asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to start providing regular reports to the House on how local authorities are proceeding with their civil defence requirements.

My right hon. Friend will report to the House when the assessment of local authority plans under the 1983 regulations is complete.

Do the reports which have already been made not show that there are profoundly disturbing weaknesses in some of our civil defence preparations and that the 1983 regulations are widely ignored and flouted? On concluding the assessment, will my hon. Friend consider appointing a civil defence inspector with powers to monitor and direct civil defence regulations?

My hon. Friend is right. There has been, as we expected, a variable response to the questionnaires. We must examine carefully the plans of the 54 county level authorities. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that this will require a lot of follow-up and advice. The civil defence adviser is fully engaged on this task.

When the Home Secretary reports to the House, will he take care to report on the extraordinary events in the Camarthen district where, apparently, a security firm which has been grant-aided by his Department used dogs and violence against members of the civilian population?

I am aware of that unfortunate incident. I understand that an inquiry is taking place. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, receive a report in due course on the incident.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities—nearly all of them Labour—seem to think that civil defence begins and ends by erecting a notice on the speed limit sign saying, "Nuclear Free Zone"? Will my hon. Friend point out to them the error of their ways? Will he take the opportunity to point out to the ratepayers what some of these Labour-controlled city councillor are doing?

My hon. Friend is right. There is plenty of advertising of that myth. No doubt those local authorities will be the first to close the radiology departments in their hospitals if they pursue that policy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent seminar on crime prevention.

The seminar agreed on a range of initiatives by industry, commerce and the Government. These cover four areas—autocrime, residential burglary, aspects of violent crime and crime in the workplace. I will chair a follow-up seminar in the summer to take stock of progress. I believe that there is huge scope for local schemes of many different kinds of crime prevention, and we are working hard to encourage these.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, for this vital area of Government activity to succeed, it must involve not only Home Office Ministers and boffins but the whole community? What steps is he taking to get across the message that we must involve insurance companies, motor manufacturers, builders, and so on as well as small community groups, in this vital aspect of crime prevention?

My hon. Friend is right. That was the main purpose of the seminar. We shall push that message through. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the magpie television advertisements, which we showed some time ago, were followed in London and the midlands where they were shown by an 11 per cent. decrease in burglaries in the following quarter. We are extending that programme to the north.

I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 468 concerning the case of Peter William Jones, who yesterday in Newport Crown court received a life sentence. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many people in Newport and elsewhere cannot understand why a man with such a record of violence was allowed to roam the streets and eventually to rape a seven-year-old girl? Will the right hon. Gentleman call for an early review of sentencing and appeal procedures?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot, and do not intend to, comment on sentences passed in court by the independent judiciary. I shall look into any aspects of the case which fall within my responsibility.

In view of the clear evidence that shows that a vast proportion of crime is preventable by the public, I welcome the fact that one of the five local crime prevention projects is to be in Bolton. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the lessons learnt there will be used to the benefit of the rest of the country and that adequate resources will be provided?

Yes, indeed. I entirely agree. I was in Bolton not long ago, as my hon. Friend knows. I found considerable interest and enthusiasm in the fact that Bolton had been chosen for that pioneering project. I hope that all involved in Bolton, whatever their party political opinions, will join in that effort for the protection of the public.

Does the Home Secretary accept that the best way to cut the appalling level of crime is to cut the appalling level of unemployment? Does he accept that one way of cutting the appalling level of unemployment is to accept the programme put forward by the Employment Select Committee, which would immediately take 750,000 people out of the dole queue?

I do not accept that, because 95 per cent. of the crime committed is crime against property. A large percentage of that is opportunist—not prepared long in advance. Crime prevention could substantially cut those figures if it were better applied.

As so much crime is involved with motor cars, will my right hon. Friend consider bringing in regulations to ensure that in future all British car manufacturers produce cars with burglar-proof locks?

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is on to an excellent point. One of the results of the seminar at 10 Downing street was an agreement that a British standard for car security would be prepared by the British Standards Institution.

