asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which police force districts in England and Wales there has been a reduction in the total number of crimes since 1978.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase since 1978 in the number of victims of offences of violence against the person.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes in England and Wales in 1985 were not cleared up.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he wilt publish in the Official Report the police force districts in England and Wales in which the total number of crimes has risen by (a) less than 25 per cent., (b) less than 33 per cent. and (c) more than 50 per cent. since 1978.

Crime throughout the country has been rising for more than 30 years. Recorded crime has increased in all police force areas since 1978, and I shall publish in the Official Report a table showing the percentage increase in each force area between 1978 and 1985. The number of offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1985 was approximately 122,000; 40 per cent. more than the number recorded in 1978. This compares with an increase of 42 per cent. in offences of violence against the person between 1973 and 1978. It is not possible to provide a figure for the number of offences recorded in a year which are not later cleared up, because some offences are recorded and cleared up in different years. but the difference between the number of notifiable offences reorded by the police and the number of offences cleared up in 1985 was 2·2 million.

In the run up to the last two general elections the Conservative party promised the people of this country security in their homes and safety on their streets. As the Home Secretary has just informed the House that things are substantially worse than when the Conservative party came to office, may we have an assurance that similar false promises will not be made at the next general election?

The Labour party will not get very far if it tries to persuade people that crime was invented in 1979. The number of recorded crimes has been increasing steadily for 30 years. When we came to office we found a demoralised and under-strength police force, a grossly neglected prison service and courts that had inadequate powers. In all those areas, as we have shown again this week, we have steadily strengthened the public's defences against crime.

In 1979 the Conservative party came to office on a policy of law and order. In the light of the disturbing facts about violent crime that the Secretary of State has just given the House, what practical measures will he take to allay the fears of the public, and of old-age pensioners in particular, who are now virtual prisoners in their own homes in inner city areas? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do?

Hardly a week goes by without us making an announcement or taking measures directed towards that end. This week's announcement is that, once again, we are launching a substantial expansion of the police forces in England and Wales in order to provide better protection for the public.

As two thirds of all reported crimes have not been cleared up, may we not conclude that the police, through no fault of their own, are unable to keep pace with the rising tide of crime? Does the Home Secretary admit that the belated and inadequate increase in police resources that has recently been announced merely serves to emphasise the seven wasted years under this Government in the battle against crime?

When we took office we acted at once to remedy the gross deficiencies in the strength of the police service, and there was a long period of police expansion. Now, after a pause and following a thorough study of the proven needs of the police forces, we have announced a new programme.

Does the Home Secretary's reply not show categorically that Tory policies are not working? Does it not also show that the Government can offer neither hope nor solutions to those living in deprived areas? The Prime Minister may go to the two dozen or so people who voted Conservative in Scotland and utter the words "care" and "caring" 15 times in her speech, but the citizens of this land know that she does not mean it. They are looking towards a Labour victory at the next election, so that the next Labour Government can make the streets and people's homes safer places.

No electorate in its senses, having looked at Labour's past record and at the attitude of so many Labour Members to the police today, would support the Opposition if the priority of the electorate were greater protection against crime.

In addition to strengthening police manpower, increasing and improving police powers and increasing the powers of the courts, do not the public have a role to play in combating crime? Have not our neighbourhood watch schemes, which have been greatly expanded, worked so well in London that last year burglaries fell by 11 per cent.?

That is certainly true in some parts of the country. The House will be pleased to note that burglaries across England and Wales fell by 3 per cent. last year. There are now 9,500 neighbourhood watch schemes—twice the number of a year ago—and they are playing an important part in crime prevention.

Although we all regret the increase in crimes, especially crimes of violence, will my right hon. Friend applaud the work done by victim support schemes, such as the one in Waverley, which have given practical and realistic help to the victims of crime?

Victim support schemes are becoming increasingly important. I am delighted that the Government are able to give substantial help to the National Association of Victims Support Schemes and that, for the first time, we are now also able to give some help to local schemes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recently announced increases in police manning will be welcomed by all those with a genuine interest in the reduction of crime? Is he further aware that there has been a dramatic decrease in the incidence of drink-related crimes in Scotland during the past 10 years since Scotland changed its licensing laws? Will he confer a similar benefit on the people of England and Wales?

