about the trend over a long period of time. The lower increase recorded in the country as a whole in the first quarter — a small fall when normal seasonal variations are allowed for — is mildly encouraging.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the implications for policy towards changes in the licensing laws in England and Wales of the recent Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' report on drinking habits in Scotland.

We have received no representations relating to the recent OPCS report.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the high level of satisfaction among Scottish people with their present licensing laws? Does he think that there is a similar level of satisfaction in England and Wales, and how can he justify the fact that the licensing laws are more liberal in Scotland?

All the opinion polls have been so busy in Brecon that it is hard to give a conclusive view, but I am aware that there is a case for changing the law and we have it under very active consideration.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 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 this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that seven new production records have recently been established by the steel workers at Ravenscraig and that this plant has achieved a British Steel Corporation productivity record of 3·14 man hours per tonne? Will she join me in welcoming those achievements by a management and work force which, despite all the difficulties of the past 15 months, have steadfastly concentrated on improving the productivity of that plant?

I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the workers of Ravenscraig on that magnificent record and on the way in which they kept going during the miners' strike.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to consider a matter that has already been discussed at Question Time? That is the Prime Purpose rule. Does she accept that the prime purpose of marriage is procreation? That being so, does she agree that it is utterly iniquitous that men, who have produced babies by women entitled to live in this country, and have gone through the marital rites, are not allowed to join their wives and families in this country and become British citizens?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has a very limited idea of marriage.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that small, new and growing firms have played a significant role in the improved unemployment figures announced today, but that they still face many obstacles and burdens despite the Government's valiant efforts to remove them? Will she do all that she can to speed up the review of those burdens so that they can be removed?

Small firms have an excellent record, especially in creating new jobs. We are looking at the regulations which still obtain and I hope that the results of that scrutiny will be published before the summer recess.

I welcome the downturn in unemployment trends, small though it is, but does the Prime Minister recall saying five weeks ago that she was

"concerned, mystified and very disappointed"

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the small downturn. He will be aware that a major new policy was announced in the Budget, and further details were given this week, of the extension of the youth training scheme to two years. It is a matter of great regret that the Opposition carped and criticised instead of welcoming that great help to our young people.

That does not change the fact that today's fall in the unemployment figures is rather small and shaky. We should not have to wait until the Budget takes full effect, as there is so much else that the Prime Minister could do. There is plenty of work to do and plenty of people who want to do it. Why does the right hon. Lady not do the sensible thing and bring them together? If she wants to start a real recovery, why does she not listen to the managers and business men, who are telling her to stop getting rid of the investment allowances, to sponsor new public investment and to get interest rates down?

What the right hon. Gentleman is recommending is reflation. On another occasion, he would be criticising the level of inflation. He really must make up his mind.

I join the whole-hearted welcome for the fall in unemployment. Is my right hon. Friend aware that only 499,000 of those currently unemployed have taken the trouble to register at a jobcentre? Will she take urgent steps to reform the unemployment accounting system and the statistics so that only those who are genuinely seeking work figure in the statistics?

These unemployment statistics are compiled on exactly the same basis as previous unemployment statistics. The last change in the way in which the statistics were compiled was made in 1981, for reasons which were given then. We are anxious to secure employment for those on the unemployment register who are genuinely seeking work.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister proud or ashamed of the fact that at the end of the United Nations Decade for Women no fewer than 93,000 women in England and Wales are awaiting gynaecological operations in hospital and that more than 18,000 of them have been waiting for treatment for more than a year?

There has been a tremendous improvement in the National Health Service under this Government. I will gladly compare our record with that of the last Labour Government, who, when they were in financial difficulty, had to cut the NHS and cut capital expenditure on it.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to read this month's Country Landowner, in which full details are given of a proposed ten-minute Bill to be introduced by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) which would nationalise four fifths of agricultural land? In view of the fact that, at Brecon and Radnor at the weekend the Leader of the Opposition said that there was no prospect of Labour nationalising agricultural land, is not the so-called unity of the Labour party about which we are told a sham and purely for the electors?