Will the Home Secretary arrange to have published the letter which the Prime Minister's office has sent to all the participants in the so-called crime seminar last month, from which it will be plain to anyone who reads it that the Government are taking not one firm action and are spending not one penny of new money on crime prevention? That curious event at Downing street was less a seminar than an episode from "Spitting Image". Will the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister now abandon those publicity stunts and gimmicks and do something positive and tangible to deal with the record crime wave over which they are presiding?

I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should make that mistake. Does he realise how many people in Manchester and everywhere else suffer from opportunist crime which can be prevented? The general secretary of the Trade Union Congress, Mr. Norman Willis, was at the seminar. He spoke to us warmly of the way in which we should try to enlist general support for crime prevention. That was the purpose of the seminar, and it is the purpose of the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the incidence of drink-related disorderly behaviour in private boxes at football matches.

My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of right hon. and hon. Members, and others, to the effect that the controls on the sale and possession of alcohol in executive boxes should be relaxed. As he said in his statement to the House on the Popplewell report, we are awaiting further information on the financial aspects from the football authorities. We shall report our conclusions to the House while the Public Order Bill is before Parliament.

Will my hon. Friend accept that I have attended such boxes from time to time? I have never witnessed any violence, fighting or rioting. If indeed the incidence of such disorder is nil, and if the prospect of such disorder is nil, what is his alcohol prohibition guarding against?

My hon. Friend is right. There is no implication that hooliganism starts in executive boxes. We recognise that these are a salubrious part of most grounds, but my hon. Friend must realise that the alcohol legislation we put through last summer was designed to impose a number of restraints affecting all persons attending football matches. We are now awaiting an assessment by the clubs of the losses that they may have incurred by virtue of the restraints on executive boxes. That is the matter we shall now deal with.

If Labour voters outside the executive boxes, looking in through the glass screens, could see Conservative voters drinking champagne when those outside were prevented from buying cans and bottles of ale in the ground, would that scenario not cause some anger among some of the football supporters?

I have no doubt that it might. I think that the hon. Gentleman should have a word with the chairman of Liverpool football club to see whether he follows the same line of argument.

Does my hon. Friend not agree now, as some of us tried to point out on Second Reading, that this total ban is having an adverse effect, particularly on the smaller football clubs? Therefore, will he look again, as quickly as possible, at that problem, specifically in the case of those smaller clubs which have an excellent record of crowd control and non-violence?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's point of view, and that is why my right hon. Friend made it clear that we would be prepared to review it during the passage of the Public Order Bill. I must remind my hon. Friend and the House that in the discussions which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who has responsibility for sport, and I have with the football authorities, it is essential to know the scale of the problem with which they are currently faced so that we can make a proper assessment.

Do not the protestations coming from the Government Benches give a clear example of the standard attitude of the Government? They want to lay down the law for the masses but then claim a personal exemption for themselves.

No, that is far from the truth, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not true. We are concerned about the equity in the legislation and the extent to which clubs, large and small, may be put at risk. That could occur in Middlesborough and Hartlepool, just as much as in Liverpool or at Everton.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from voluntary bodies funded by his Department concerning their future funding.

Representations have beeen received from the National Association of Victim Support schemes, the National Marriage Guidance Council, Community Transport, the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, the British Refugee Council, the Apex Trust, New Bridge and several local organisations concerned with the after-care of offenders.

Is the Minister aware that the development of genuine collaboration between voluntary bodies and statutory authorities depends on a consistency of funding? Will the Minister accept that the problem which local authorities have faced with rate-capping penalties plus the abolition of the metropolitan counties has harmed that collaboration? Will the Minister accept, given the long list of bodies he has mentioned, that there is a great need for his Department to look at the consistency of funding at least to get them over the hump of the abolition of the metropolitan counties?

I cannot agree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question. On the matter of abolition, the Government, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have taken a number of measures to help London boroughs and metropolitan districts to continue funding worthwhile voluntary bodies. Grant-related expenditure assessments have taken account of the new responsibilities of boroughs and districts. There is new statutory machinery to facilitate collective grant-giving, and there is the additional financial support for inherited local projects.

