asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to seek to reduce the incidence of criminal damage.

The Home Office crime prevention unit has issued guidance to local authority chief executives and chief officers of police on local crime prevention practice, including environmental improvements and an ti-vandalism campaigns. The Department of the Environment is taking a number of initiatives to reduce the incidence of crime on estates; community programme resources are being used for cleaning up graffiti and criminal damage; and the Department of Education and Science has commissioned research on the nature and extent of wilful damage to educational buildings and property and on cost-effective and practical solutions.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that since 1979 and 1983, when enormous promises were made, crime rates have soared and the incidence of criminal damage offences has risen dreadfully so that today, in Conservative Britain, one such offence is committed, on average, every minute? Will he at least ensure that local authorities are given adequate capacity to respond to arid clear up after such offences without delay?

In the hon. Gentleman's area of South Yorkshire there has been a reduction in such incidents over the past six months, so the pattern varies. The hon. Gentleman is too fair a debater to fall into the trap of trying to argue that these evils were invented in 1979. Of course they were not. I agree that we need the multi-agency approach which I outlined in my reply, and which certainly involves the local authorities in putting things right.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the damage, admittedly not all of it criminal, done by hippie convoys? What action will his Department take following the Prime Minister's initiative in the working group of Ministers to liaise with the Department of the Environment about providing additional powers for both police and planning authorities so that they can take immediate action on trespass, thereby preventing what could result in considerable damage to property?

We have been in close concert, not only with the Department of the Environment, but with hon. Members and their constituents. This morning my hon. Friend the Minister of State met a delegation which included my hon. Friend's constituents. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in another place, we are close to being able to reveal the proposal which we intend to add to the Public Order Bill and which will come to the House for consideration.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the incidence of criminal damage is only part of a greater pattern of lawlessness? Does he also agree that protestations from Opposition Members about such matters would carry a great deal more weight if prospective Labour parliamentary candidates and councillors did not use every opportunity to attack the police?

My hon. Friend is right. In practice they ran down the police when they were in office, and many of the Labour party's candidates and local government leaders run down the police at every opportunity even now.

How does the Home Secretary reconcile the statement in the 1983 Conservative election manifesto, that already street crime was being reduced and public confidence improved in some of the worst inner city areas, with the 73 per cent. increase in criminal damage since this Government came to office?

There is no doubt about the continued increase in crime, including criminal damage, which has now been going on for 30 years. The distinction between the two main parties is that we have a coherent policy for dealing with all aspects of this problem, whereas some, though not all, members of the Labour party, which is far from having a coherent policy, do their best to undermine what is being achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representation he has received concerning the unrestricted sale of "Black Widow" catapults.

A few hon. Members, the Association of County Councils and one police authority have recently expressed concern about "Black Widow" catapults.

Is my hon. Friend aware that other organisations, as well as the public, are deeply perturbed about this particular variant of the old-fashioned catapult, not least the RSPCA, which considers it to be potentially foully lethal to animals? Does he agree that any implement that advertises the capability of being able to heave a 5/16 in steel ball 225 yards with accuracy is not an inoffensive weapon? Will he take a very much more stringent attitude to this question than he has shown in recent answers to parliamentary questions, and advise carefully on how this instrument should be sold?

I am very concerned at the sale of a wide range of implements that can be misused in public. My hon. Friend will know that the law on using at item as an offensive weapon is sufficiently tight to catch this kind of offence, should it be committed in public. As my hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that these items are widespread and that there is public concern on the issue, I shall monitor the situation extremely carefully.

Will the Minister make representations to W. H. Smith to try to stop it selling the magazine "Survival Weaponry Techniques", which glorifies weapons such as these "Black Widow" catapults and offers a huge range of wicked weapons for sale by post to teenagers and others without any real restraint whatsoever? Will he recognise that this is an urgent matter about which something should be done, instead of merely talking about it?