I think that that is another question. I made the Government's views of principle known to the House earlier this week. I believe that the case for a reform of the licensing laws has been established. Timing is a different matter.

We should all welcome the increases in police manpower announced recently by the Home Secretary, but does he not accept that grudging reality is rather different from the rhetoric of the Prime Minister at last year's Tory party conference? Why has the Home Secretary not accepted the views of Sir Kenneth Newman on the need to increase police manpower in London?

The Metropolitan police, the Police Federation and many others would like a greater increase. At the beginning of last autumn we set in hand two thorough reviews—one for the Metropolitan police and the other for the forces outside London. It was as a result of those reviews of need — precisely the criterion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister laid down—that we made our careful announcement this week. We look forward to increases in the operational strength of police officers of 2,600 outside London and 1,800 in London.

The House must agree that it is important to increase the number of police officers and, if possible, restore the bobby on the beat in those areas where he has disappeared, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is equally important to equip the police with the latest most scientific and modern anti-crime devices available?

I agree. I know that my hon. Friend has an interest in some of those projects. I hope shortly to receive the conclusions of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the equipment needs of his force. We have had some proposals from him already. As soon as I receive the considered report we shall move to take decisions as quickly as possible.

Despite the Home Secretary's fine words, is it not true that over the past seven years the Government have utterly failed on law and order? Although the Home Secretary has paid lip-service to crime prevention methods, the Government have done nothing about methods for preventing crime. Is that not one of the reasons why the crime wave is out of control?

That was an amazing statement by the hon. Gentleman, who is usually careful in putting forward matters. The fact of the matter is that under my predecessor, and now, we are giving increasing prominence to crime prevention, as witnessed by the seminar held at No. 10 Downing street in January. That was a thoroughly practical effort, which we are now following up, designed to ensure that the different professions and interests understand what they can do in practice to make our homes, streets and places of work safer. If Opposition Members, instead of conniving and going along with their thoroughly destructive attitudes towards the police, would join in the crime prevention effort, place by place, the cause would be greatly advanced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the establishment of an inquiry into the latest incidents at Wapping; and if he will make a statement.

My hon. Friend has written to me to suggest an inquiry into the conduct of demonstrators at Wapping. I have also received representations from right hon. and hon. Labour Members for an inquiry into police action. I do not consider than an inquiry would be the right way forward. Those who have been charged with criminal offences are being dealt with by the courts. The way forward lies in sensible co-operation between the police and responsible trade unionists to reduce disorder and prevent violence, which only the trouble-makers want.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for his letter. Is it not clear that many of those who went to Wapping went there prepared for and intending to commit acts of violence, and acts of violence against the police, yet, when the police defended themselves, they were immediately accused of brutality? Did my right hon. Friend notice that within minutes almost of the events taking place, Labour Members, including an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, were falling over themselves to attack the police and accuse them of brutailty? Does that not make a mockery of the new-found role of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who seeks to paint himself as the spokesman of the party of law and order—an attitude that is more appropriate to the Whitehall theatre than to the Palace of Westminster?

It is extremely worrying that so many leading members of the Labour party, inside and outside the House, especially in London and Manchester, should take every opportunity, without proper investigation, to blacken and swipe at the police. What we are trying to do in Wapping, which is becoming a thoroughly dangerous situation, is to try to persuade the print unions, which have a dispute with Mr. Murdoch, to exercise their rights of peaceful picketing and demonstration in such a way that they do not attract to the scene the trouble-makers to whom my hon. Friend referred. I hope that it will be possible for them to pursue their dispute, if that is what they want, without attracting violence to it.

Is the Home Secretary aware that Murdoch is nothing more than a cheap little crook who, through his actions, has caused the social disruption and economic distress among printers that we are witnessing in Wapping? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the difference between Labour and Conservative Members is that Labour Members who went there came back and told the truth about what they saw, as opposed to the blind prejudice and ignorance of Conservative Members? Will the Home Secretary hold an inquiry, because Labour Members have nothing to hide?