Does my hon. and Learned Friend agree that if the Government were to enlarge the scope for donations to charities to be made deductible against income tax and corporation tax, one of the advantages would be that the organisations would be funded more in proportion to the direct public support that they can enlist than at present, and, to that extent, questions about their future funding would be taken out of the political sphere?

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it goes wide of the question and is not a matter for me.

Does the Minister accept that, despite the recent welcome increase in funding for the victim support schemes, at local level many worthwhile schemes are grossly under-funded? Does he share the view, which is widely held in the House, that far too small a proportion of the total law and order budget is directed at victims?

This year's grant for the National Association of Victim Support schemes is more than double the grant made last year, and next year it is intended for the first time to provide grants to some local schemes which have particular financial difficulties. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that is real help from the Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Turning Point, the drugs and alcohol rehabilitation charity which runs services in Derby, Birmingham and elsewhere, has been trying extremely hard to raise private funding for its work but has been finding it extremely difficult because businesses consider that they have already paid through taxation? Will he, therefore, take seriously the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), and urge his colleagues in the Cabinet and elsewhere to realise that if we can create an "American regime", in which taxation is set against charitable donations, we can help such bodies?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt note all that my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further initiatives he intends to take to combat the continuing escalation in the crime rate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in reducing violent crime.

Recorded crime has been steadily increasing for 30 years. Our strategy for fighting crime is practical and realistic. Despite the misguided indignation of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), we shall pursue vigorously the proposals arising from the Prime Minister's crime prevention seminar. A major initiative to deploy the unemployed on crime prevention work in the community programme is to be undertaken. We shall continue to provide the police with the resources and powers to help them in their task, and the courts with adequate powers to deal with offenders.

As violent crime has increased by more than 60 per cent. since the Government took power in 1979, does the Secretary of State not regret the way in which the Conservative party deceived the electorate at the 1979 and 1983 elections by pretending that these problems have simple solutions? Does he accept with more importance than hitherto that the social causes of crime are real? The deprivation caused by a crumbling housing stock and the massive increase in unemployment are important factors. Does he recognise that unless and until the Government realise those hard facts the figures will continue to escalate?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are no simple answers to crime. We alone among the parties in the House have a practical and realistic strategy for dealing with it. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is endless argument and debate about the root causes of crime. We in the Home Office must deal with the impact of crime by strengthening the police and ensuring that they have the right powers. I agree that at the same time we need to tackle social problems, especially in our inner cities, and we are doing that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever theoretical research may purport to show, common sense suggests that people are influenced by what they see on television? If young people in particular are subjected to a constant diet of violent television programmes, there is likely to be an increase in the amount of violent behaviour.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Common sense points us in that direction, and that is why I am anxious that the broadcasting authorities should exert themselves at all times to ensure that the guidelines, which exist and which are known and admirable, are fully respected.

Does the Secretary of State recall that I wrote to him last September about a 15-year-old constituent of mine who went into a shop and bought a lethal crossbow? His hon. Friend the Minister of State answered the letter saying that it was an important matter that they would keep under review. Has anything been done about that incident? Do the Government intend to introduce legislation to prohibit the sale of crossbows or at least to extend licensing, bearing in mind recent incidents?

The hon. Gentleman knows from the letter that he received from my hon. Friend the difficulties in this matter. He is right about the public concern. We are considering the matter carefully and urgently to see whether anything sensible can be done.

Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to increasing the establishment for special constables? Is he aware of their important contributon at no charge to the community, in giving their time to patrolling areas in Shrewsbury to great effect and doing a great deal to support the regular police force?

My hon. Friend has made a good point. The number of special constables is increasing. I am in touch with the chief constables and the commission about the matter.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that last year the number of crimes was 3·5 million—an increase of 1 million since the Government took office—and that last year 2·5 million of those crimes were not cleared up? Is it true that the Government do not have a strategy for catching criminals or for preventing crime?

The hon. Gentleman, who is a fair debater, does himself no credit with the implication that crime started to rise in 1979. That is an absurd proposition. Crime has been rising at a steady rate for 30 years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider endowing a chair for civil defence in a British university.