I fully recognise that point, and in relation to a range of issues I am considering whether we can provide for the kind of voluntary guidance that was given in the case of martial arts equipment. A number of issues are involved that may require to be handled in that way, and I shall consider the hon. and learned Gentleman's point.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the "Black Widow" is only the junior model and that the "Diablo" model, which is advertised in this week's "Shooting Times and Country" magazine, which is in the Library, is a killer which has a sight, an arm rest and pistol grip? The unrestricted sale of these weapons must be stopped or we shall present the police and ourselves with an enormous problem if we do not tackle this matter completely.

I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. He will know that a large range of similar devices are on sale which can be used safely under certain controlled conditions. What concerns my hon. Friend and the House is the wide availability of such items to those who will not use them under trained and careful conditions. It is that problem that I shall endeavour to deal with.

Is the Minister aware that the "Black Widow" and the other catapult are made by Barnett International, which also manufactures crossbows, about which this House has expressed concern? For some strange reason the firm received the 1985 Queen's award for export and technology. Is there any innocent use to which these lethal catapults can be put? If not, ought there not to be some quick action by the Home Office on their sale?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The company did indeed win the Queen's award for export, because 85 per cent. of its entire production goes overseas. In relation to domestic sale, the hon. Gentleman is equally correct that widespread abuse could occur from the use of these weapons. Equally, there are a number of clubs which make legitimate use of these weapons on private premises. What we have to do is to strike a balance of where we can take discriminate action as opposed to merely taking the view that everything which can be abused must be the subject of legislation preventing its sale. Otherwise, knives and scissors would be in the latter category.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for breaches of the Sunday trading laws have taken place since 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

I regret that, as yet, the information is not centrally available. Responsibility for the enforcement of the law governing Sunday trading is a matter for the local authorities.

The figures which have been presented to me are considerable and they highlight the fact that there is a need for reform. Would my hon. and learned Friend welcome an initiative to introduce partial deregulation for leisure retailing, especially for garden centres?

He would rather be shot at with a "Black Widow".

The Auld Committee thought that there was no sensible alternative to complete deregulation of shop hours. That remains the Government's view, but obviously we would have to form a view on any private Member's Bill which was introduced in the next Session.

Why is it that when trade unionists break the law the Government crack down on them with a very heavy hand, but when employers break it and compel their workers to work on Sundays, without any extra pay and even advertise that they are opening on Sundays —for example do-it-yourself shops — the Government and local authorities take no notice?

We are talking about the Shops Act 1950, and section 71 of that Act says that it is the duty of every local authority to enforce, within its district, the provisions of the Act. Enforcement is a matter for the local authorities; it is not a matter for the Government.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that if the Government are in difficulties over the Sunday trading laws they need only to adopt the Shops (No. 2) Bill, which is listed on today's Order Paper? The Bill would iron out all the anomalies as well as preserving Sunday as a special day. It would also command majority support in the House.

I read my hon. Friend's Bill. It covers small shops with fewer than four employees and also, for four hours only, do-it-yourself shops, if a local authority makes an appropriate order. I cannot see how it possibly can be right to buy goods from a small shop but offensive, wrong and immoral to buy from a large shop. After what happened in the House not long ago, I am far from sure that there is anything like a consensus for the introduction of the sort of measures which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, although his and the Government's attempt to reform the law failed because there was not general agreement on total deregulation, the Government are, none the less, under some obligation to see whether we rally round an ad hoc, piecemeal policy of reform?

My hon. Friend knows the history of this matter. On Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend made it absolutely plain that the Government were prepared, during the Committee stage, to listen to any proposals for deregulation short of total deregulation. In spite of that, the majority of this House voted against the Bill on Second Reading. In those circumstances, it is unrealistic to expect the Government to introduce a Bill until there is clear evidence that a consensus for reform has emerged.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the maximum number of police officers deployed at any one time on duties in connection with the News International industrial dispute, and the relationship which this number bears to the local number of Metropolitan police officers available for duty at the time in question.