The hon. Gentleman does not even try to hide the fact that he and a number of his London colleagues—though not all—immediately assume that when there is any trouble the police are at fault. He has a long record in that regard, and yields only to his former leader on the GLC. Parliament has provided means, through the independent Police Complaints Authority, for a thorough investigation, supervised by the independent authority, into any complaints that may be made against police operations. That is the proper remedy for any genuine complaints.

Would not an inquiry possibly be of great benefit, because it might also prove that not only are there Militant Labour Members of the House, anti-police councillors such as Bernie Grant and pro-terrorist prospective parliamentary candidates such as Ken Livingstone in the Labour party, but, indeed, that Socialists are involved in organising violence in our capital city against our police force?

We do not need an inquiry to establish those facts, because those concerned repeatedly condemn themselves out of their own mouths. What is inadequate is the response of the Leader of the Opposition, who thinks that it is enough to give an occasional gentle rap over the knuckles, when it should be made clear that the people taking this line will not be supported in their efforts to be elected to this House on the next occasion. —[Interruption.]

rose——

Order. Let us keep the temperature down.

Would not the Home Secretary be behaving a little more responsibly if he took this opportunity to remind many of the hotheads on his own Bank Benches that many police officers, including senior police officers, are also deeply disturbed about the way in which events got out of control on 3 May? Indeed, his own Minister has taken up some of the suggestions made by the Opposition that are necessary to deal with this problem. Does he agree that the very small minority of people who were shown on the police video to be throwing things came from Right-wing parties, as shown in the advertisement in National Front News? Would it not be all important if the Government stopped using the police to deal with the industrial consequences of their economic failure in many industrial relations disputes throughout the country?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. As he knows, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has absolute operational independence and, therefore, it is not for my hon. Friends or for me to give him instructions as to how he should conduct his duties and responsibility for protecting those who wish to work in a particular place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. Every sensible person, as well as the police, is concerned at the pattern that has developed at Wapping, and that is why I have spoken about it several times in the last few weeks. I certainly give credit to those Opposition Members who have been seeking to throw light, rather than darkness, on the situation and who have been helping to establish some contact — not yet quite sufficient—between the police and the print unions. As I indicated in my main answer, I believe it is down that path that a solution to the policing side of this problem can be found.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has carried out any research into differences in perceptions of police priorities between the police and the general public; and if he will make a statement.

The Home Office has carried out or funded a good deal of research into public attitudes to the police, and the wishes of the public appear to be broadly in line with police priorities.

Is the Minister aware that independent surveys, including the one by Merseyside council, have shown that there is a different concept in the minds of the public as to what they would like from the police and what they are given by the police authorities, particularly chief constables? Does he agree that if we are to conquer the fight against crime we must have the collaboration, co-operation and confidence of the public in the police? Despite what he said about having carried out surveys, will he look again at this matter to discover what the public really want from the police?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. If he looks at the studies that were done in Merseyside and in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), he will see that the public are most concerned about immediate emergency response, crime investigation and deterrent presence on the streets. Those are the three priorities that they have in common with the police. Where I part company from the hon. Gentleman is in the belief that locally substituted so-called police watch committees can produce anything of worth in the fight against crime, and the sort of rubbish that is produced in the Greater Manchester area is a disgrace which I trust the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will get rid of.

Are not police priorities already set out, at any rate in the Metropolitan area, with admirable clarity in the various divisional and district plans? Are not those a good way for senior police officers to consult, and take soundings from, the local population and to respond to concerns about such vital problems as vandalism and hooliganism?

My hon. Friend is right. He will be aware that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, in designing his force goal for 1986–88, took into account a wide range of opinion polls as well as the needs of the police. In his goal he sets out the reduction of criminal opportunity, the enhanced detection of specific criminal offences and enhanced support for the victims of crime. I am sure that everybody would concur with those attitudes.