We have no plans to do so.

Civil defence could save many lives. Should we not study the facts with great care to show up the sheer irresponsibility of the variable response to which my hon. Friend referred a quarter of an hour ago?

I accept my hon. Friend's point. It is a serious subject worthy of proper research. We have allocated about £1 million out of the civil defence budget for research projects into civil defence, which will achieve, I trust, the objectives that my hon. Friend seeks.

I do not agree with the question, but I agree with the answer. Will the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider at the next Cabinet meeting the creation of a chair in unemployment in the universities of Britain for unemployment and appoint a professor or the noble Lord Young to sit in it?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sterling contribution. It is not a chair that we need, but more job opportunities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he will use in considering the possibility of approving a further increase in the authorised establishment of the Thames Valley police.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider that matter in the autumn on the basis of the demonstrated needs of the Thames Valley police and other forces at that time and in the light of further advice from Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are high hopes that extra provision will be made available by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the autumn? The principal criterion that should be considered is that despite the extra 50 police officers that have ben allocated this year, Thames Valley has the worst ratio of police to population of any force in the country. Our county councils are happy to fund their part of the extra cost.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. He is right in saying that the Thames Valley police force has a low police-to-population ratio. There are other significant factors that we must take into account, including the effectiveness and efficiency of the force and progress on civilianisation and crime statistics. I assure him that a thorough review will be undertaken.

Does the Minister accept that having more police officers does not necessary lead to more police officers on the beat? As the public rightly want community policing, will he take up the Labour party's suggestion to enter into negotiations with the Police Federation to make a community police officer's job part of a career structure, which is suitably remunerated?

I do not think that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will expect me to welcome that suggestion. However, he will expect me to welcome the fact that the police service has shown itself to be capable of tackling the task with which it is faced. We expect the development of community officers and beat officers to be an important part of that progress.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Thames Valley police force is anxious to develop community policing? If our application for an additional 200 officers had been approved, that is how the resources would have been used. When the force needs 753 additional officers to bring it up to the average complement of forces outside London, an allocation of 50 out of an application for 200 is very meagre and disappointing.

I recognise my hon. Friend's disappointment, but he must understand that my right hon. Friend must assess all needs and all priorities in the review of provincial forces. That is what we propose to do.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on current manning levels within the Metropolitan police.

The strength of the Metropolitan police at the end of January was 26,870, the highest ever. The strength of the civil staff was 13,168. Total strength, including both police and civil staff, was 6,031 higher than in May 1979. Recruitment is going well, and the Commissioner plans to reach the present establishment of 27,165 by next June.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. I think that all Conservative Members are grateful to the Government for their efforts to improve police morale and manpower. However, is he aware that in my district, which covers Bexley, there appears to be undermanning and that in parts of Erith, Belvedere and Thamesmead this is hindering the fight against crime because we do not appear to have enough manpower?

I understand that point, but I am a little puzzled by my hon. Friend's question, because my information is that there has been an increase of about 10 in the strength of the Bexley Heath division over last year's figure. I shall look further into that point with the Commissioner. However, after a pause, the size of the Metropolitan police is set to rise further.

What guarantee is there that the additional police resources that are being made available to the Metropolian police will result in more police officers on the beat in local neighbourhoods, with less extended beats to patrol, instead of racing around in Transit vans, with the constant possibility that there might conceivably be a repetition of the tragic incidents at Holloway in August 1982?

It is for the Commissioner to decide how to use the resources that are available to him. He has to strike a balance between the men on the beat and being able to make men available at short notice when there is trouble. The tendency is towards men on the beat. The House may know that the reorganisation that the Commissioner has set in hand will release for operational duty about 200 police officers over and above the figures that I gave in the main answer.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Commissioner of Police, who is much respected, has specifically asked for an increase in establishment? Will he undertake to give the very strongest consideration to meeting that request? Many parts of the Metropolitan police area, including mine in east London, would appreciate an increase in establishment.

