asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning the Shops Bill [Lords].

We have received 6,688 representations concerning the Shops Bill [Lords] since it was published.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that these representations confirm general support for reform of the Shops Act 1950, but overwhelming opposition to the idea of unrestricted free trading? In this instance, does he accept that people must be right, where a small committee may well be wrong and that I cannot support proposals that are against custom and practice and the country's Christian tradition?

In my experience, people write to Members of Parliament when they disapprove of legislation introduced by the Government, but they rarely write and thank us when they agree with what we are doing. In the main, the letters that we have received have obviously come from a vociferous minority.

Why do we have appeals for contributions towards the preservation of St. Margaret's church, Westminster, and churches throughout the country when the Government are doing everything possible to persuade people with a tradition of 500 years of Christian belief to abandon that belief and to shop and work on Sundays? Are the Government now opposed to the Church of England, and are they abandoning that Church because it has become more Marxist or more honest?

Apart from the fact that in many of our cathedrals Sunday trading is pursued illegally, there seems to be little connection between the hon. Gentleman's question and that on the Order Paper.

My hon. and learned Friend referred to our constituents writing in and making representations direct to the Government. Is it not the case that the volume of letters being received is much greater than on any other subject, in my experience? Will he take into account what people are saying, which is, "Keep Sunday different"? That being so, unless their Lordships, in their wisdom, amend the Bill, will he withdraw it?

The halfway houses recommended by organisations such as Keep Sunday Different are beguiling at first glance, but the Auld committee looked at them. The Jubilee Centre suggests a new list of goods, but has come up with one based on no principle. Why one should be able to buy tobacco on Sunday but not a plant pot, according to the Jubilee Centre, I do not know.

We have been made aware that the Minister does not like letters from hon. Members, but surely he will not brush aside 6,600 letters as a small vociferous minority. How can the Government expect to be believed when the chairman of the Conservative party preaches that there is a serious decline in moral and religious standards, while in the same week the Government introduce a Bill such as this in the House of Lords?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I like many of the letters that I receive. Many letters have been written to us during the last month. I remind the hon. Member that about 7,000 representations were made to the Auld committee and that a vast volume of evidence was considered by the committee, the composition of which was never objected to at the time. All these matters were studied in great depth. We are studying carefully all the representations that we are receiving.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many small retail outlets in my constituency and elsewhere, many of which are family run, consider that complete deregulation Sunday trading will seriously affect their prospects? Do not these proposals make a mockery of the Government's declared policy to create an environment in which small businesses such as these can thrive and prosper?

Some of what has been said has unduly alarmed small businesses, but the experience overseas leads one to believe that small businesses can operate flexibly to meet demand in a way that large businesses cannot, and that is the explanation for the fact that the number of small businesses in Sweden has grown since deregulation in 1972.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of recorded notifiable offences were cleared up by the police in England and Wales in 1979 and 1984, respectively.

The clear-up rate fell from 41 per cent. in 1979 to 35 per cent. in 1984, but the actual number of offences cleared up rose by 17 per cent. to 1.2 million.

Is the Minister aware that many of these cases are cleared up thanks to the public rather than the police? Therefore, is it not essential that we maintain the public's confidence? Is the Minister aware that a recent MORI poll showed that three out of five people believe that there should be more police accountability through local councils? Would not such a move improve policing?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right in the first part of his question, and that success against crime depends upon co-operation between police and public. As to the second part, I point out that, in addition to the figures that I quoted, 75 per cent. of all offences of violence against the person are cleared up, and 91 per cent. of murders.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much that the public could still do to help the police, particularly through such organisations as Crimewatch and by instantly alerting police of problems and not passing by on the other side of the road, as seems to happen so often?

We are only at the beginning of crime prevention as an effective cause. My hon. Friend mentioned Crimewatch. I agree with him that the number of schemes has doubled during the year. We hope that there will a great many more.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the clear-up rate of offences of insider dealing on the Stock Exchange, bearing in mind that of 100 such offences reported by the Stock Exchange to the Director of Public Prosecutions, only two were proceeded with in the courts?

I cannot answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question without notice.

In view of the serious decline in the clear-up rate during the period of office of this Government, why are they cutting the amount of money to be spent on policing in the next financial year?