There were 1,870 officers deployed outside the News International plant at Wapping on 6 April. An additional 590 officers were involved in policing a march to Wapping. Information about the total number of officers available for duty that day could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the effort of turning Wapping into a no-go area is denuding our hard-pressed constituencies of a police service? Will he explain why we cannot have an up-to-date estimate of the total cost of the Wapping operation? What is the result of the internal inquiry into police behaviour on 3 May, and what disciplinary action has been taken?

Any complaints about the actions of the police on 3 May or on any other occasion at Wapping or elsewhere should be examined through the procedures which the House has laid down. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is aiming at. If he is saying that the police should not police events at Wapping, he is saying, in effect, that the plant there should be left open to attack and that people who want to work there should be prevented from doing so. I cannot think that he is really arguing that. The number of police officers who should be deployed at Wapping must be a matter for the judgment of the commissioner. Any hon. Member who believes in the operational independence of chief officers must support that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the merits of the argument about the industrial dispute at Wapping, there would be no need for such a massive police presence if the Opposition would call off their supporters and associates? Peace would be restored, and that would be in the interests of Londoners and crime prevention as a whole.

I agree. The number of police officers now engaged at Wapping is lower than that which I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), because the hon. Gentleman asked for the maximum number deployed at any one time. The number is still high, and tactics have changed. Instead of having demonstrations on Wednesday and Saturday nights, several hundred people now arrive and start an operation at differing times of the day and week with no notice. This makes it difficult for the police to handle the situation and it weakens the policing effort in the rest of London. If those who are engaged in the dispute feel that they have to pursue it, I wish that they would discuss with the police ways of doing so, ways in which they could exercise their rights without weakening the police and, therefore, the effort that is being made to combat crime in the rest of London.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a couple of weeks ago in the same borough a half-mile march by about 200 women and 100 children was invigilated by a force of more than 40 police, most of whom inviligated it by sitting motionless in a coach, which proceeded to follow the tail of the procession very slowly, to the jeers of many onlookers? Is that an economic use of police manpower?

I think that criticisms of the police are about evenly divided between those who say that they do too much and those who say they do too little. These are difficult operational decisions. In my view, and that of the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, they can, because they are operational questions, be left only to the operational decision of the chief officer of police.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at 5.15 yesterday afternoon the East India Dock road was blocked by a mass of pickets using crowd barriers to form their obstruction? I was driving the first car to appear on the scene and I was able to escape by going over the pavement and down a side road, but all the cars behind me had to turn round and go back. When the Queen's highway is blocked in this way, is it not essential that police remain in the area to ensure free passage?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The police are acting to prevent breaches of the peace and obstruction of the highway. It is in the interests of citizens as a whole that they should maintain that activity. At Wapping, 346 police officers have been injured so far and there have been 1,098 arrests. I cannot think that the way in which the dispute is being conducted on the union side helps the unions' case or the cause of printers in any way. It certainly makes it more difficult for the Metropolitan police to fight crime in the rest of London.

How can the Home Secretary acquiesce in the withdrawal of a substantial number of Metropolitan police officers from fighting and preventing crime on the streets of the capital without trying to exert pressure on Mr. Murdoch to open proper negotiations?

I wish that the dispute could be settled. I have said so many times. If the Labour Front Bench is saying that the commissioner should let the situation at Wapping go unpoliced so that the plant can be attacked and the electricians and others working there can be prevented from entering, it should say so openly instead of making such guarded remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation holds radiac equipment capable of measuring levels of radiation in the air; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation holds fixed and portable radiation survey meters capable of measuring radiation doses in air.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and the reassurance that he has given. Can he give us a further assurance that the equipment held by the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation is capable of properly measuring the levels of radiation after Chernobyl?

My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a thorough examination of all aspects of that accident. As to the capacity of such meters to measure radiation dosage from Chernobyl, the answer is no, because the rated radiation was so low that it could not be measured by the meters that are used.