I am sure that that is so. That is why, since last October, we have been conducting a review, which is now coming to an end. I have received the results, but I have not yet had time to study them. It will not be long, however, before we can reach a decision.

Is the Home Secretary aware that his reply may be good news for London, but that it is not such good news for other metropolitan police forces? Is he aware that the budget of the new police committee that is to take over the West Yorkshire metropolitan police at the end of next month is already £6 million short for the current year? Will the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment get their act together, because there has been an increase in crime in Yorkshire as well as in London? The new police committee will find itself in extreme difficulty in keeping present manpower levels, never mind increasing them. What will the Home Secretary do about it?

It is precisely because the new joint boards, including West Yorkshire, came to see me and pointed out the difficulty which the hon. Member has raised that I was able to persuade my colleagues and to announce last week an increase of 51 per cent., from 50 per cent., in the proportion of the police grant borne by the taxpayer. That will be a substantial help to West Yorkshire and the other metropolitan areas in keeping their police forces up to establishment.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the gentle rise in the establishment of the Metropolitan police over the last 30 or 40 years is inadequate to cope with all the extra demands made upon the police and that, despite the increase in the number of civilian staff, we still have far too few people to provide adequate policing on the beat?

It is certainly true that the demands on the police have risen and that the conditions of service have changed. The cost of a trained police officer, which is about £28,000 a year, has also risen. That is why I am considering again in the review that is coming to an end the right level for the Metropolitan police.

On the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), does the Home Secretary agree that there is a grave danger that unless the men responsible for the wanton crime against my hon. Friend's constituents are discovered and dealt with, there will be increasing public anxiety and the good name of the Metropolitan police will be sullied? What will the Home Secretary do to make it clear that men who shield criminals within the Metropolitan police collude in the crime? Will he establish whether it is appropriate for such men to remain members of the force unless they assist to discover the people who committed the crime?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that that affair is deeply damaging to the Metropolitan police and will continue to be so unless and until it is cleared up. In other cases, the right hon. Gentleman would have been very quick to point out to me that what is at stake is evidence and that the burden of proof has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt, whether one is talking about disciplinary action, as I think he was just now, or about a criminal charge. The burden of proof is the same, because the rights of police officers in that respect are exactly the same — no less, no more — as those of any other citizen. That is the problem. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Metropolitan Commissioner has made it clear that if fresh evidence comes to light on the incident that evidence will fall to be investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to seek to restrict the power of magistrates to order the detention of drink-drive defendants in police cells for up to five days; and if he will make a statement.

We have been considering the possibility of repealing the power in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 under which detention in police cells may be ordered for up to four days, and will announce our conclusion before long.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a lot of concern following newspaper reports about the failure to continue to give magistrates power immediately to imprison in police cells those convicted of drink-driving offences?

Of course we must deter people from drinking and driving. The penalty for driving while over the limit is six months' imprisonment. That is not the issue at stake here. The issue is whether policemen who are there to investigate offences should be used as gaolers when we have a prison system to carry out that function.

Will the Minister consider reducing the blood-alcohol level at which drivers are banned?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is reviewing road traffic law, and no doubt he will consider that matter.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when considering this serious matter, that any action taken by the Government must not be construed as going soft on the drinking driver, since that is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible things that an individual can do?

There is no question of going soft on drinking and driving. We made it plain in a carefully thought-out advertising campaign how anti-social and dangerous it is to drive while under the influence of alcohol, and we made it clear that powers are available to the courts to deal with the offence. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), the issue is whether it should be appropriate for the courts to sentence people to remain in police cells rather than to imprisonment. That is a different matter from that which has been raised in supplementary questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes were in operation on the latest convenient date; how this compares with 12 months earlier; and what is the breakdown between the Metropolitan police area and provincial forces.

In January 1986, 9,257 neighbourhood watch schemes were operating in England and Wales, more than double the number in existence a year earlier. The number of schemes operating in the Metropolitan police district is now 3,770.

If this welcome new development continues, is my hon. Friend confident that the number of burglaries will decrease considerably?