We are not doing so; we are increasing it. In statements in the country the right hon. Gentleman has quoted a figure of 2.5 per cent., which he alleges is a decrease. He is not comparing like with like. He is comparing the likely outturn this year, which includes an obviously unplanned but large amount for police overtime during the miners' dispute, with our plans for next year. We are planning for an increase. What is more, the provisional figures that we published in the autumn statement will be looked at again between Departments to take account of events and needs since then.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population of England and Wales at the most recent convenient date; and by what percentage this has risen since the same date in 1979.

On 20 November 1985 the prison population was 46,930. On 30 November 1979 it was 43,036. That represents an increase of 9 per cent.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, per head of the population, the United Kingdom sends more people to prison than any other major Western European power, with the exception of Turkey? Is he aware also of the dramatic increase in the number of people in the United Kingdom who have been sent to prison during the last 10 years? Is he aware further that it costs £12,000 to send a person to prison in the United Kingdom? As four out of five prisoners are sent to prison for non-violent crimes, would it not be more sensible to give non-custodial sentences to those who are guilty of less serious crimes?

The hon. Gentleman seems to suppose that I send people to prison. I do not send people to prison. The courts send people to prison, having listened to the evidence. For serious cases it is right that there should be serious sentences, which often means custodial sentences. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that for the less serious cases the courts should look carefully at alternatives before awarding custodial sentences.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the staffing levels in a prison in my constituency have fallen to the point where it has become almost impossible for the prison to continue the regime for which it was set up? May I ask him to look at this matter with great care?

I shall look at the point that my hon. Friend has raised. In general, we are providing this year for an increase in prison staffing.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the record prison population over which his Government preside imposes considerable strains on both prisoners and staff and that this problem should be dealt with by developing alternatives? Any response which means the closure of prison workshops, as has been suggested, will be bitterly resented and opposed by those both inside and outside the prison service and be regarded as a return to the custodial and punitive penal system, from which we thought we had got away a long time ago?

The hon. Gentleman knows that there have been many problems with prison industries—over the products, the firms with which contracts have been signed and the staff requirements involved. We are reviewing the matter, but we have not yet reached a decision.

Does the figure that my right hon. Friend has given include those who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment but who for the time being are unlawfully at large? Is he aware that in Derbyshire no fewer than 72 people have absconded this year from just one prison—Sudbury? Should this not be a cause for concern? Will my right hon. Friend look into it urgently?

Certainly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the chief constable of Greater Manchester about the use of plastic bullets.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State discussed the availability of plastic baton rounds with the chief constable of Greater Manchester and the chairman of the police authority when he visited Manchester on 18 November. Both the chief constable and the chairman, together with the chief constables of West Midlands, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire and the chairmen of their police authorities, are due to attend a meeting at the Home Office this afternoon to discuss the matter with my officials.

Given that the Home Secretary has told the House that he values the relationship between the police and the public, does he accept that the Government and police response to the economic and social disaster in our inner cities of ever more authoritarian policing is inappropriate, because it alienates the public on whom good policing depends? As my constituents risk being killed by these extremely dangerous weapons, is it not right that Parliament should be allowed the opportunity to debate the issue before plastic bullets are released on to the streets of Greater Manchester or elsewhere?

I hope that it will never be necessary for the police to use plastic baton rounds, on our streets. Earlier this year we had disturbances which were fierce beyond any precedents. When a chief officer of police concludes that he needs plastic baton rounds, and Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary agrees, it is right that they should be available. If the Opposition disagree with that proposition, they have a remedy in their hands.

While I share my right hon. Friend's hope that those bullets will never have to be used, does he agree that in the end the chief constable is responsible for protecting the members of his force in carrying out their duties and responsibilities? Will he therefore ensure that chief constables get every support in making any reasonable request for any equipment that they feel they need for that purpose?

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. We are dealing with the protection of both police officers and peaceful citizens. No hon. Member would feel that it was right for the police to be exposed to the sort of attack that they endured at Tottenham without having some recourse, where necessary, to this type of protection.

