asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of the clear-up rate for all crimes in each police force district in England and Wales in 1978 and in 1985.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of the number of crimes cleared up per police officer in each police force area in England and Wales in 1985.

Yes, Sir, but these figures do not take account of other important aspects of police work, such as crime prevention and public order, so they are of limited value as a measure of police effectiveness.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his commitment to publish these figures. Nevertheless, will he concede that last year's clear-up figures show an appalling total of 2·3 million unsolved crimes? Does he accept that that figure represents an increase of 17 per cent. In unsolved crime over the 1978 figure, which was the last year for which figures were published for the Labour Government? Does he agree that the only solution to this predicament is to recruit policemen who are trained with a genuine caring attitude towards society and an understanding of the needs of the community, rather than the quick resort to the baton round, the not shield and the water cannon?

The number of crimes cleared up by the police has been rising for some time. The number of cleared up crimes in 1985 was 1—2 million—an increase of 200,000 over the 1978 figure. However, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North suggested, the clear-up rate has been deteriorating for some time, but that deterioration started well before 1978. That is why I announced plans last month for a further increase in the police forces of England and Wales.

Does the Home Secretary accept that as the clear-up rate in the Metropolitan police force area is only 18 per cent. compared wth 40 per cent. in other areas, that shows that the Government do not have the solution to the problem? How can the Conservatives say that they are the party of law and order when people outside this House believe that the Government are not able to provide sufficient police to solve crimes?

The public's confidence in the Government will be increased when they contemplate the alternatives. It is important to remember that the clear-up rate is much higher for offences of violence — about 73 per cent.—and lower for burglaries. That is why we place so much emphasis—I hope with the belated support of the Opposition—on crime prevention measures such as we discussed in the seminar at 10 Downing street on Monday.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a special team of police officers in Preston recently cleared up 500 crimes in three weeks and put 10 people in court as a result? Will he pay tribute to the great work done by the police force in Preston, not forgetting those who work on a day-to-day basis to contain the problems of crime, in addition to those in the special task force?

The Lancashire police force is extremely effective, and I am sure that it is especially so in Preston. Across the country, police force by police force the police are experimenting with ways of preventing crime and of catching criminals and bringing them to justice.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party's strategy of promoting personal and family responsibility will ultimately be the best guarantor of law and order? Does he also agree that, notwithstanding the Labour party's newly avowed zeal for law and order, Socialist policies, of their very nature, tend to undermine its basis?

Yes, I certainly agree with that. We look forward to developing that theme in the months and years ahead. My hon. Friend referred in particular to attitudes among Labour Members. The best contribution that they can make to law and order is to do something about those in their own party who ceaselessly undermine the activities of the police.

Does the Home Secretary agree that a good crime clear-up rate depends on the wholehearted commitment of senior officers to detecting crime and that that commitment has been shown by Mr. John Stalker? Does he also agree that, unfortunately, one reason for Mr. Stalker's suspension is that, in showing that commitment, he recommended the prosecution of senior officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? If he does not agree with those propositions, will he tell the House why Mr. Stalker has been suspended?

I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should get on to that tack, because he well knows, having served on the Standing Committee which considered the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill 1984, the care with which Parliament has established the procedures and responsibilities for investigating any allegations against the police, senior or less senior, and he will agree that such allegations should be seriously examined. He knows that Parliament has not given to me or to my colleagues in the Home Office any power to intervene in those procedures, until the point is reached when I have to decide, on appeal against any decision, that there has been a disciplinary offence. The hon. and learned Gentleman also knows that Parliament has establised the independent Police Complaints Authority to supervise police investigations of the kind to which he referred. I hope that in this case the procedures laid down by Parliament, with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is well acquainted, will be operated thoroughly and quickly so that the matter to which he referred will be cleared up.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at this very moment the chief constable of West Yorkshire is meeting the Police Complaints Authority regarding the deputy chief constable of Manchester? Does he agree that in the interests of natural justice some statement should be made by the Police Complaints Authority later today?

My hon. Friend knows the exact position. In view of the responsibility which I might eventually have as the appellate authority, I had better simply repeat that I hope that the procedures laid down by Parliament will in this case be operated thoroughly and quickly.

How can the Home Secretary say that the figures for the clear-up rate of crime have only a limited value when up and down the country they are of major concern to people who are suffering from the present crime wave? Is not the truth that, with two thirds of all crimes committed not being cleared up, the Government have a 65 per cent. failure rate? When will the Government get back to the rates pertaining in 1978?