Are steps being taken to assist county civil defence officers in measuring emissions of radiation? Reports to my authority in the Isle of Wight depicted a scene whereby the local officer did not know how to answer questions by the general public.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. A number of details, both of communication and the type of radiation measurement that would be suitable for such an incident, are to be worked out in the post-Chernobyl examination.

In view of the natural public concern over unseen dangerous rays, will my hon. Frend consider following the lead taken by the Japanese in showing graphically precisely what levels are likely to occur by way of X-rays, from sun, from travelling by air, and from the kind of accident that took place in Chernobyl?

My hon. Friend is quite right. There is a real difficulty in transmitting to the public the information in a form that would enable them to understand it. It is not easy, for example, that the scientific measurement of radiation rays has just changed from the basis of rems and rads to the basis of grays and centigrays. I shall consider the point that my hon. Friend has made as part of the review of all these issues in relation to the Chernobyl incident.

Mr. Banks.

No. 5, Sir.

No. 6.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army are currently held in Her Majesty's prison Long Lartin; and how many are allowed private visits.

The hon. Gentleman is more right than usual, Mr. Speaker.

I should be grateful if the Minister could answer this queston seriously without cheap and snide comments.

What the hon. Gentleman says about visiting arrangements is right. The assumption that he seeks to draw from it is wrong. My right hon. Friend is considering whether there should be any reference to the Court of Appeal of the convictions in those cases, having regard to further submissions which have been made and which are under active consideration.

Is the Minister aware that in the book "Error of Judgment" recently written by Mr. Chris Mullin, there is incontrovertible evidence that undermines, quite clinically, the prosecution evidence against the six men, undoubted evidence of maltreatment of the prisoners before they went to court, and a clear indication as to who else committed that bombing? There is a widespread view among people who have no interest, other than that justice should be done, that the matter should be properly examined. There is a widespread belief that six innocent people have been imprisoned for 10 years for an offence they did not commit.

I note the right hon. Gentleman's confident assertion, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will give it such weight as he thinks appropriate in making his difficult decision.

It is nearly a year since the Home Secretary ordered a Home Office investigation, following the Granada programme on the Birmingham six, and since the Taoiseach, Dr. FitzGerald, said that the case was being dealt with "very urgently". What evidence do we have that the Home Secretary has demonstrated any urgency in recent months on this case?

The case is being thoroughly investigated. The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) should get together to be clear about what they are saying before they start putting different questions to us. The book upon which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield relies was published only three weeks ago, and that matter is being looked at. These are difficult decisions with which not only this Home Secretary but previous Home Secretaries have had to grapple. I see that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) confirms that. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) would do the subject a little more credit if he recognised how difficult these matters are and how carefully they need to be explored.

The Under-Secretary of State is correct to say that they are difficult decisions to take. Whatever else, doubts are cast on the decisions taken in that case. Given those doubts—I say no more than that—what procedures must now be followed? I think that if those procedures were understood some of the concern would be quietened.

As ever the right hon. Gentleman is most helpful and I will tell him. The matters under investigation relate to a wide range of pieces of evidence canvassed at the trial. Much of that work is at an advanced stage. The publication of the book by Chris Mullin raised fresh points, especially the contention that certain individuals — allegedly known to Mullin, although not named, thereby making our position rather difficult — have committed these offences. As a result, the West Midlands police were asked to carry out further investigations. When the results are to hand, they will be consolidated with the other material. When the examination is completed, an announcement will be made. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no interest in prolonging these matters, nor does he believe that pressure of the type which one or two hon. Members— not the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South—are seeking to exert is at all helpful in arriving at the objective quasi-judicial decision which my right hon. Friend much reach before deciding whether the matter should be referred to the Court of Appeal.