Does the Home Secretary accept that the vast majority of people in Greater Manchester do not want plastic bullets to be used, and are worried about the information that they have received about their use in Northern Ireland and the loss of life and injuries that they have caused? One of the major lessons from Northern Ireland is that if plastic bullets are to be used, the police must be extremely well trained in their use. At present, the problem in Greater Manchester is that there is no proper policing because of the number of policemen who are undergoing training. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is crazy to train policemen to use plastic bullets, which we all hope will never be used, rather than having policemen on the beat, giving the service that the people of Greater Manchester want?

That is a rather confused supplementary question. The hon. Gentleman first says that training will be necessary, and then complains that it is taking place. It is easy to produce the figures for those killed by plastic baton rounds in Northern Ireland, but it is not so easy to produce the figures for those whose lives have been saved by them. Plastic bullets are much less dangerous than live bullets.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Police Act 1964 makes it clear that the responsibility for the control and direction of police forces remains with the chief constable? Does he further agree that that principle deserves his utmost support?

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, and I have made that clear.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the highest number of persons held in police and court cells on one night so far in 1985; and what was the number of (a) men, (b) women and (c) juveniles held in police and court cells at the latest available date.

The highest number of prisoners held in police and court cells so far in 1985 was 260, on the night of 18–19 February. That was a direct result of short-lived industrial action at Wormwood Scrubs about the handling of prisoners suffering from AIDS. On the night of 4–5 December there were 137 prisoners in police cells, many of whom were there because of industrial action at HM prison Pentonville.

Is it not disgraceful, wrong and immoral for a so-called civilised society to hold unconvicted and unsentenced people below ground in dungeon-like conditions, with no access to washing, education and recreation facilities or visitors, and, in the process, to turn police officers into turnkeys? When will the Home Secretary live up to the promise of his predecessor to abolish the routine use of court and police cells to hold innocent people by the end of 1983?

The ending of the routine use of police cells has already occurred. In the seven weeks from the beginning of October—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question, and he might at least have the courtesy to listen to the answer. We appreciate that he is a bit highly strung at the moment, but I hope that he will listen to the answer. From the beginning of October this year, until the third week in November, never more than 40 people were held in police cells. We are going through an exceptional few days. In 1983, 280 prisoners, on average, were held each night in police cells. By the end of the 1984–85 financial year that figure was down to fewer than 20. That is a formidable step in the right direction, which no amount of jeering from the hon. Gentleman can overcome.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of those one-night imprisonments are for drunkenness? Does he agree also that it would be as well to try to find other arrangements to relieve the police service of these cases and to give proper counselling and advice to the people who fall into that trap?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend, whose interest in those problems is well known, that the number of people prosecuted for alcohol-related offences is falling dramatically as a result of the diversionary policies that we have been pursuing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the final report of the working party on local authority communications.

No, but I expect to receive it shortly.

What steps are being taken to provide direct communication links between county control centres and local BBC radio and television stations?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, operations under the civil defence provision include the completion of the experimental trials of the communications equipment. We expect to be able to complete them for internal communications between the control centres and the local authorities, but we have no plans at the moment in relation to the broadcasting authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to deal with difficulties relating to civil and criminal trespass arising from roving convoys of persons and vehicles.

My right hon. Friend has no present plan to introduce legislation on trespass. However, proposals in the Public Order Bill should help to deal with certain of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the incredible damage caused, costing Staffordshire ratepayers about £80,000, when a peace convoy recently invaded common and open spaces in that part of the world should be stopped, and that the criminal law is a way of dealing with such problems? An essential feature of open space and common land law is that it should be available to all people equally. People entering such land, entrenching themselves, and going from there marauding and stealing other people's property is a matter appropriate for the criminal law and should be stopped at once.

I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about the events that occurred in Staffordshire. He will be aware that in the Public Order Bill, subject to its passage through the House, there are provisions enabling conditions to be imposed upon static assemblies. I hope that the improvement he seeks will be achieved in that way.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while trespass has not been a criminal offence, the time has now come to deal with the so-called animal liberation people and those representing so-called animal rights organisations, and to amend the criminal law to cover them when they trespass on private land and cause criminal damage and personal injury to people engaging in their lawful pursuits?

My hon. Friend is correct. People seek to disrupt and enter private land and cause major damage to property and some injury to others, and I assure him that the police and the Government are considering carefully what can be done to toughen the law in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the licensing laws.