The Labour Front Bench continually tries to promote the fallacy and persuade the country that crime was invented in 1979. The figures of recorded crime and the clear-up rates have been deteriorating for a much longer period than that. What distinguishes the two sides of the House is that we have put resources into the problem, that we have a coherent policy for dealing with it, and that we do not include within our ranks a minority of influential people who undermine the efforts of the police and respect for law and order.

Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), does my right hon. Friend agree that, while clearly any allegation against a senior officer must be taken seriously and investigated by the Police Complaints Authority, nevertheless, to an outsider in this matter, there appears to be a degree of character assassination? Is it not essential that, if disciplinary charges are to be brought, they should be formulated rapidly and the necessary procedures take place, or, alternatively, that Mr. Stalker should rapidly be restored to his position?

As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the investigation was set in hand by a decision of the Greater Manchester police authority and it has been placed under the supervision of the independent Police Complaints Authority. That authority, and now the chief constable of West Yorkshire, to whom it entrusted the investigation, has responsibility under the law for the investigation. For the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend has given, and for other reasons, I agree that the sooner this matter can he cleared up under the procedures laid down by Parliament, the better for all concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase since 1978 in the total number of crimes in England and Wales in which a firearm was used.

The number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used increased from 5,672 in 1978 to 8,376 in 1984. Within these totals the main increases were in respect of robberies and offences of criminal damage.

Is the Minister aware that the recent study produced by the Home Department into crimes of personal violence shows a dramatic increase in the number of crimes of personal violence related to armed robbery and a dramatic decrease in the number of those crimes that have been cleared up. Will the Minister tell the House of his ideas for changing the law to tighten up the availability of these weapons to criminals?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has been a substantial increase in the number of armed robberies. Pistols are the largest used category of weapon in those offences — some 1,106 in 1984. The best deterrent to armed crime is the risk of detection and severe punishment, and that is why the police will continue to have our full support in their efforts to bring those responsible before the courts. That is also why we have announced in the criminal justice White Paper our intention to increase to life imprisonment the maximum penalty for carrying firearms in furtherance of crime.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if capital punishment were to be reintroduced there would be a dramatic decrease in armed robbery?

I am aware that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members feel strongly about these issues. He will know, of course, that there is a case for the other point of view.

Will the Minister come clean on a point that I put to him in last night's debate? I suggested that there was a major loophole in the Firearms Act 1968 which allows any holder of a foreign passport to go to any gun shop, sports shop or gunsmith in Britain and, without restriction, buy any amount of shotguns or ammunition. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case? If it is the case, will he tell the House what he proposes to do about it?

It is the case that section 14 of the 1968 Act allows that. In the next review of firearms legislation, the 1968 Act will be one of the major pieces of legislation that we shall look at.

Will the Minister confirm that in cases where firearms are carried in the course of robbery, the judiciary has made a practice of imposing substantial prison sentences over and above those that the offences would otherwise attract? Does he agree that that is a highly welcome development?

I do agree; and it is essential that the public should see that those who carry firearms for whatever illicit purpose receive very severe penalties.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is another example of why we need a committee set up in the Home Office and not the rather feeble consultation procedure by which the Minister tried to calm his Back Benchers last night during the debate on the firearms order. When will the Home Secretary reply to my letter of 26 March, which suggested that this was precisely the sort of issue about which we could be forewarned if we had a committee of the type that I have described?

If the hon. Gentleman had allowed a reasonable time for responses to be made in last night's debate, he might have received a reply. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

In view of the success of neighbourhood watch schemes in deterring serious crimes, would my right hon. Friend condemn those who criticise such schemes, especially the Labour-controlled Manchester City police committee?

I certainly would. My hon. Friend is right. There is no area of the country that can afford to have a police committee that takes a disinterested view towards the prevention of crime. It is absurd for the Manchester City police committee to publish a paper which is designed to undermine the authority of the police force.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to improve the investigation of (a) local and (b) transnational fraud.

The report of the fraud trials' committee, under Lord Roskill's chairmanship, which we received earlier this year, provides an excellent basis for legislation and administrative action. We are now completing our consideration of the committee's many recommendations, including those affecting the investigation of fraud, and aim to bring proposals for legislation before Parliament in the next Session.