Will the Minister confirm that the priority to recruit more regular police from ethnic minorities remains a high priority in his Department? In this context, will he confirm that his Department will support the expansion of the police cadet force in West Yorkshire, which is seen as an important way to recruit more young people from the ethnic minorities into the regular police?

On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am very much interested in that suggestion. However, cadet forces are extremely costly and the police authority in West Yorkshire must take a view on that proposal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing has done more damage to the public perception of the police than the attitude of many Labour councils? Does he also agree with the perception of many of my constituents in Norwich that the police are burdened too much by administrative paperwork? Is he aware that many of my constituents, particularly when vandalism occurs on housing estates, would like a greater police presence there and available when required?

Yes, and there is much room for improvement in the recruiting of police in Norfolk, where the police authority has for some time allowed a substantial range of vacancies to exist. I trust that they will now be filled.

Does the Minister agree that it is the perception of the public that children should enjoy the benefit of police coming into schools to explain dangers to them? Will the Government accept the amendment that has been carried in the other place to enable that to be ensured?

I am sure that the answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not for me, but in regard to the objective that he seeks he must be right. Surely every education authority should welcome police presence in schools to deal with the many pressures with which young people are faced.

Now that the Labour party is somewhat humourously masquerading as the party of law and order, will my hon. Friend ensure that as many members of the public as possible go into Labour party committee rooms, where they will see a poster on the walls of most of them saying, "It is far better to break the law than to be poor"? Will that not show the public the perceptions of the Labour party towards the police?

My hon. Friend is right. There is far too much paranoia about the way in which the Labour party seems to view the police. The police are the custodians of the law, and everybody in government and in opposition should support that concept.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will discuss with chief constables and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the co-ordination of police intelligence and information in crimes involving the abduction of children.

In December 1982, following the Byford report on the case of the Yorkshire ripper, procedures were introduced to ensure the fullest police co-operation and co-ordination of activity in the investigation of apparently linked major offences, including cases of child abduction. These procedures use specially developed and compatible force computer systems to store and analyse information. We are satisfied that they meet operational requirements.

With regard to part II of the Child Abduction Act 1984, is the Minister satisfied that close regard is paid by English police authorities to Scottish court orders? Does he agree that this is especially important at English airports and seaports?

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I should like further details of individual cases where he thinks that that is not being correctly done. I assure him that the procedures are being tightened up and that police forces now have compatible systems of communication to enable this to happen quickly.

The number of children who go missing each year is a matter of great concern. More than 20,000 children went missing in 1984, many of whom were abducted. Should not my hon. Friend promote a missing persons register for children, to include details of the circumstances in which they went missing or were abducted, so that the circumstances of the crime can be compared and a crime pattern analysis unit developed along the lines of the one that is working so well at Hendon?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's substantial interest in this subject. However, I have explained to him that it is unnecessary for police national computer systems to be altered to provide adequate data for proper crime pattern analysis. I remind him that in 1984 there were 99 cases of child abduction, of which 71 per cent. were cleared up quite quickly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state for each year since 1978 the number of crimes in England and Wales involving the use of (a) any firearm, (b) a shotgun and (c) a crossbow.

In 1984 a total of 8,376 notifiable offences were recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used. Of these, 994 involved the use of a shotgun. Figures for earlier years are given in the criminal statistics published annually. Information on the use of crossbows in crime is not recorded centrally.

Does the Minister accept that both the police and the public are legitimately concerned about the increase in the number of violent crimes in which weapons are used, but that the Police Federation's proposal that life sentences should be imposed for the carrying of firearms rather than, as is now the case, for their use would reduce the incentive for criminals to escape without using them and that in that sense it would be counter-productive? Would it not be far better to impose on the buying and keeping of shotguns restrictions similar to those that are currently applied to the buying and keeping of firearms?

On the latter point, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. There is disquiet, because it is thought that there is a substantial difference between the security requirements that govern both categories of firearms. However, he will be aware that the correct policy is to balance the requirements of the legitimate users of shotguns and the requirements of safe keeping, which should not inhibit their use. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, he will be aware that substantial changes are being made to the sentencing policy for these offences. He will also be aware that in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill, which is shortly to come before the House, there is a proposal that those who carry firearms in furtherance of crime should be subject to a maximum life penalty.