I want to examine among other things the full report of the Office of Population Censuses and Survey's study of drinking in Scotland before deciding whether relaxations should be introduced in the permitted opening hours of licensed premises in England and Wales.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time we relaxed our licensing laws, bearing in mind the success of the experiment in Scotland? Is he aware that such a relaxation would have wide support throughout the country?

I have an open mind on that matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will not find me cowardly if I say that I should like to feel a little more sure than I am this afternoon that if we moved in that direction we should have substantial support, not just in both Houses of Parliament, but throughout the country.

What's all this here then! Is the Home Secretary saying that despite the comments of the chairman of the Tory party the other day about departing from Christian values, the permissiveness of the 1960s, and so forth, he will not only vote for Sunday trading, but will relax the licensing laws as well? I do not know what the Tory party is coming to.

If having a drink in a pub offends the hon. Gentleman's idea of Christianity, he is a long way away.

It is Tebbit, not me.

In view of the known connection between levels of alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse, and the known connection between alcohol abuse and crime, road accidents, marital break-up and child abuse, as a Select Committee has testified, will my right hon. Friend take note that any change in the licensing laws which does not take account of those important and known facts will be bitterly resisted by some of us?

Well, there we are. I think that confirms that I was right to be a little cautious in my earlier reply. It is surely right that we should look at the full evidence from Scotland when it becomes available to see what has happened there since drinking hours became more generous.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one reason for the large number of serious traffic accidents late at night is what is known as the stop tap syndrome? Does he agree that at the very least closing hours should be drastically amended to avoid that syndrome?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is on to a good point. Police in some cities confirm that one of their problems is due to a large number of pubs in a relatively small area all closing at the same time.

When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to recommend changes? Is he aware that there was widespread surprise that the Queen's Speech contained no proposals for change? Is he further aware that changes will lead to increased employment and that the Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm that the incidence of alcoholism has diminished enormously in Scotland since licensing laws were relaxed?

I believe that the Scots intend to go public with the full report in February. We shall need to consider the situation fairly quickly after that.

Does the Home Secretary accept that it will be much easier to look at this issue effectively if it is part of an overall package to cope with the problems of alcohol abuse, including reversal of the Department's action in closing detoxification centres, which has resulted in more alcoholics being turned out on to the streets, despite the denial of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State some minutes ago?

The hon. Gentleman's question goes rather wide. We shall have to consider whether opening the pubs for a little longer will increase the intake of alcohol to a damaging extent rather than simply allowing people to do a little more of their drinking in pubs and a little less at home with drink bought at supermarkets.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the absolute and the percentage increase in the number of offences of criminal damage recorded by the police between 1979 and 1984.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the absolute and the percentage increase in the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police between 1979 and 1984.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the absolute and the percentage increase in the number of violent offences recorded by the police between 1979 and 1984.

Notifiable offences recorded by the police increased by 963,000, or 38 per cent., between 1979 and 1984. In the same period, recorded offences of violence against the person increased by just over 19,000, or 20 per cent., and of criminal damage by 177,000, or 55 per cent.

To what extent does the Minister see those shocking figures as representing the failure of Government policy?

Plainly, it is disappointing that the increase during our period of office has been in line with the increase in the years since the last war, which has averaged about 6 per cent. in recorded offences. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Government policy is geared to ensure that more crimes are cleared up, and 200,000 more offences were cleared up last year than in 1979. Our policy is also geared to ensure that the criminal justice system has the necessary resources and that there is enhanced public confidence in the system. I believe that we have made considerable strides towards that aim, although we should all like to see a decrease in recorded crime figures.

Does the Minister recall advertisements by Saatchi and Saatchi on behalf of the Conservative party in 1979 claiming that the Tory party would be more effective in combating crime than would the Labour party? If so, does he now agree that those claims were grossly untrue?

Far from it. I suspect that any opinion poll that is taken—we know of some that have been—will show much greater confidence in the Conservative party on matters of law and order than in the Labour party. As long as the Labour party tolerates people such as Bernie Grant and Ted Knight, that will continue to be the case.

Does the Minister agree that the figures that he has just announced to the House show that such confidence, if it does exist among the public, is totally misplaced? Should he not now, on behalf of the Government, accept responsibility for the vast increase in crime and recognise that it is at least in part due to high unemployment, cuts in housing expenditure and inner city deprivation?