Will the Home Secretary explain why so little emphasis is placed on tax fraud compared with that placed on social security fraud? Is he not aware that the latest estimates put the amount of money lost through tax fraud at more than 35 times the amount of money lost through social security fraud? Yet, for every one person gaoled for tax fraud, 20 are gaoled for social security fraud. Is this not yet another sign that the Government have one set of rules for the rich and another for the poor?

No, Sir. That is a familiar charge, and I rebut it in a familiar way. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will be told of the extent of the effort that the Inland Revenue is putting into pursuing tax fraud. As for fraud in a wider context, when the hon. Gentleman reads the Criminal Justice Bill, which we hope will be presented in the next Session, he will become aware of the rigorous and stern approach that the Government are adopting.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is little or no support for the abolition of jury trials in fraud cases? Does he accept that the most effective measures that can be taken to put an end to fraud are to strengthen the size of the investigating police force, to bring in more financial experts to assist the police, and to improve the extradition procedures between friendly states?

My hon. and learned Friend picks out three admirable recommendations from Lord Roskill's report and puts his weight behind them. On extradition, I have already announced that we intend to act on the lines set out in the report. Trial by jury of complex fraud cases is one of the tricky matters on which we have to complete our consideration.

Is the Home Secretary aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said some time ago that he found the level of City fraud unacceptable? Notwithstanding that, the Home Department has failed to get anybody over to see Peter Cameron Webb and Peter Dixon in America, who have got away with £39 million as a result of fraudulent activities at Lloyd's. Yet, despite that, a common law bailiff has managed to serve a writ on them. It is a fine state of affairs when this law-and-order Government cannot deal with someone who has got away with £39 million, yet are hounding people at social security offices throughout the country.

The investigation to which the hon. Gentleman refers is nothing to do with me. I am glad to be able to infer from what he said that when he reads our proposals for strengthening the law and the administration of the investigation of fraud, we shall have his support.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the council of Lloyd's is pursuing the PCW people with the utmost vigour and will welcome anything that the Government can do to pursue them with equal severity?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct in both of his remarks.

The Home Secretary said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the PCW affair has nothing to do with him. Why does he keep promising jam tomorrow? Is he aware that tax fraud has been estimated to be running at £3,000 million a year'? When will he do something about that'? Is he further aware that the latest annual report of the City of London police states that it faces a 60 per cent. rise in fraud investigations this year, with £482 million at risk? When will we get action?

The hon. Gentleman has not noticed the increases which I have announced in the strength of the Metropolitan police. One reason or justification for doing that was precisely to increase its resources for the investigation of fraud. The remainder of the proposals in the Roskill report require legislation. Some of them will be controversial, and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if we were to rush ahead with that without proper consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his future policy for detention centres.

Detention centres will continue to provide accommodation for those male young offenders on whom the courts impose short custodial sentences. The regime is being positively developed to provide a suitable programme of activity within the statutory aims and general principles of detention centres, and the system will continue to be kept under review.

Does that complacent and bland answer not suggest that the Minister has not made himself aware of his Department's findings that the rate of re-offending by those held in such institutions is at least as bad as that of others in other young offenders' institutions? Will he now recognise that the experiment has failed and that the brutalising regime of those detention centres should be discontinued?

I am glad to be accused of blandness by the SDP's answer to Bird's instant whip. The aim of the detention centre regimes has been to establish the significance for young offenders of briskness, good appearance and punctuality, to which I am sure the SDP attaches importance. We shall continue to work along those lines.

Does my hon. Friend agree that detention centres have an important part to play in how we handle young offenders, and that those who criticise detention centres rarely put forward viable proposals that would deal with this category of youngster?

I agree with my hon. Friend. When a short sentence must be served, it is difficult to establish the kind of training regime that we have in youth custody centres. We must make the most constructive use of the limited time. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition of that.

Does the Minister accept that the Government's much-publicised introduction of the short, sharp shock at detention centres has been shown by Home Office research to have failed to reduce re-offending among youngsters and to have had no impact on the general level of crime? Does not that failure strengthen the argument for a single generic youth custody sentence, so that even the shortest sentences can be made as constructive as possible?