When serious crimes are committed by children under the age of 14, will my hon. Friend consider strengthening the powers of the magistrates' courts and also lowering the age of discretion so that they can be dealt with?

I appreciate that this is a complicated matter. My hon. Friend is quite right when he says that many crimes are now committed by young people, The average age of male criminal offenders is 15. Therefore it is important to examine what should be the correct penalty. However, I do not believe that it would be right to make the sweeping change that my hon Friend suggests.

Will the Minister explain why we allow the manufacture, import or sale of crossbows in this country, particularly in view of the increasing number of crimes that are being committed with them and the number of injuries that have been caused to livestock? Surely we should simply ban crossbows, which cannot be justified.

There is a substantial difference between the attitude towards this problem of Opposition Members and that of the Government and the Conservative party. Many people are engaged in perfectly legitimate sporting activities which could include the use of crossbows. Provided that sporting facilities are available, with proper membership of properly organised clubs, crossbows can be used in perfect safety. The law relating to the abuse of weapons in a public place is satisfactory.

Should we not consider the mandatory imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for the illegal carrying of firearms, a sentence to be served consecutively in any event where another sentence has been imposed?

I take note of my hon. Friend's request, and that matter will surely be discussed.

Is this not yet another example of the Government failing to put their money where their mouth is on crime prevention? Is it not a fact that the Minister has already turned down a suggestion from me that we set up a proper committee in the Home Office to look at the needs and duties of legitimate users and balance them with the needs of new legislation on shotguns, crossbows and pistols? Have they not turned it down without even considering it or the implications for police officers and for the public? Why will the Government not treat the matter seriously and set up a committee at the proper level in the Home Office to make recommendations for the House to consider?

We are indeed discussing the problem of crossbows, their distribution and their sale with the trades concerned. As we did in the case of martial arts weapons I trust that we shall achieve a level of control over distribution that will prevent them falling into illicit hands. If the hon. Gentleman represents the party of freedom and fairness, I assume that when it comes to major public order offences it is the freedom to throw bricks and the fairness is that they are all regulation size.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the vast majority, if not all, of these crimes were committed with illegally held firearms? Handguns are now coming into use to an increasing extent. Will he confirm that the ordinary law-abiding firearms owner in Great Britain is in no way involved?

I can tell my hon. Friend that there are 820,000 certificate holders of shotguns. I am confident that all those will use their weapons correctly and will seek to keep them in a safe place. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that there are a substantial number of uncertificated shotguns in circulation, many of which are imported.

Is the Minister aware that crossbows and other deadly weapons can now be bought all too easily by anybody through mail order advertisements in a magazine called "Survival Weaponry and Techniques", which disgracefully W. H. Smith is selling all over the country? What will he do about it?

The absolute number of crossbows in circulation is extremely small. The absolute number of incidents involving injury in relation to crossbows is extremely small. I have already set in hand an investigation as to what more can be done. In relation to the law governing abuse of weapons in public places, criminal offences would be committed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if emergency planning officers were asked to take any action in response to the Chernobyl nuclear incident.

Our information is not yet complete, but we know that several local authorities had to take specific action and a number had to respond to inquiries.

Did those emergency planning officers who were employed by nuclear-free authorities have any more success in reducing the effects on their population of radiation from Chernobyl than their colleagues in Conservative areas who over the years have been given the resources to make provision for their populations? Did the radiation from Chernobyl part, as the waters of the Red sea, round nuclear-free cities? Is not the Labour party imposing a cruel hoax on the British people by pretending that self-indulgent unilateral motions on nuclear freedom are any substitute for proper civil defence?

My hon. Friend has clearly kicked the Labour party where it hurts in relation to nuclear-free zones. He will be aware that the nuclear-free zone is a public hoax which has no relationship whatever to the proper protection of our citizens in time of emergency in peace or in war.