The hon. Lady is railing against the facts. I have already given an account of our view on the relevance of the increase in recorded crime of our policies. I appreciate that it is frustrating for the hon. Lady that the public see the election of a Labour Government as likely to lead to a reduction in law and order in Britain, but I suspect that that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.

Law and order in Britain is maintained by respect of the rule of law and of the police. The Labour party is clearly anti-police, as shown by its attitude on police committees controlled by the Labour party. It is also shown by its attitude to some of the inner city riots and responses by some Labour council leaders. What effect does my hon. Friend think that that example will have on the youth of the country and those who engage in crimes of violence?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. The example is a very bad one.

Is it not a fact that the Government came to office on a pledge to fight and reduce crime, but that crime has risen massively under every heading? There are now 1 million more serious offences a year than there were when the Government came to office. Is it not a fact that, despite the attempts of the Home Secretary to mislead the House this afternoon, in real terms the Government are reducing the amount of money that is to be spent on policing? Is that not the effect of the public expenditure White Paper and the autumn statement? Why do the Government cut the money for policing when we have 1 million more serious offences a year under Thatcherism?

I am sorry to have to correct the right hon. Gentleman, but if he compares what was scheduled to be spent and what is due to be spent next year, he will find that the increase that is budgeted for is 6 per cent. That is a 2 per cent. growth in resources for the police in real terms. No Government can undertake to abolish sin, and we have not sought to do so. We have said that under this Government the forces of law and order are much better able to respond than under Labour. If the right hon. Gentleman looks back to 1977, when police morale was at its lowest and there was even talk of police strikes, he will find that that is the case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Lord Glenarthur's recent official visit to the Channel Islands.

My noble Friend visited the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark during the period 13 to 16 November. The main purpose of his visit was to acquaint himself with the islands and to meet informally the lieutenant governors and representatives of the island authorities for general discussions on a range of matters of mutual interest and concern. He found the visit to be most useful and informative.

Is the Minister not aware, from the petitions and many letters that he has received, of the great concern on the islands about tax evasion by companies such as Gomba and the repressive housing laws? The noble Lord was quoted in an interview in the Jersey Evening Post as saying that everything in the garden was lovely. Is the noble Lord unbelievably naive, or is he covering up for the unpatriotic British, including some Tory Members, who are using the tax havens to make money?

Order. Before the Minister answers, I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is unworthy to talk about unpatriotic Members.

Withdraw.

What did I say that upset you, Mr. Speaker?

I think that it upset the House. "Unpatriotic" is not a word that we use of each other here.

I shall withdraw "unpatriotic" and insert "Conservative".

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the islands are responsible for their own financial affairs and for the supervision provided for by their own legislation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfied that he has adequate powers to protect the interests of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the chief constable of Manchester on his response to the independent inquiry panel report on the policing of the then Home Secretary's visit to Manchester university on 1 March.

It would not be right for me to comment, or take any other action, until the investigation being conducted by the deputy chief constable of South Wales has been completed and the results have been considered by the Police Complaints Authority and, if appropriate, the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Does the Minister agree that it was extremely arrogant of the chief constable not to agree to a proper public inquiry into the principles involved in the policing of that incident, and that it was particularly arrogant of him to refuse to co-operate with the inquiry that was set up or to comment on the serious allegations that were made? Is it not clear that inquiries by the Police Complaints Authority can have little credibility when it has taken it so long to come forward with any information at all?

It is anything but arrogant for the chief constable of Greater Manchester police to take note of the fact that the provisions of part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act are in force and that he should, therefore, comply with the decision of the Police Complaints Authority to investigate police complaints in accordance with the Act. That seems to be a wholly appropriate step for him to take.

Is my hon. Friend aware of a leaflet, of which a sponsor was the Labour party, circulating in the union at Manchester before the Home Secretary's visit, exhorting members to

"Stop Leon Brittan from speaking in our union on Friday 1st March: meet on the union steps at 6.30 pm for a mass picket to keep him out"?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Hon. Members might care to note that in the case to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) drew attention there was a major police presence, but when the Minister of State paid a visit he deliberately required that there be no such police presence and he was forcibly prevented from addressing the students' union in that university. Is it not an astonishing fact that the freedom of speech that we cherish so greatly in the House is not available in the University of Manchester?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's campaign against drug misuse.