I appreciate that there is a lively and worthwhile argument about whether there should be a single or a dual sentence, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the difficulty remains, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), that there comes a point below which, in sentencing terms, it is impossible to adopt a proper training regime. The importance of the short, sharp shock—

indicated dissent.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows better. He always does on these issues. But if he will bear with me, I can tell him that the significance of the short, sharp shock regime is that it enables us to come to terms with the best regime that can be devised to deal with those short periods. Since last year, that is what we have endeavoured to do.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the criteria to be used to determine the respective timings of the publication of (a) the report of the Committee on Broadcasting charied by Professor Peacock and (b) the Government's response to that report.

My aim is to give the House the earliest opportunity to read the published report, together with our initial response to it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication is eagerly awaited, not least to see whether the report contains anything that has not already been leaked? To what extent will there be public consultation upon it, and to what extent will the publication discourage the BBC from issuing news broadcasts which contain comment thinly disguised and masquerading as news?

I have noticed a certain interest in the report. Perhaps next week there will be an opportunity, if Professor Peacock agrees, for it to be published and for me to give a first response to it. It will have to be a first response, because it will contain much which the House and people outside will wish to discuss, including no doubt my hon. Friend's point.

Is the Home Secretary aware that any attempt to privatise Radios 1 and 2 will be fiercely resisted, as will any move to force the BBC to sell off any of its services? In his first response, will he say what study his Department is making of the damage that will be done to independent radio if Radios 1 and 2 are sold off?

The right hon. Gentleman is leaping ahead. He may have an opportunity to comment on this when the report is published. There have been a good many leaks, and he has drawn on one or two. What has been lacking in any leak that I have seen is an account or summary of the interesting philosophy which underlies the report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the Government's strategy for crime prevention.

I receive many letters on crime prevention and am encouraged by the increasing support for the Government's initiatives in crime prevention.

Has my right hon. Friend received any representations on this subject from Manchester city council? Is he aware of the crime prevention strategy which that council enthusiastically pursues, supported by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and of its police committee support unit, whose sole purpose seems to be to attack and undermine the police? It publishes a scurrilous publication called "Police Watch", which, in its first issue, seemed to accuse the Greater Manchester police force of conniving at murders, and seems to believe that the neighbourhood watch scheme is an exercise in setting up a secret police. Does my right hon. Friend think that that encourages effective policing in Manchester and is an effective crime prevention strategy?

My hon. Friend is right. I am deeply worried about what is coming out of the city of Manchester. It seems to be following the worst example of the worst London boroughs in its anti-police activities. These are the followers of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), in his city. What we do not yet know is whether he has either the power or the will to do anything about it.

Does the Secretary of State recall that whenever any Opposition Member or member of the public suggests that the solution to the problems of education, housing and health involves increased public expenditure, the Government invariably reply that problems are not solved by hurling money at them? Does he realise that his Government have done nothing but hurl money at this problem, yet the crime rate has become worse and worse in each successive year?

The serious answer is that public money should be spent on all the policies in which the hon. Gentleman is interested. The difficulty that we constantly find is that existing institutions are not targeting that high public expenditure effectively. That is part of the purpose of the inner city initiative of my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the enormous encouragement that the Department has given to neighbourhood watch schemes. In London they have proved very successful, and in my constituency the increase in the number of neighbourhood watch schemes has been matched by a reduction in the number of burglaries and other crimes. I urge my right hon. Friend to continue to encourage these schemes.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I know that his borough is one of the leaders in that respect. There are now 14,500 neighbourhood or home watch schemes, which is more than twice as many as a year ago. This is not the result of any diktat from the Home Office or the police — although we encourage such schemes— but is rather the spontaneous wish of those living in such neighbourhoods. I hope that, regardless of party, everyone will give them a helping hand.

Would not by far the best strategy for crime prevention be to ensure that local authorities have the proper resources to enable them to keep the streets well lit and their council estates more secure, better designed and patrolled? Have the Government not spent the past seven years going in precisely the opposite direction and has that not endangered crime prevention, rather than securing it?

The hon. Gentleman would not make those remarks if he had been at our seminar and had heard about the priority estates project of the Department of the Environment. Plenty of practical people were there, and they could tell the hon. Gentleman about it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Department wish to tackle the design of housing estates and remedy the huge public expenditure mistakes that were made 20 or 30 years ago. At that time huge sums were spent, but wrongly spent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the citizens of Manchester widely welcome neighbourhood watch schemes, and that those who oppose them are the criminals and also Manchester city council? Is it not a matter of grave concern that, instead of supporting neighbourhood watch schemes, that council is using ratepayers' money to finance a scurrilous anti-police publication, called "Police Watch-? Is it not sheer humbug on the part of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to lecture the Government about law and order, when he does not have the guts to condemn his fellow Socialists on Manchester city council?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Now that the right hon. Member for Gorton has been converted to crime prevention, I hope that he will go and tell his supporters, or his masters, on Manchester city council what it is all about, and that, instead of nitpicking and finding imaginary difficulties, they should set about encouraging people in Manchester to join this effort.