Is the Minister aware that, while the people of west Cumberland are committed to the future of nuclear power, there is some concern there as to what might happen if an emergency arises from Sellafield. Can he give an absolute assurance that the planning programmes to ensure the fullest security of that part of west Cumberland are in place, that there are no deficiencies and that the Government are perfectly satisfied with the arrangement that exists?

I understand fully the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I can assure him that as a result of all the aspects of the Chernobyl incident there will be a complete review of the precautions and the plans that should be made. In relation to my responsibility in the Home Department for civil defence emergencies, I have already written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment asking that we participate in such discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he proposes to take to prevent visitors to the United Kingdom overstaying their period of leave; and if he will make a statement.

We have no proposals for major changes in our present arrangements which place the weight of identifying likely overstayers on the judgment of immigration officers at the ports of entry. My right hon. Friend announced to the House on 26 March that he has authorised increased resources for this year. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to pursue with vigour our selective investigations into apparent overstaying after entry.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that in a recent letter to me he indicated that 5 per cent. of the visitors from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan who were checked into the country were not subsequently checked out? If that percentage were spread over the millions of visitors from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan last year, it would lead to the number of overstayers being about 50,000. What further action will my hon. and learned Friend take in yew of that figure?

I do not think that my hon. Friend is explaining correctly the purport of my letter. What I was saying in the letter was that we put on to the computer people who enter and who are in certain categories. Certain categories of people who enter are supposed to be checked out. As no fewer than 40 million people go through our embarkation controls every year, it is not surprising that often people who have left the country have not been registered as having left. That is a very different kettle of fish.

I am grateful to the Minister for putting his hon. Friend in his place, but will he accept that the real problem with immigration control is that far too high a number of people who are refused visas would be perfectly legitimate visitors to Britain?

Most visitors to Britain, and certainly visitors from the Indian subcontinent, do not require visas anyhow. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is the fact that some people are refused entry when they present themselves at our ports of entry. The truth is that the whole system of control depends on the skill of immigration officers and on their ability to distinguish in the great majority of cases between bona fide visitors, who can be relied upon to leave when they say they are going, and others who cannot be relied upon to leave. All the evidence tends to prove that our immigration officers are very skilful in identifying those who cannot be trusted to leave.

When my hon. and learned Friend next makes a statement on the subject, will he please comment on the recent report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which shows that very substantial fraud is still being perpetrated by those who attempt to enter the country from both India and Bangladesh?

I have read the report, and its conclusions are very important. I hope that all hon. Members will pay heed to what is said. There is, or course, no doubt that there is a great deal of fraud. It is right that that should be reflected in the report.

Does the Minister accept that the real problem at Heathrow is not those who are let in who should not be, but to those who are held up who should not be? These are genuine, decent visitors coming to see their families and friends, many of them in my constituency? Does the Minister accept that many of them are still harassed, persecuted, held up and treated with a lack of decency or compassion instead of being given the proper welcome that they should have?

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have put his question in that way. He should be emphasising that 99·8 per cent. of those who present themselves at our controls at Heathrow are admitted with no trouble and that 99 per cent. of all visitors from the Indian subcontinent who present themselves at the controls are admitted without any trouble. The hon. and learned Gentleman does no service to anyone by trying to paint a picture of genuine visitors to Britain having trouble entering our country. That is not the true picture.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the greatest civil liberties is the civil liberty of the vast majority of the population of this country who do not want visitors to come to this country to abuse our systems and take advantage of our generosity when they have no right to do so?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there should be a sensible, humane and efficient system of control. We have always taken the view in this country that it is better to have firm control at ports of entry than to have an all-pervasive system of after-entry control. I do not think that Opposition Members should cavil at people being questioned at Heathrow. If we have a softer line at Heathrow, we shall finish up with a much fiercer system of after-entry controls, which people will not like.

A few minutes ago the Minister said that there was a "great deal of fraud" at the points of entry to this country. That is an unwarranted slur on the many honest people who come here. What evidence does the Minister have for that claim?

I did not say anything of the kind. My recollection is that the Select Committee report relates to control in the Indian subcontinent. The report concludes that there is a great deal of fraud, and that has been demonstrated on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman has been to the Indian subcontinent and knows that many people come along every year—and this is one of the strange phenomena involved in the matter—who admit that they have not told the truth on a previous application and who wish to make a new application in which they intend to come clean.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 May.