We have evidence that, as a result of neighbourhood watch and other schemes, there has been a decline in the number of burglaries. The national trend for the first few months of 1985 was down. However, it is essential to maintain a range of activities if we are to reduce the scale of crime.

Has the Minister received any applications for a neighbourhood watch scheme to be initiated in the City of London, where, apparently, the Government give a nod and a wink to swindling on a great scale? Could we have a neighbourhood watch scheme in Whitehall, which could watch the Government doctoring minutes and the Department fiddling unemployment figures? A man on the bus this morning said to me, "Marcos in the Phillipines has nothing on the Government when it comes to fiddling figures."

It is good to have the fiddler back on the roof again. If there is a requirement to set up a neighbourhood watch scheme in the City of London, for the benefit of the residents, to deal with opportunist crime, we shall be pleased to consider it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures he has announced will be welcomed by all those who are seriously interested in reducing crime? As a number of schemes have been in operation for comparatively lengthy periods in many areas, including my constituency, will he consider whether it would be appropriate to arrange a national conference of representatives of some of the schemes so that experiences can be compared?

I remind my hon. Friend that there was a national conference on crime prevention not long ago. I shall consider what he has suggested in relation to the standing conference on crime prevention, which will meet later this year.

Is planning permission required for the erection of crime watch notices on lamp posts and walls?

I understand that advertisement regulations require planning permission for the erection of such notices. I trust that all local authorities will give it.

Welcome though the neighbourhood watch scheme is, is my hon. Friend aware that the number of burglaries increased from 643,000 in 1980 to 897,000 in 1984? Does he accept that it is about time we took some tougher measures of the sort that the public cannot expect the Opposition parties to introduce? Instead, the public look to the Conservative party to bring forward such measures. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should include corporal punishment and the withdrawal of driving licences, and even of social security benefit?

I remind my hon. Friend that there was a decline in the number of burglaries in the first nine months of 1985. I think that my hon. Friend quoted the recorded crime figure, which is a different matter. I agree with him that the Government have shown the way in which to deal with crime by introducing a range of effective deterrents that are designed to combat crime and criminal activity generally.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department is currently undertaking any studies into the effects of the fear of crime.

The British crime survey, conducted by the research and planning unit, collected a great deal of information on fear of crime and its effects. Findings on fear have been published in three reports in the Home Office research series, and two further studies are in progress.

The Minister has referred already to the recent public relations seminar, in which the Prime Minister talked about crime prevention. How much money will the Government provide for crime prevention, especially to local authorities, which want to get on with the job of tackling the vandalised and run-down areas where crime breeds?

The hon. Gentleman has a long and somewhat selective memory. He might care to reflect on the dramatically increased resources given to the police, which mean that they are back on the beat and organising neighbourhood watch schemes, whereas under Labour Governments they were compelled to drive around in panda cars because there were not enough of them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions the Government have had with the British Medical Association on the assumptions for any estimate of casualties in the event of nuclear attack; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Does the Minister recall the dispute some years ago between the Government and the British Medical Association following the publication of the report on the effects of nuclear war? Do the Government agree with the BMA, or have they abandoned any attempt to estimate the length of survival, given certain assumptions in a nuclear war?

The hon. Member will recall that the Government do not make detailed estimates of casualties, which would depend on the strategic intention of the enemy and other factors that cannot be predicted.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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. This evening I shall attend a reception to mark the 75th anniversary of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf.

When did the Prime Minister first know of the deadline of 4 March?

I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that British companies made acquisitions to the tune of some £4 billion in the United States last year, and therefore acquisitions in the United Kingdom by United States companies is by no means a one-way street?

Yes, I saw a detailed account in a paper today of inward and outward investment, and of American investment in this country. The figures published in the Financial Times show that British companies acquired 160 businesses in the United States last year and 142 in 1984. I hope that the British acquisition of businesses in the United States was welcomed in that country.