What of the Government's strategy on the prevention of kidnap crimes? Is the Secretary of State aware that when the Cunningham brothers were being tried in the courts in Dublin last week over the Guinness kidnap, Mr. Patrick McEntee, the solicitor for the Cunningham brothers said that the reason why they kidnapped the Guinness woman was that they knew that she was covered by kidnap insurance? Does that not indicate that kidnap insurance acts as an incentive to kidnap, and how is the review coming on in the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Slowly, because of the genuine difficulties, of which the hon. Gentleman knows, in dealing with this matter unilaterally or in trying to prevent the payment of ransom in these cases. The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties— he has tabled many questions. I accept that the problem is a genuine one and if we can find practical ways of tackling it we will do so.

What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to improving the lighting on council housing estates and on side streets, where a lot of crime is occurring because the perpetrators can get away without being seen?

My hon. Friend is right. The positioning of street lighting is crucial. Many mistakes have been made in this respect in the past, and this is one of the areas that my right hon. Friend and his Department and local authorities are energetically tackling.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any claim that the Government have a crime prevention strategy could come only from a Home Secretary who is a writer of imaginative fiction? Is it not a fact that, with 4 million serious crimes last year in Great Britain, the Government's law and order policy has collapsed, and that these crime prevention seminars that the Government hold at Downing street are meaningless gimmicks that are almost completely non-productive? When will the Government take serious action to bring the crime level down to the 2·5 million which they inherited from the Labour Government. which that Government said was too much and which they said they would cure, because it has risen by 1·5 million since then?

The right hon. Gentleman's appearance is at least one up for the parliamentary clear-up rate, anyway.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with motor manufacturers about progress on a British standard for car locks as a method of deterring theft of, or from, cars.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in devising a strategy for combating autocrime.

Representatives of motor manufacturers and agents attended the crime prevention seminar which my right hon. Friend chaired on Monday. Autocrime was one of the subjects examined and good progress is being made.

The introduction of such a standard will be widely welcomed as a real practical step in the fight against car theft. Will my hon. Friend try to see that any such standard that is imposed in this country is imposed throughout the EEC, so that British manufactuers are not placed at a disadvantage?

Yes, indeed. I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion. We intend to do that. It will be a lengthy process before it can be adopted as a European directive, but we shall certainly try.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply on this most important matter. Is he satisfied with the incentives and the publicity to encourage car owners along these lines? More important, is he satisfied with the penalties that are available to magistrates to impose on those who are found guilty of autocrime?

My hon. Friend raises a fair point on penalties. He is right in his view that so often these penalties are not sufficient to deal with the problem. I ressure my hon. Friend on his first point. Not only will we spend money on television publicity to ensure that the autocrime problem is drawn to the attention of the public, but the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea has agreed to circulate leaflets to every person who receives a licence from the centre.

Does the Minister agree that greater security car locks will help to reduce the number of young joyriders who take cars? In my constituency a number of young people have been killed when driving these vehicles and a number of innocent pedestrians have also been killed. The Ministr will be aware that those who are killed in the incidents are not covered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. He lays stress on the fact that autocrime, which accounted for 846,000 criminal incidents last year, is largely an opportunist event. The police estimate that between 70 and 90 per cent. of all autocrime, whether pinching a vehicle or pinching from it, is entirely opportunist and that it can so easily be prevented by properly secured vehicles.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responsibility local authorities bear to ensure that information on local levels of radioactivity is disseminated rapidly to all concerned organisations and departments.

Under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 local authorities must plan for the collection and distribution of information about the effects of hostile attack. There is no analogous responsibility for peacetime disasters. The Government's review of emergency arrangements in the light of the Chernobyl incident will include the role of local authorities.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Who is responsible for measuring radiation in local areas, and is he satisfied that they have a sufficient number of radiation detectors? In view of the lack of information following the Chernobyl disaster about what people should or should not do, will he ensure that machinery is set up to cope with any future incident of a similar nature?