Does the Minister accept that the House faces an extremely difficult decision? There is considerable anxiety on both sides of the House, in the House of Lords and in the country generally, that the convictions in the Birmingham pub bombing case, and in the Guildford and Maguire cases may be wrongful convictions. If so, not only are innocent people in prison, but guilty people are still free, with all that that implies for offences of this type. In view of that, and of the fact that no hon. Member or person outside the House can have any interest in seeing innocent people in prison and guilty people going free, will the hon. Gentleman consider ordering a retrial in all three cases?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether there are matters capable of being regarded as fresh evidence of a kind which, under examination by the Court of Appeal, might cast doubt on a jury's findings in this or any other case. That is always a difficult issue, especially in a case such as the Birmingham bombing case, which has been considered frequently by appellate courts in the context of civil and criminal proceedings. My right hon. Friend will discharge his duties in this respect with as much care as possible. That is the proper basis on which it will be done.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to ensure that local authorities implement their all hazards responsibilities in relation to civil protection.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to bring to the attention of local authorities the all hazards aspect of civil protection.

As I announced on 22 July in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki), new guidance on the preparation of plans and on the all hazards approach has been sent to local authority associations with our proposals for a planned programme for implementation of the 1983 civil defence regulations.

I welcomed my hon. Friend's answer on that day. It is indicative of the humanitarian desire and social obligations of national Government and most local governments to meet those ends. However, could he reassure the House that at borough council, district council and town council level those plans will be carried through?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the prime responsibility rests with those authorities which carry civil defence responsibility, mainly the county councils, but also the joint boards for fire and civil defence. I can assure him that it will be a requirement upon the counties that the plans they produce to conform with the 1983 regulations must show that they have a countywide network of communications and monitoring. That will include districts as well.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever one's views on the desirability or otherwise of the possession of nuclear weapons, any country must have plans for adequate protection for the civil population against disaster, whether natural or man-made, native or imported? In that respect, opposition to civil defence on narrow unilateralist grounds puts at risk the wider concept of civil protection against all hazards.

My hon. Friend is correct. Civil defence is a form of humanitarian protection for the civil population and it is essential that local authorities should realise that that is what they are denying their electorate in many cases. The widespread response we had on the review undertaken last year shows that many local authorities have failed to provide adequate plans for protection. We are determined to correct that.

Will the Minister confirm that he is aware that on Saturday 28 June an oleum tank at a chemical company in St. Helens split and released a cloud of sulphur trioxide over St. Helens and the police had to put into effect Operation Cloudburst? Is he aware that the local authority had no input into Operation Cloudburst? Does that not make nonsense of the statement he made the other day?

If the local authority had an effective civil protection system under its emergency planning officers, there would be consultation between the police and the civil protection authority on that matter. As for Operation Cloudburst, it was quick action by the police that prevented any real disturbance as a result of that incident.

How on earth can the Minister argue that local authorities can provide civil protection in case of a nuclear attack when, only a few months ago, as a result of one nuclear reactor going up in Chernobyl, there was enormous emission of radioactivity affecting not only this country but the Western world, and resulting in hysteria, not only on the continent, but in Britain? In view of that hysteria and the hundred times greater damage that could result from a nuclear attack, how can civil protection be provided?

I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman had now totally destroyed the concept of a nuclear-free zone. It is absurd to think that any local authority or population can protect itself against the possibility of radiation unless it has a fully worked out plan for civil protection.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the county of Hampshire has a greatly increasing population and, therefore, a greatly increasing civil defence problem? Will he further accept that the chief constable and the chairman of the police council, Councillor Michael Boyle, are extremely prudent men? Is he aware that both those men are applying for a significant increase in the establishment of the police in Hampshire, which does not seem to be coming through his Department? Will he look into that question urgently and meet the legitimate demands of those police authorities?

I am well aware of the application, which was originally for 33 posts and now is for 28 posts for Hampshire. It will be given urgent consideration in the light of my right hon. Friend's decision to ensure that all police authorities should have any proposed increases analysed for proven need. We hope to arrive at a decision shortly.