What specific assurances are being sought from potential purchasers of the constituent parts of British Leyland? What means will the right hon. Lady adopt to ensure that such assurances are enforced in practice?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke about some of the assurances that were being sought, in his statement yesterday. The assurances are, for example, that the British nature of Land Rover and Range Rover in particular should be honoured, and that there should be certain assurances on sourcing.

How can the Prime Minister convince herself that honour is equivalent to binding assurances that will determine the future of an essential part of the British motor industry? What did the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry mean in the other place yesterday when he said about such assurances:

"with regard to British content, trade marks, names and the like … there is a time limitation".—[Official Report, House of Lords; 19 February 1986, Volume 471, c. 634.]

We believe that we are seeking the best future for Land Rover, Freight Rover and the whole of British Leyland. We are seeking the best future for jobs through the extension of trade and business. My noble Friend was clear in what he said to the other place, and I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman finds difficulty with it.

Does the best future, as defined by the right hon. Lady, include binding enforceable assurances?

The right hon. Gentleman must see how long enforceable assurances can be instituted. He must then get legal advice upon that. That is precisely what my noble Friend was saying. I make it clear that there is no binding enforceable assurance about the future of a loss-making British Leyland.

As it was known by Members of this House and by the trade unions that discussions between General Motors and British Leyland were taking place months before Christmas, would my right hon. Friend like to comment on the fact that either the Opposition are ill-informed, or they have waited for the right moment to make political capital and are not worried about the workers in British Leyland?

We are anxious to secure a good future for British Leyland. Taxpayers have already put into British Leyland some £2·2 billion and have guaranteed a further £1·6 billion. That means that every family in the United Kingdom has contributed £200 to British Leyland. That situation cannot continue.

Does the Prime Minister realise that hundreds of thousands of her fellow citizens whom she regards as no less British than her own constituents in London are looking to her to defend with courage and visibility their rights and their status?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I am to see leaders of the Unionist parties next week, and the SDLP after that. I hope and believe that people who are completely Unionist in Northern Ireland will accept the decisions of this House.

Will my right hon. Friend comment upon Anglo-Turkish relations following the visit of the Turkish Prime Minister? Does she agree that Turkey is progressing satisfactorily towards a restoration of full political and human rights? Does she further agree that Turkey is committed to a just and fair solution for both communities in Cyprus?

We had very good talks with the Turkish Prime Minister. He is taking enormous strides towards inproving human rights in Turkey. We discussed briefly the situation in Cyprus and we both hope that both parts of Cyprus, which is a present artificially partitioned—I hope not permanently — will co-operate with Mr. Perez de Cuellar in seeking a satisfactory future for Cyprus as a unitary, although federal, state.

Will the Prime Minister now take action about the distressing case of the teachers' dispute? Will she accept that, although the Education Bill published today contains many worthwhile things, the Government nevertheless expected to build on the ACAS proposal in England and Wales and produce a quantified offer for Scotland?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, processes under ACAS are continuing with the unions which are party to that agreement. A decision about the attitude of the NUT will have to be taken by the NUT. We will know more in a few days' time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welome the Education Bill and the increased powers that it gives to parents in school governorship.

After reflecting on the talks that she had with the Turkish Prime Minister, can my right hon. Friend tell us when the property stolen by the Turkish army of occupation in northern Cyprus will be returned to my constituents who own it?

I am not able to give my hon. Friend the information that he seeks. We shall, of course, take up any specific case.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

Many of us who have expressed anxiety about increasing American involvement in British industry are not motivated by anti-American sentiment. We are simply deeply worried about what is happening to British Leyland, to Westland and to large parts of our computer industry. What is happening will inexorably ensure that crucial decisions about the character and development of British industry are be made in the United States. Will the Prime Minister sit back and let that happen?

Britain invests abroad and British companies go abroad on a very considerable scale. When they invest in the United States—ICI has made a considerable investment in Beatrice Chemicals, amounting to about £700 million — I believe that they are welcome and that there is no anti-British feeling there. I fear that some anti-American feeling has been aroused. I fear that some has been aroused deliberately about the future of British Leyland. All bids are being considered, but we are concerned about the future of the whole of British Leyland and trying to get it privatised.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

Has my right hon. Friend taken notice of the Vickers employee consortium proposals for the buy-out of the shipyards at Barrow and Birkenhead? Is she further aware of the local communities' involvement in the proposals? In view of the success of the National Freight Corporation workers' buy-out, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the Government's policy to encourage the wider ownership of British industry?