I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be conducting a wide-ranging review of all forms of monitoring of an incident of this character. As for civil defence, my hon. Friend will be aware that the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation does not have instruments that could measure such low levels of radiation as those that have recently been experienced.

Given that local authorities rely in part on the National Radiological Protection Board, has the Minister seen its June bulletin, which protests that "in recent years the cash limit has been systematically reduced in real terms"?

The board's role, and indeed the system over which it presides, will be considered in the assessment of the post-Chernobyl situation.

Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of supplying radiation survey meters to all local authorities as soon as possible so that the population may be reassured, whenever necessary, if there should be a future disaster similar to the one at Chernobyl?

Im my previous answer I said that the role of local authorities will be considered in the review of the post-Chernobyl incident. My hon. Friend should be aware that it is essential to have a national system wherby accurate measurements of this kind can be issued to the public in an understandable way.

Does the Minister accept that local authorities are keen to assist with the dissemination of such important information? What information has been sent by his Department to local authorities since the Chernobyl disaster that might assist them in carrying out their duties in this regard?

The Home Office has not issued information of that kind to local authorities, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that in relation to civil defence, which is a Home Office responsibility, the passage of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) will allow local authorities to use civil defence grants to cover peacetime disasters as well.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the number of prosecutions that have taken place for litter offences during the last period for which figures are available.

In 1984, 1,552 defendants were prosecuted under the Litter Act 1983, and 639 under the Refuse (Amenity) Act 1978.

I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware that I am a little disappointed in those figures, because I, too, would like to see a higher clear-up rate. As our towns, cities and countryside are disgraced by the amount of litter that one sees around the place, does my hon. Friend think that this is because the law is not adequate, or because the police forces are not given the right instructions?

I think that it is because people drop litter and fly-tip when they should not. The Department of the Environment has in hand initiatives to deal with that problem. I think that the law is adequate, although there may be some question whether penalties are appropriate. Although the fine for dropping litter is a maximum £400, the average fine last year was £26, and although the fine for fly-tipping is a maximum £1,000, the average fine last year was on £36. I must say to my hon. Friend that there are so many calls on the time of the police that it is difficult for us to assert that they should give a greater priority to prosecuting those who drop litter.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 June.

I have been asked to reply

The Lord Privy Seal will have seen the statement by the Eminent Persons Group that unless economic measures are taken against South Africa the cost will be counted in millions of lives. What will the Government do about that catastrophe.

Initially we shall discuss this matter with our allies, and that is precisely what is happening at The Hague. We shall determine a policy that takes account not only of our desire for peaceful change in South Africa but of national interest.

Will my right hon. Friend note that in a radio broadcast last week an Indian Member of the South African Parliament said of the EPG meeting that those who had made that report should have taken careful note of its effect on the South African blacks and that he resisted the idea of economic sanctions because he believed that they would not be in their interests?.

I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. These are all views that can be tested against the developments that will proceed from the conference at The Hague. We are wise to proceed with a very clear commitment that whatever is done shall be seen to be effective in the context of co-operation with our allies.

Following that question from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), will the right hon. Gentleman also take note that the non-white Members of the so-called tri-cameral Parliament walked out when Botha used the President's council to overrule their objections to the Internal Security Act, which gives totalitarian powers?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made quite clear the terms under which the discussions took place with Mr. Tambo. They underline the Government's determination to have a forward policy in these matters, but one which above all must always be related to the test of effectiveness, within which we are co-operating with our colleagues in western Europe, North America and Japan. It is a modest but realistic policy, and stands in total contrast to what the right hon. Gentleman constantly reaffirms, which is his commitment to comprehensive and mandatory sanctions. We believe that that would be disastrous for this country and disastrous for relationships with South Africa.

I am prepared to accept that the right hon. Gentleman at least wants to see an end to apartheid. Does he think that the steps taken by the Government so far have been, to use his word, effective?

The test of effectiveness is the way in which we can co-operate with all others who are engaged in this enterprise. [Interruption.] Oh yes it is. Once we are picked off one by one, the whole question of effectiveness is a total illusion. The right hon. Gentleman knows in his heart that nobody can stand at either Dispatch Box and say with certainty what are the economic consequences of action that we take and what are the political developments that flow from them.