Bearing in mind that civil defence in respect of hostile attack is subject to statutory control, does the Minister agree that it would be much better to put the all hazards approach on a statutory basis? Does he further agree that we shall never have an even-handed approach to civil defence unless we have statutory control on an all hazards basis and requirements laid down by central Government?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we have made some progress with the small amending Bill to the Civil Defence Act 1948 which was piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminister (Sir N. Bonsor). In addition, the 1983 regulations are statutory. If the plans which we now require are brought under those regulations, they will have all the statutory force required to provide the civil protection cover that the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received since publication of the Peacock Report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the Peacock report.

We have received a small number of letters from hon. Members and from the public about specific matters raised in the report.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Bearing in mind the increasing burden of the licence fee on many ordinary people, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to tie the BBC licence fee to the retail prices index, as suggested by the Peacock committee? Should it not be tied to some RPI minus X formula, leading, I hope, to a reduction in the licence fee and a concentration of the BBC's mind on priorities, efficiency and quality?

That is an interesting variation on the recommendation in the Peacock report. We are considering, and must consider, if we are to live with the licence fee as a system for some time, how we can ensure that citizens are protected from excessive increases and that the BBC has the same sort of pressures on it for efficiency as are common throughout the public sector.

Does the Home Secretary accept that the Peacock report has endorsed the view of Parliament regarding concessionary television licences for old people? Will he now take the opportunity of the next Queen's Speech to announce that concessionary television licences will be adopted? This is probably his last chance before an incoming Labour Government will do so.

I recommend as holiday reading to the hon. Gentleman the Peacock report, which went out of its way to demolish the Labour party's proposition.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the representations from my constituents on the Peacock report, particularly those connected with the disgraceful reporting by the BBC of the position in South Africa? What steps will he take to ensure that a political balance is restored to the BBC?

The responsibility for ensuring that the BBC treats controversial subjects with due impartiality rests with the board of governors of the BBC and is enshrined in its resolution of 8 January 1981, which is an annex to the BBC's licence and agreement. Parliament has given the board of governors of the BBC, not the Home Secretary or any Minister, this extremely important responsibility and it is up to the board to make arrangements to ensure that that responsibility is discharged.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated expenditure by district councils on civil defence in 1986; what proportion will be provided by central Government resources; and if he will make a statement.

District councils' civil defence expenditure is incorporated in county councils' estimates and the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total of local authority estimates for civil defence expenditure in the current financial year is £19,494 million. Civil defence grant is paid on approved expenditure at the rates of 75 per cent. or 100 per cent., depending on the nature of the activity.

Will the Minister make available a 100 per cent. grant for the provision of control centres?

As the hon. Lady will know, that is at present the case for the construction of control centres. We are considering whether the 100 per cent. grant should be available for a wider range of expenditure, including staff costs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government have any plans to monitor political balance in BBC news broadcasts.

No, Sir. It is for the board of governors of the corporation, as I have just said, to ensure that BBC programmes are presented with due impartiality.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the performance of the governors of the BBC in carrying out their responsibilities? Why can we not have the same straightforward newspaper reporting on BBC television as we enjoy when we listen to the BBC World Service?

That is the responsibility of the board of governors. I think it is entirely legitimate and, indeed, desirable, that citizens or organisations who feel themselves aggrieved or feel, as my hon. Friend evidently does, that standards have slipped in this regard should take every opportunity to make their views known direct to the governors. It is part of the responsibility of the governors to pay attention to that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why it has not yet been possible to conclude the review of the convictions of six men for the Birmingham pub bombings.

I have been concerned to examine thoroughly the material submitted to me following the World in Action television programme. In addition, as my hon. Friend said a few minutes ago, I am now considering points raised in the recently published book on the case.

It does not make anyone in Birmingham feel any better about the Birmingham bombings to know that six innocent men have now been locked up for 12 years. Can the Home Secretary tell us when he is likely to reach a conclusion? Can he also tell us whether it is true that the Home Office repeated the forensic tests and found that the tests that were used were totally unreliable?