The next stage in our continuing education and information campaign, which is now being independently evaluated, will be the release shortly of video packages for professionals and young people. We are continuing to give the highest priority to our comprehensive strategy against drug misuse, and will shortly be introducing our Bill to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking.

Is my hon. Friend aware that last year a sum of £300,000 was forfeited to Greater Manchester police on the conviction of two drug traffickers and that that money is still frozen? Will he give an assurance that the legislation that is introduced will not produce a legal bunfight, but will be workable, and that money forfeited will reach the public purse?

It would be a rash Minister who said that any piece of forthcoming legislation would avoid a legal bunfight. In so far as it is possible to do so, we shall use our best endeavours to that end.

Given the increasing misuse of hard drugs, will the Home Office increase, or decrease, the amount of money presently provided to some of the voluntary agencies that help with rehabilitation?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, £17 million has been allocated for that purpose and 143 organisations have been supported, of which 60 come from the voluntary sector. I expect that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health will have more to say on that before too long.

Is the Minister aware that many of the voluntary groups that are doing excellent work with drug addicts find that their future is threatened by the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC? What representations has he made to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to secure the funding of these groups after 1 April?

I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is based.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to issue the Cinemas (Safety) Regulations 1985 and accompanying guidance; and if he will make a statement.

Having listened carefully to the central bodies representing the disabled, with which we shall he holding further discussions, we hope to reach a mutually acceptable agreement soon on what might be included in the non-statutory guidance which will accompany the regulations. We shall not propose restrictions on the admission to cinemas either of unaccompanied blind persons or guide dogs. The only restriction contemplated for wheelchair users is that wheelchairs must not be placed where they might obstruct exit routes.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's announcement on behalf of organisations representing the disabled, which were extremely concerned at the original proposals in the guidance notes. Will he give every possible assistance to ensure that cinema managers carry out the wishes laid down in the guidance notes, so that the disabled can be given as much access as possible to cinemas?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome of this development. I note what he has to say about cinema management. However, I must remind him—I am sure that he is aware of this—that the management is responsible ultimately for the safety of its patrons. It decides whom it will admit, within the conditions of its licence.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that many social evils of our time derive from the permissive society promoted by liberal politicians in the 1960s and 1970s? If so, what are the Government's plans to combat these evils? Will the Government abandon their posture of neutrality on some issues and deliberate policy on others, which cause many to believe that our Christian way of life is in great danger?

I think my hon. Friend will agree that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the permissive society was far from neutralist. Indeed, it gave a firm lead in the direction in which I think my hon. Friend wishes to go. The Government have supported private Members' Bills on issues such as controlling video nasties and indecent displays. I hope that we shall continue to take that attitude.

We are well aware of the Prime Minister's reputation of being extremely reluctant to withdraw from any opinion which she has expressed. I ask the right hon. Lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—to cast her mind back to 27 November 1984, 53 weeks ago today, when—this is where I shall read—

Order. I think that this is when the hon. Gentleman will ask his question.

I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that I shall express my attitude to that which appears on the piece of paper in my hand. On 27 November 1984 the Prime Minister expressed her hope that the Government would never forget the good work, loyalty and allegiance of those who have served this country. I ask the Prime Minister to consider what form that hope will take following the results of the Australian Royal Commission on nuclear tests at Maralinga.

The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers has only recently been published. We are studying it carefully. It comprises 16 chapters, 201 conclusions and seven recommendations. The Australian Government have stated that they will discuss with Her Majesty's Government those recommendations which affect the United Kingdom. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has read and absorbed the report so quickly.

If the principles which govern the Prime Minister's attitude to disputed British terrritory are a desire for peace and reconciliation, why does she not enter into negotiations with the Argentine Government with a view to an Anglo-Argentine agreement which will have at its core an Anglo-Argentine conference, jointly chaired by a permanent Minister for the Malvinas and one of her own Ministers, with a permanent secretariat at Port Stanley, which will be able to discuss every matter concerned with the Falkland Islands? After all, there would be no sacrifice of sovereignty, would there?