If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government want those sanctions to apply to all, will he now tell me why the Government vetoed the mandatory sanctions in the United Nations last week, which was the one measure that would ensure that they applied to all?

Because we think that in the first instance we should move in close co-operation with our allies, and secondly that we should have modest objectives which are attainable.

Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right to be heard as anybody else.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that peaceful reform in South Africa is far more likely to take place in conditions of full employment and economic prosperity than in conditions of devastation and destruction, as proposed by the Opposition? Will he get a message to the Prime Minister at The Hague that the Government should be thinking of positive measures to increase investment in South Africa and increase the influence of British companies in that country, so that this initiative will be received by the South African Government as a way of helping them rather than hindering them towards peaceful reform?

The initial task of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary at The Hague is to concert a policy in conjunction with our colleagues which can then be put on an effective basis and which will have clear and determinable objectives. That is a great deal more important than engaging in a moral foghorn approach to the policy, as has been suggested by some Opposition Members.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 June 1986.

I have been asked to reply.

In the light of a Foreign Office Minister having seen a representative of the ANC, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that the Government should now see a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, since the one-sided attitude of the American President is not conducive to a peace settlement in that area?

The right hon. Gentleman's proposition is based on the assumption that there has never been a meeting of a Minister with the PLO. That is not true. There was a meeting, when my right hon. Friend, now the Home Secretary, urged upon the PLO the virtues of nonviolence.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 June 1986.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend accept a modest criticism, that Ministers could perhaps be even more vigorous in extolling the virtues of the Government? Should they not say, frequently and without apology, that the vast majority of people in this country have never been better off in their lives? Should they not highlight the reductions in nationalised industry prices for the first time in living memory? Should they not emphasise the soundness of the economy, when, in the face of a dramatic oil price reduction it has reacted with hardly a murmur? If the Opposition had been in power they would have been scurrying around like headless chickens looking up the International Monetary Fund and issuing a series of mini budgets. [Interruption.]

Order. It is selfish to take as long as that.

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. He argues that the Government have a formidable list of achievements to their credit, and that it lies upon all Tories to be arch-evangelists to ensure that that record is more widely appreciated. We have a period—I do not know how long, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition hopes that it will he longer rather than shorter — in which to obtain public recognition of those achievements, and we shall do so.

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the over 9 million people who are living at or below the supplementary benefit level appreciate the policies of the Government? What does he intend to do about that, since there has been a 50 per cent. increase since the Conservative party took office?

I preface my reply to the right hon. Gentleman by saying how much I enjoyed almost all or his remarks about South Africa on the radio this morning, which clearly puts him with us, if not with the Liberal party. [Interruption.] In reply to the substantive question, perhaps I can say that the report by the Low Pay Unit should be taken alongside the fact that under this Government supplementary benefit has increased in real terms, that for those on less than average earnings real take-home pay has increased substantially, and that there has been an increase in the tax threshold which has taken 1·5 million people out of taxation. I believe that any balanced reading of the position would not come to the social conclusions of the lobbyists behind the Low Pay Unit.

rose—

I call Mr. Harvey Proctor.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take it afterwards, at the usual time. Mr. Harvey Proctor.

rose—

Order. I shall not take it now. I shall take it afterwards, at the usual time.

asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Orsett.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Orsett will naturally be disappointed with that response, as they would have taken the opportunity to show the Prime Minister the green fields that will be built on if Tillingham Hall is allowed to go ahead in the green belt of Essex? Realising that my right hon. Friend is unable to comment on We detail of the outstanding appeal which has been to public inquiry, will he re-emphasise that it is general Government policy not to allow development in the green belt, except in exceptional circumstances?

I thank my hon. Friend for his understanding of the fact that I cannot comment on something that is subject to appeal. I assure him that it is general Government policy to seek the preservation of the green belt. That must be at the heart of any constructive and socially constructive environmental policy.

Is the Leader of the House not concerned about the increasing lawlessness of his Government, to such an extent that they have constantly had to introduce retrospective legislation to get themselves off the hook? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest example of that is that the Home Secretary, who has now received—

Order. The hon. Member must make his question relative to a visit to Orsett. Can he do that?

Will the Leader of the House—

Order. I shall help the hon. Member. Let us take it as read.