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 recall that when she spoke last year of her determination to reduce inflation to 3 per cent. this spring her claim was ridiculed by the Opposition, who said that that could not be done ? Does she therefore agree that last Fridays's announcement that inflation is down to 3 per cent. and falling is welcome news, especially for savers, the elderly and business? Does she also agree that the present low level of inflation is in marked contrast to the appalling levels which followed Labour's last spending spree?

Yes, that is a remarkable achievement and is greatly to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is also of particular benefit to pensioners, who can be certain that their savings will not be plundered as they were during the lifetime of the last Labour Government.

Mr. Speaker, you will recognise that I am in an unfamiliar position. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is elsewhere making certain that the next opinion poll gives the Labour party an even bigger lead.

I notice that the opinion polls said yesterday that the Centre Right parties would lose in Holland. I notice that the result yesterday was a convincing victory.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the extreme Right party in Holland, which is the equivalent of her party in Britain, lost heavily in the election, but that the Dutch Government had the courage to make it clear that they oppose the acceptance of new American chemical weapons as a NATO force goal and are completely opposed to the deployment of such weapons in Europe?

Holland decided to accept cruise weapons. In fact, the party that was for cruise weapons—[Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman never criticise the Soviet Union for stockpiling such weapons? Is he always concerned to give aid and comfort to it and to make certain that we have nothing to deter it in its use of them?

Does it not require rather difficult mental gymnastics to believe in deterrence in relation to nuclear weapons and not in relation to chemical weapons?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. It also shows the unwisdom of unilateral disarmament. We unilaterally disarmed with our chemical weapons many years ago. Far from following suit, the Soviet Union still stockpiles and increases the production of its chemical weapons.

Does not the case for Britain retaining its nuclear capacity and for NATO having nuclear weapons mean that we can denounce the folly of the Soviet Union in stockpiling chemical weapons and that Britain should have no truck whatever with the deployment or stockpiling of chemical weapons by the United States as part of its NATO force levels?

If we were asked to deploy them we should have to look at the request at the time and have regard to proper defence and deterrence. It would be folly to tell the Soviet Union now what our answer would be. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman embroils himself in that folly.

In view of the all-party visit to Moscow this weekend, will my right hon. Friend send a message to Mr. Gorbachev telling him to get rid of 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons, because he is the guilty one who is stockpiling and using those weapons? Will she also ask Mr. Gorbachev to tell the delegation the truth about what happened during the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in the Ukraine, to ensure that all the other nuclear power stations in the Soviet Union do not go the same way as the one at Chernobyl?

The delegation is under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, who will carry my views to Mr. Gorbachev. It will be saying something about how strongly we feel about chemical weapons and the fact that, even under our chairmanship, the disarmament negotiations are not getting anywhere, and the fact that the Soviet Union is still stockpiling them. With regard to Chernobyl, I think that we are making headway under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency and I hope and believe that we shall get the full facts and be able to profit from what we learn.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 May.

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

This year Britain has the chairmanship of the chemical weapons disarmament committee at Geneva. Does the Prime Minister not think that it is unworthy of our chairmanship for us to agree to the further American production of binary chemical weapons? Will she give us some hope by telling us, instead of agreeing to the proposition, what steps she proposes to take during the period of British chairmanship to get a treaty to rid the world of these weapons?

No such request has been received. I do not know how we would deal with it if it were received. We would have to look at the request in the light of all the circumstances at the time. I have made that perfectly clear. We shall have our own proposals in the chemical weapons negotiations, and we have been pursuing proposals for challenge inspection anywhere. Of course, the Soviet Union would not agree to that. Again the fault rests with the Soviet Union for continuing to manufacture and stockpile chemical weapons, and the censure should be on the Soviet Union.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of people believe that the need to improve the quality of public services is as great as, and possibly even greater than the need to make further cuts in the basic rate of income tax? In the light of this will she apply any additional resources that are generated by economic growth in pursuit of both those objectives rather than in the exclusive pursuit of one of them?