I am not going to deal bit by bit with the particular aspects of this complicated matter. The hon. Lady would not seriously expect me to do that. When suggestions are made that there is new evidence, as has happened recently with Mr. Mullin's book, it must he right, if I am to make a serious judgment, a serious decision, in the matter, that I should take those new arguments into consideration. That is what is now happening. I have no desire or interest in delaying a decision on that. It is a very difficult decision now, as it has always been. The criteria have been well established under the different holders of my office, and I shall seek to apply those criteria to the best of my ability.

asked the Prime Minister if she will raise, at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, the issues raised by the monthly reports submitted to the Council by the Commission on trends in agricultural spending in accordance with the 4 December 1984 agreement.

The Commission has produced these reports partly in response to my hon. Friend's persistent questioning. The issues raised by these reports have been considered by the Budget Council in its discussions on the 1986 budget.

As the 1–4 VAT rate, which was meant to last for several years, has now been fully budgeted this year, and as the Council has clearly abandoned any attempt to control agricultural spending, can the Prime Minister now give some indication to British farmers, to the Third world countries that are savaged by Common Market dumping, and to the Soviet Union, which benefits hugely from Common Market dumping, as to what will happen when, almost inevitably later this year, the Common Market is bankrupt once again and runs out of funds?

The revised Community budget for 1986 has now been adopted and this replaces the budget ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice. We believe that the new, revised budget makes adequate provision to meet all the Community's agricultural obligations. We do not expect any significant overrun into 1987. I must say that I agree with some of my hon. Friend's strictures on the effect of dumping surpluses on other countries.

Is the Prime Minister aware that at Whitwell in my constituency the Coal Board has just closed a pit even though it has made a profit—[Interruption.]

Order. The question is about the EEC.

Yes—even though it made a profit for the greater part of the 100 years that it was open. The Common Market has been bankrupt for about five years out of the last 10—

Order. The question is about agricultural spending, in the EEC.

Yes. The Common Market has been bankrupt for about five years out of the last 10 and, if it had been a coal mine, this Prime Minister would have shut it. Why does she not get on with it and save the British taxpayer some money for a change?

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the taxpayer this year, in spite of the closing of a number of pits, will still pay something like £1·5 billion for the coal industry. With regard to the common agricultural policy, this year's price fixing was estimated to reduce spending by 320 million ecu in 1986 and 457 million ecu in 1987. Community financing of intervention was also cut, saving the budget 350 million ecu a year, so we are in fact steadily dealing with the problems of the common agricultural policy, in the same way as we are dealing steadily with the coal industry.

rose—

Order. I remind the House that this is a definitive question, a rare occasion for Prime Minister's Questions. We must stick to the subject.

May I refer to the approach that has been made to my right hon. Friend by Sir Henry Plumb, the leader of the European Conservative parliamentary group, asking her to call a world food conference on the twin problems of embarrassing food surpluses in the Western world and starvation in the less developed countries? Will she give the House an assurance that she will take the lead and call urgently a food conference in London at the earliest possible moment?

The question of surpluses between the major producing countries was, as my hon. Friend knows, discussed at the Tokyo summit. We are in touch and in close consultation with the United States about those matters. We also agreed there that the proper forum for it to be discussed was in the new GATT round, which we are hoping will began in September. That should, and indeed must, include the whole question of agricultural surpluses and how to deal with them.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 July.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister agree that today's Westland report does not live up to the juicy leaks and well-trailed publicity? Will my right hon. Friend not spend too much time on it on this busy day?

The Government will, of course, respond to these reports in due course, but I should like to make two things clear straight away. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have total confidence in our officials referred to in the report. As the House will be aware, those responsible for decisions and disciplinary action have already concluded that there is no case for such action. Secondly, I do not accept the Committee's comments on the role of the head of the Home Civil Service. He continues to enjoy the Government's total confidence. He is a very distinguished public servant, who has performed great service to Governments of both parties.