I think that I could better answer the question if the specific instance of alleged retrospective legislation were put to me.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Has my right hon. Friend seen a report which finds that the number of individual shareholders in the United Kingdom has risen to no less than 16 per cent. of the population, which is the same figure as in Japan and only 3 per cent. less than in the United States? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will he a continuing welcome for the Government's policies of privatisation and wider share ownership, which serve not only to increase the nation's wealth, but to underpin independence and dignity?

I agree with my hon. Friend's points. The personal equity plan? Which was announced in this year's Budget, is just one further example of the attempt to develop people's capitalism. I am certain that that will be at the heart of the election appeal which we shall put in the most effective form and in such a way as to console my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley).

This morning when the Secretary of State for Energy made such a ringing declaration of the Government's devotion to nuclear power and its future in Britain's energy production, was he speaking for the Government as a whole? Do the Government show any concern for the enormous public anxiety about the safety of nuclear power in the aftermath of Chernobyl?

Of course my right hon. Friend was speaking on behalf of the Government. This Administration need no instruction on the necessity for safety in the development of a nuclear programme. Before anyone casts aspersions, express or otherwise, on the quality of work in our nuclear industry, and what it has already achieved in terms of safety, let it be understood that it will be a poor day for this country when its energy choice is capriciously narrowed to deliver it more and more into the hands of the interest groups which would otherwise serve it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the House wants to associate with the policy of these Benches, both Liberal and Social Democrat, of wishing to support bans on new investment in South Africa, private bank loans and direct air flights—

Order. This must be a point of order, and not a further question.

I shall reiterate my point. If the Leader of the House wishes to associate with the policies of these Benches, including a ban—[interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I am going to be heard.

Order. The right hon. Member is right, but he must obey the rules and direct the point of order to me.

Yes, Sir. This point of order is for you. I am saying through you. Mr. Speaker, that—

Order. I think that I know what is upsetting the right hon. Member. I ask him to put the point of order to me, and I shall ascertain whether I can deal with it.

My point of order, Sir, is that, if the Leader of House wishes to associate with our policy, surely—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—he should do so directly and not abuse Question Time when answering a question on supplementary benefit and the 9 million people who are living below the poverty line. Mr. Speaker, you would not allow any other hon. Member to answer a question in the way that the Leader of the House sought to do. I am putting it to you that that was an abuse of Question Time. It should not be allowed. There are rights in the House for minorities and we expect you to uphold them. We would have expected you to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he abused Question Time— [Interruption.]—as you would have done with any other hon. Member. We understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties—

Order. The right hon. Member is making an accusation, and I cannot quite hear it.

I am delighted that you should want to hear it, Mr. Speaker, without the noise. The point to you was that there was an abuse of Question Time procedure by the Leader of the House. If anybody else had sought to answer a question which had not been put, he would have been called to order by you and not been allowed to do so. The question related to supplementary benefit and poverty—issues which are of some concern to some hon. Members — not to South Africa. If the Leader of the House wishes to dissociate himself from his party's policy, he should do it in another way.

rose—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody that it was an open question and that I am not responsible in any way for the content of answers. We frequently hear things in the House which we do not like. That is what democracy is all about.

rose—

Order. I call Mr. David Steel.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, there is a serious point of order for you. This is the second time this week that the Minister answering at the Dispatch Box seeks in the reply to distort the policy which my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and I have been pursuing on South Africa. On Tuesday it was the Prime Minister and today it was the Leader of the House. My point of order is that it is not understood outside the House why the Deputy Leader of the Labour party should be allowed to come back three times on a question, whereas we are not allowed to reply to the answer.

Order. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is well known to him. We have a convention in the House of two Front Benches, and he knows that that has been a long observed tradition. On his second question, throughout the questions to Home Office Ministers various Back-Bench Members attempted to imply that the policy of the Opposition was not entirely in tune. It is not unknown for similar accusations to be made against the Government party or the right hon. Gentleman's party.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear that the two points of order raised by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the leader of the SDP, and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party, have been brought before the House because of the exposure of the profound differences of view between the two right hon. Gentlemen? Would it not be of assistance to you if the two right hon. Gentlemen sat beside one another, if they could possibly hear to do so?

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to assist me. I should now like to be of assistance to the House: business questions.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I do not need any more help.

Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that we all worry about the distorted answers that we receive to our questions? My point of order is that today, having heard the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), it is evident that you should seriously consider running a little class—a sort of seminar—to which you can invite hon. Members and where you can provide them with the sort of ingenuity that is needed to raise a point of order and to make a further point at the same time.