I think, with respect, that the hon. Gentleman is right off beam. The people of Northern Ireland, like the people of the Falklands, to our way of thinking shall decide by majority where their future lies. That is and will remain enshrined in law.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the extreme Left, which has hijacked Manchester council, will not succeed in its plans to hijack Manchester airport?

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. I have the message. Members must ask questions for which the Prime Minister has responsibility. I really do not think that she has responsibility for that matter.

Will the Prime Minister tell us why the memorandum of understanding on British participation in star wars has not been submitted to the British Parliament for consideration?

It is still being negotiated. It is not customary to submit a memorandum of understanding to Parliament. It is customary to negotiate it and then for the Government to sign if they consider that the results are satisfactory.

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether there is to be any conclusion of such negotiations tomorrow? Does she recognise that there is a need and a strong desire on both sides of the House for Members to be able to express views and to ask questions? If negotiations are continuing, can she tell us whether the memorandum involves or will involve any binding agreement, whether any financial commitments have been made by the United States of America, and whether the Government are securing safeguards against the loss both of technology and of technologists in the event of an agreement being concluded? Why, in any case, is there a rush to sign now? Nobody else is showing such sycophantic haste as the right hon. Lady.

Some of the details—for example, the use of intellectual property which results from any research which we undertake under an SDI memorandum of understanding—are still being negotiated. It is very important to secure the right to that intellectual property. I am not in a position to say whether the agreement will be signed tomorrow. Its details are still being negotiated. I hope that it will be signed before Christmas.

Will my right hon. Friend give thought later today to the fact that when the Greater London council recently decided to invest nearly £2 million in a fleet of 53 dial-a-ride minibuses, it chose to buy French vehicles despite the availability of comparable British vehicles? Is that what Socialists mean by supporting British industry?

I hope that, so long as British industry is competitive with others, people will support it fully.

Is it right to continue to hide behind the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and make it impossible for British service men exposed to nuclear radiation to challenge the British Government in the courts, whereas Australian citizens are able to use the courts to challenge the Australian Government? In the light of the Royal Commission report, will the Prime Minister now lift this ban on action being taken by British service men, many of whom have suffered grievously as a result of the tests?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a survey on British service men who took part in the tests in Australia was set up in 1983. I am not in a position to give the right hon. Gentleman any more information, because that survey is continuing.

Is the Prime Minister aware that last week a Minister of the Crown, before a Select Committee, said that the forthcoming possible withdrawal from UNESCO was a decision that would be taken by Her Majesty's Government without any pressure whatever from the United States? In view of the fact that change has already taken place, and that Britain, as the leading member of the Commonwealth, could, with her Commonwealth partners, achieve even greater change in the future, and that any withdrawal from UNESCO would be to the detriment of Britain's influence in the world, will the Prime Minister say why she disagrees with those points?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a statement on the Government's decision on UNESCO is to be made later this afternoon. It was a decision taken in British interests.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in recent months many hon. Members on both sides of the House have become anxious and distressed about the constant bickering between Her Majesty's Government and the Church of England? If it is too much to hope that my right hon. Friend can abate the intense keenness of some of my colleagues to make instant comments on Church publications, could she, when she meets the Archbishop of Canterbury, ask him whether some of the statements could be made by more broadly-based politicians, not only by those on the Left, and whether their remedies could be more spiritual and less economic?

I thank my hon. Friend for the reasonableness of his question. Everyone should read the report and make up his mind on the recommendations.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

I welcome the letter that my right hon. Friend sent yesterday to the leader of the Liberal party, in which she referred to misdemeanours by a few people in the City. Is she aware that many Conservative Members are concerned about those activities? Will she assure the House that she and her Ministers, where practicable and proper, will bring whatever pressure they think it is right to bear on the City to enforce self-regulation? If that will not work, there are those of us who will be looking very carefully at the Financial Services Bill when it is published.