The answer is yes—to further privatisation and to the encouragement of wider ownership. We shall, of course, consider that bid along with all of the others for that shipyard.

Is the Prime Minister aware that we have just heard the figures that she gave for taxpayers' assistance to British Leyland? Is she aware that some of us cannot for the life of us understand why the Swedes, the Japanese, the Germans, the Italians and the French — indeed all our competitors — give much more assistance to their motor car industries than we do to ours? We cannot understand why Britain will not help its motor car industry as do our competitors.

I do not believe that other countries are giving more assistance than has been given to British Leyland. I stress once again that taxpayers' grants and guarantees amount to every family giving £200 in assistance to British Leyland and, alas, British Leyland is still in a loss-making condition.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend assure those of us who openly and honourably disagree from time to time with Government policy, but do not question her courageous leadership or her determination to restore the economic and political power of the United Kingdom, that she will continue to respond robustly to the hypocritical, irresponsible, carping cant of the Opposition parties and lead the Conservatives into a third successful general election?

Yes, on the same excellent policies that secured the first two victories.

Now that the Prime Minister, as she showed in a recent broadcast, has become deeply concerned about the low-paid and levels of taxation, will she take the necessary steps to abolish the poll tax? [Interruption.]

Order. This is the first opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has had to ask a question of the Prime Minister today.

Is she aware that the poll tax means that the poor will pay for the rich? Is she further aware that a wealthy couple can buy a £500,000 house in Dulwich and be relieved of paying £3,000 in rates in exchange for a few hundred pounds in poll tax, and that pensioners will have to pick up the bill? Why does she not put her money where her mouth is?

There is not a poll tax. What we have proposed is a community charge, which would be rebated. I note that the hon. Gentleman supports a system under which many people pay nothing to local rates but put up public expenditure. We would not approve such a system. I note that the hon. Gentleman wants a system which would go in for a rating revaluation, and all the injustice that that would mean.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

Is my right hon. Friend not seriously concerned at the escalation of fighting in the Persian Gulf and, not least, the reported shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner by Iraqi jets this morning? In connection with all this, will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are not supplying arms or military equipment to Iran, or, for that matter, to Iraq? Will she do her utmost, in conjunction with our allies, to limit, if not finish, this fighting and this unfortunate war?

I am aware of that tragic incident this morning, but I have nothing further to report about it. We do not know anything more about the passengers who were on board. We do everything possible in connection with any reconciliation or any mediation in the Iran-Iraq war. There is no shortage of efforts. Unfortunately, we have not been able to find a solution. We do not supply equipment which would exacerbate the conflict, and we will do everything possible to try to bring it to an end.

Given the reaction to the so-called Anglo-Irish agreement in the Province, the boycotting and non-co-operation that is taking place in the Province, the reports last night of disaffection in the RUC, the newspaper reports — but newspaper reports only — of calls from an elected representative to take over the Parliament building at Stormont, leading to UDI, and the report of an Ulster workers' strike on 3 March, should not the Government make a statement on this? The discussion is takng place elswhere but not here, and we have not even had a report on the Prime Minister's meeting with the Taoiseach yesterday. There are five private notice questions in the Dail. It matters to us here as well as to the people in the south of Ireland.

The Taoiseach and I discussed the Anglo, or United Kingdom-Irish agreement yesterday. We pointed out that we both believed that it must be implemented. We shall do all in our power to implement it. We shall do everything that we can to reassure Unionist opinion and to have structures for consultation with them. We hope that the SDLP will soon honour its commitment to enter into talks about devolution, which, of course, would put much more power into a devolved Assembly, and much less to the Intergovernmental Conference. We also hope for increased security co-operation across the border. We welcome very much the decision of the Taoiseach to sign the European convention on the suppression of terrorism.