The members of the Select Committee on Defence, of all parties, have been fastidious in their report on Westland plc. In that report, published today, they raise the most profound questions about the conduct of senior officials serving the Government, describing their conduct as "improper" and "disreputable". As head of that Government, does the Prime Minister accept ministerial responsibility for those officials, particularly as some of those named are directly accountable only to her and are personally associated very closely with her?

I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman's question before he asked it. The Government will, of course, respond beyond that to those reports in due course. At present I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

This is not a usual Select Committee. All of us obviously understand that the Government will require time to compile their full response in the normal fashion, but there is one question to which the Prime Minister can and—I believe the country also thinks this —must given an answer now in a direct fashion. It is: will she accept the direct ministerial responsibility for officials that everyone understands goes with the office of Minister at every level, or will she be part of a cover-up?

I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have total confidence in our officials referred to in the report. Secondly, I do not accept the Committee's comments on the role of the head of the Home Civil Service. He continues to enjoy the Government's total confidence. He is a very distinguished public servant who has performed great service to Governments of both parties.

By her repetitive replies and her failure to respond to the one issue upon which she can definitely respond today, it is difficult to escape the feeling that the Prime Minister is seeking to hide behind officials. If that is the case, is the Prime Minister aware that she is in great danger of herself attracting the reputation of being disreputable and improper?

No, but clearly the right hon. Gentleman asked that question because that was what he wanted to say at the end. The fact was that I volunteered the two points properly that we have total confidence in our officials, and we are proud to be able to stand up for them at this Dispatch Box.

With the approach of the holidays, will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on expelling another minor official from the Labour party, but will she agree with me—

Order. That has nothing to do with the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 July.

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

I refer the Prime Minister to paragraph 160 of the report of the Select Committee on Defence. It says:

"Since the information was passed by telephone to Westland in any event, the reason given by the Prime Minister for releasing the information to the Press Association begins to look flimsy, to say the least."

I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's question before he asked it. Beyond that, as I said earlier, the Government will of course respond to these reports in due course. I have nothing further to add this afternoon.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement that the Commonwealth is more important than the issues that temporarily divide it?

Yes. I believe firmly in the Commonwealth and I am sure that it is strong enough to withstand any differences between us in the future, as it has withstood them in the past.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House clearly whether she accepts or rejects the unanimous finding of the Select Committee on Defence that two key officials in her Department, Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell, were deeply involved in the planned leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter, yet apparently failed to tell her what was going on? If that is so, how can the Prime Minister continue to express confidence in the officials concerned?

I have answered the points about my officials, but let me answer them again. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have total confidence in our officials referred to in the report. As the House will be aware, those responsible for decisions on disciplinary action have already concluded that there is no case for such action. Secondly, I do not accept the Committee's comments on the role of the head of the Home Civil Service. He continues to enjoy the Government's total confidence, and I am glad to express our confidence in his distinguished service.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the appalling Soweto uprising in South Africa occurred when there was a Labour Government here and that, at that time, apartheid was in its full, rigorous force, but, nevertheless, under the Labour Government, no fewer than 75 trade missions were sent to South Africa to encourage trade, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £410,000? Have we not heard enough humbug from the Opposition on South Africa?

Yes, Sir. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 July.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that Mr. Bernard Ingham is normally very good at telling the rest of the world what is going on, and yet we are expected to believe that on this occasion he did not even tell the Prime Minister what was going on? Will she now answer the question, because it is her reputation that is directly under threat?

I have already indicated that the Government will be replying in due course. I have nothing further to add this afternoon. I am delighted that on this occasion, the last day when I am answering questions, the Opposition appear to be satisfied with health, education, social security, the welfare state— [Interruption.] —and between them they cannot muster a single question. My goodness, they are ready to go away!

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take it after the private notice question.