I must confess to my hon. Friend that I have not had time to read that journal. I join him in believing that the Labour party will never have a chance to put those policies into operation.

Has the message reached the Prime Minister that the number of people who admire her in the constituency of Brecon and Radnor are of a somewhat endangered species? Is she now minded, at this late hour, to send a message of cheer to the hapless Conservative candidate by announcing her resignation?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman forgets that we often have Bills to protect endangered species.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the statement from the National Coal Board confirming investment in new pits and the creation of 7,000 new jobs? Is that not the constructive way to proceed in the industry, rather than with the threats of a massive pay claim that are coming out of Sheffield?

Yes, Sir. The Government's policy has been to build a profitable coal industry by making excellent investment in profitable pits. That is the way to provide security of jobs in a future profitable industry, and that way is firmly endorsed by the majority of our people.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the recent report from Companies House showing that more than 300,000 companies out of an active list of about 800,000 are disobeying the law by failing to return their annual accounts? Since the Prime Minister is so fond of preaching about the rule of law and its observance by us all, what is she doing about those companies?

That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for enforcement. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that trade unions are not quick to return their accounts.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the policy of the Leader of the Opposition for reducing unemployment, in which he said that he would keep children at school for much longer and retire people much earlier, without producing one extra new job? Does that not show that the Labour party's policies are an absolute farce?

The Labour party's policies consist of spending more money but not knowing where it will come from. I note that in the book "Inside the Treasury", published after the election, Lord Barnett, then Joel Barnett, said:

"The Labour Government of 74–79 had a financial task rendered impossible by pledges foolishly made without any serious thought as to where the money would come from… You name it, we were pledged to increase it."

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

Does the Prime Minister recognise that each 1 per cent. reduction in the inflation rate since she came to office has been bought at the cost of 750,000 jobs destroyed? However unlikely her target of 3 per cent. inflation now appears to be, can she tell us how many more jobs she would be prepared to sacrifice to reach that target?

The hon. Gentleman must know that there is no such trade-off — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is no such trade-off in the longer run. If he is seeking to increase inflation to the Labour Government's record of 27 per cent., let him say so now.

Will my right hon. Friend close the loophole in the Trade Union Act 1984, which allows Mr. Arthur Scargill to preserve his life presidency of the NUM by dint of depriving himself of his casting vote? Will she thus stop this petty dictator treating democracy with a contempt more reminiscent of ancient Rome than of modern Britain? Let there be a ballot now in the NUM. Let it be statutorily enforced and let it be conducted preferably by secret postal ballot, which the militants fear most of all.

My hon. Friend makes his point very vigorously, and I have taken note of it. I hope that others will, too.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no independent action by British Airways to boycott Beirut airport without concerted action by the seven states meeting next week to discuss ways of preventing hijacking by terrorists?

British Airways does not fly into Beirut. We agree with the Bonn convention, which called for a suspension of air services to countries which fail to take action against hijackers. We are now considering whether we should boycott Beirut airport completely by refusing to take aircraft that have come from Beirut. We shall seek to do so in the first place through the Bonn meeting next week.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, earlier today, a group of Liverpool parents protested outside the offices of Liverpool education authority about the cynical manipulation of their children? Is she aware that last night children as young as six years were given political propaganda to take home advocating defiance of the law? Does she agree that the misuse of children in that way——

Order. Is this the Prime Minister's responsibility?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, because the breaking of the law in Liverpool and the making of an illegal rate in defiance of Government legislation must damage the interests of local people and Liverpool ratepayers.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's grave concern about the misuse of children. I understand that many complaints have been made. Such activity will come within the remit of the Widdecombe inquiry. I hope that the matter has been referred to it.

Will the right hon. Lady ignore the utter rubbish and nonsense from the Liberal Benches in this connection?

I hope the hon. Gentleman can explain how the behaviour of the present local authority can attract industry to the area — [Interruption.] The urban development corporation is attracting help for Merseyside, but the difficult local authority is doing nothing to help the creation of jobs there.