We have strict priorities within total constraints. Everyone must live within constraints, otherwise, whether individuals, Governments or businesses, they will soon be in difficulty. By having strict priorities we have been able substantially to improve the resources devoted to the Health Service and to pensions. That must be done under overall constraints and priorities. Many people who receive below average earnings are asking for increased pay because they think that their net take-home pay is too low. The way to increase the net take-home pay of such people without adding to industrial costs is to reduce the standard rate of income tax.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 May.

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

At the Tory party conference in Perth last Friday the Prime Minister declared that she would set about slaying the dragon of unemployment. Will she remain conscious of the fact that in Scotland 380,000 people are unemployed? After the shipbuilding and British Rail redundancies that figure will be considerably increased. Will the Prime Minister accept the advice of some of her senior Back Benchers and change her policy? More important, will she flex her muscles and get the British Steel Corporation to spend the £90 million that is urgently required to save Ravenscraig and Motherwell?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have replied to questions about shipbuilding on a number of occasions. The acid test is how many orders we can get in a world where there are very few orders to be had because there is so much surplus tonnage still swinging on the buoys. There are surplus ships to the tune of 42 million tonnes, and that is equal to the output of all the world's shipyards for two years. The hon. Gentleman asked about Ravenscraig. He is aware that it is being kept in commission during the lifetime at least of the current corporate plan of the British Steel Corporation. On the general problem of unemployment,

"the only answer to the economic problems which have dogged Britain ever since the war is to improve the performance of our manufacturing industry. That means higher productivity, better design, more vigorous salesmanship, more reliable delivery and servicing."

In the light of that reply, has my right hon. Friend received a message that came out of yesterday's debate on shipbuilding, that the whole House requires action against the Japanese, who speak the language of free trade and practice protectionism? In conjunction with our European colleagues, will she put an act together to defeat this current yellow peril, which has destroyed industry after industry in Britain?

Regarding my hon. Friend's comments on the Japanese in relation to shipbuilding, he may be thinking of the nuclear vessel order which went to the Japanese. I believe that that matter has already been referred to the European Commission on the ground that the price was such that it may amount to dumping. Regarding the fact that Japanese markets are not as open as ours, we have already made our views known vigorously. That is a reason for wanting to hold GATT negotiations as soon as possible.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 May.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall the answer that she gave on Tuesday about the National Coal Board's refusal to re-employ 40 victimised miners who went to a tribunal, which recommended that they be reinstated? Does she recall that her reply was that NCB activities were governed by an Act of Parliament? Is she aware that the NCB is in breach of that Act of Parliament in relation to those victimised miners? Will she instruct her Attorney-General to investigate the matter and report back to the House?

If the hon. Gentleman has anything like that to say, he should say it to the appropriate quarters. The management of the NCB on detailed decisions—the hon. Gentleman knows this because he operates the legislation——

It is in a parliamentary Act.

If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I shall answer his question. The management is not for the House, but for the NCB.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise out of questions?

Yes, Sir. In answer to questions, Mr. Speaker, you will have heard the Prime Minister state that when the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation goes to the Soviet Union the Lord President of the Council will convey her views to Mr. Gorbachev. Mr. Speaker, you are the custodian of the traditions of this House and for 100 years it has been the tradition that the Inter-parliamentary Union is Parliament, and is different from the Government. Therefore, this is an infringement of an old tradition. Is there anything that you can do to protect the independence of both the IPU and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in these circumstances?

As President of the British branch, I have sent a message to my opposite number in the Soviet Union.

Further to that point of order——

Order. We have rather a lot of business before us.

Very briefly. I am a member of the executive of the IPU. You, Mr. Speaker, and the other members of the IPU will know that on a foreign visit it is essential to differentiate between the views of the IPU and the views of the Government. It is a fact, which now, unfortunately, perhaps cannot be corrected, that the Prime Minister was totally incorrect to put that reading on the visit to Moscow.

I have no knowledge of other messages which may be sent by other people.