As my hon. Friend is aware, matters of fraud are for the police, and prosecution is for the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, not the Government. The Government are anxious that there should not be any shortage of resources, and we are reviewing that matter immediately.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

During the break from her engagements, will the Prime Minister examine the take-over bid that is being made by Elders for Allied Lyons? Is she aware that 68,000 jobs at Allied Lyons are at risk? Does she agree that there is something wrong with the capitalist system when it permits foreign bankers to have rich financial pickings at the expense of workers' jobs? Will she ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to recommend to the Office of Fair Trading that the matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

It is clear from the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question that this matter must be considered first by the Director General of Fair Trading. When he has received his advice, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will decide whether to refer the matter. I hope and believe that that decision will be made soon.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the police continue to attract the support and confidence of the British people? Does she further agree with the contempt that many Conservative Members hold for mad Bernie Grant and the Haringey militants, who are trying to throw the police out of the Broadwater Farm estate? Does she also agree that the residents of Broadwater Farm estate would rather have police protection than military anarchy?

Yes, wholeheartedly. The latest antics of Mr. Grant show how very much the Left is still against the police. I think that is a tragedy. I understand that the Commissioner's view is that the police are entitled to be present in the numbers they think necessary. He believes it right that the police—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Opposition Members will try to prevent from speaking anyone who stands up in support of the police. The Commissioner believes it right that the police should be free to decide what is needed to provide the local people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—with the protection to which they have a right. I notice that some hon. Members do not like free speech.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will take points of order after the three statements, unless they arise directly from and are not an extension of Question Time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would allow my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to answer my question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] This is a matter for which the Government have direct responsibility, and n stems directly from an answer given on Monday afternoon by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—

Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman had thought out his question carefully, because it was printed on the Order Paper. But the House knows that questions must be related to the Prime Minister's responsibility. She has no responsibility for any action that militants might take—

rose—

Order. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for any action that militants might take at Manchester airport.

rose—

rose—

Order. I will take Mr. Churchill first.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government clearly have responsibility for legislation in the House that could prevent the Marxist Left on Manchester city council from taking over Manchester airport under the guise of a sham—

Order. Indeed, that may be so. Had the hon. Gentleman asked that question, it would have been in order.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The most important feature of that question was not only that was it planted but that the Prime Minister had a readymade answer to a question for which you said she has no responsibility. The Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) were cheating the House.

Order. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that it is wrong to say that questions are planted when they are on the Order Paper.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask on whose authority business questions have been relegated to being taken after a statement when our normal procedure is that they come before statements?

If the Government ask to make a business statement, that is in order and it takes its proper place.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can it be ruled that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the question when the question was written before the answer? [Laughter.]

Order.

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

rose—

rose—

Order. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) must put the question in the proper form. If he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that he did not.

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a meeting tomorrow of the shadow joint board for Manchester airport, and we should be most grateful to hear an answer to the question that I put.

Not today.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will understand why I raise this point of order at this stage. It arises out of Question Time. I do so because I was named on the Order Paper for absenting myself from a Private Bill Committee.

Order. The hon. Lady has given me notice of this point of order, and it does not arise out of this Question Time.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. We have a busy programme today. There are three statements and some important business. I will take points of order if they are legitimate and arise out of this Question Time. I will take other points of order in their proper place at the end, where I always take them.

The response of the House to the mistake that I made in my point of order was more eloquent than if I had put it correctly.

I am not taking any more points of order at this stage.

rose—

I am not taking any more points of order. I ask the hon. Lady to resume her seat, please. The Prime Minister.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I am not taking any more points of order.

rose—

Order. I am on my feet. I will take the hon. Lady's point of order, as I have said, at the end of the statement; and I will take the point of order of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) at the end of the statements.

rose—

rose—

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the European Council held in Luxembourg on 2 and 3 December. My right hon. and learned Friend—

rose—

Order. Do I understand that the hon. Lady's Committee will meet at 4 o'clock?

No; it is meeting now, Mr. Speaker.

In that event, as an exception, I shall take the hon. Lady's point of order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to press the point, but it raises an interesting matter on which I should like your ruling.

Order. This is of interest to the whole House. The hon. Lady gave me notice of her point of order, so I am able to give her the ruling for which she asks. She will know that the House has always regarded attendance at Private Bill Committees as of the utmost importance. Under Standing Order No. 122 of the Private Business Standing Orders absences from these Committees must be reported to the House. The form of words of the report matches the wording of the Standing Order, which is:

"A member of any such committee shall not absent himself from his duties thereon, except in the case of illness or by leave of the House; and if any member is not present within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting of the committee, or if any member absents himself from his duties thereon, the member shall be reported to the House at its next sitting."