asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the west midlands as to why west midlands police officers have been taking statements regarding the case of the Birmingham pub bombings when this inquiry has been placed in the hands of the Devon and Cornwall police; and if he will make a statement.

I am assured by the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall that all inquiries and interviews carried out in the course of the investigation of the allegations by the former west midlands police officer Thomas Clarke have been conducted by officers of his force.

Is the Home Secretary aware that there is grave disquiet about the way in which the inquiry is being conducted? I include in that the inquiry that is being conducted by the Devon and Cornwall police. Does he agree that the West Midlands police force is probably the force least qualified in the whole country to be involved in the investigations? Does he further agree that it is the job of the Court of Appeal, not the police, to determine whether witnesses are telling the truth?

I shall not enter on that ground in a case that has been referred by me to the Court of Appeal. I have seen nothing that in any way justifies the allegations and insinuations that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the convention of the House, that Members of Parliament mind their own constituency business and do not intervene in matters relating to other hon. Members' constituencies? Will he also recognise that the Birmingham pub bombings have a great deal more relevance to the west midlands than to Sunderland, South?

That is not a matter for me. However, I must say that I have been very disturbed by press reports of what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is reported to have said in Dublin, where he described these people as political prisoners and cast doubts on the whole process of reference to the Court of Appeal. He misled those who were listening to him in Ireland, and brought no credit upon himself.

In retrospect, does the Home Secretary agree that if the impartiality of the case could have been safeguarded by the Police Complaints Authority there would have been greater public confidence? Does he further agree that if the Maguire and Guildford cases had been referred to the Court of Appeal the extradition agreements would now have been agreed and implemented by the Republic of Ireland?

I cannot allow that sort of consideration to influence my decision whether to refer matters to the Court of Appeal. I decided in January to refer the Birmingham case to the Court of Appeal for reasons that I stated to the House at the time. At the same time, I explained why I had not decided to refer the Guildford, Woolwich and Maguire cases. Since then, there has been a suggestion of fresh matter in the case of the Guildford bombings. There was a television programme, and we are trying to get hold of what Mrs. Fox, who appeared on the programme, is supposed to have said. There has been some difficulty in getting hold of her statement. That has slowed things down and made it more difficult for me to consider whether there is any new matter of substance that will justify referral of the Guildford case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking powers to grant jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to increase sentences; and if he will make a statement.

I have not received any representations so far this Session, but, as I said during the debate on the Loyal Address, the Government are considering how to strengthen clause 38, as it now is, of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a great deal of disquiet among the general public about the fact that convicted criminals receiving unnecessarily lenient sentences are benefiting from a miscarriage of justice in the courts? Will he look carefully at the advice being given by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, and also by Lord Denning? Their recommendation is to allow the prosecution to have the right of appeal and also to give the Court of Appeal the right to increase sentences that it regards as being manifestly lenient. That would settle many of the public feelings of disquiet.

I have read Lord Lane's speech and discussed it with him. I bear in mind the points that my hon. Friend made when the previous Bill was before the House, and the points that were made in another place. We are taking all those into account and considering, as I made clear in my speech on the Loyal Address, how to strengthen clause 38 of the present Bill.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people in Britain would say that it is eminently fair that if somebody can appeal against a sentence that appears to be harsh, the prosecution should equally be allowed to appeal against an over-lenient sentence?

Yes, I think that many people would regard that as fair. It is quite a revolution in what the prosecution in this country has traditionally been about. I have never regarded this as a matter of principle. I think that there have been substantial practical difficulties about putting this new responsibiity on the Crown Prosecution Service within months of its birth. We have discussed this point in the House. I ask my hon. Friend to be patient and to wait and see how we strengthen clause 38 to meet the kind of considerations and anxieties that he has expressed.

Does the Home Secretary agree that as the British prison system is dreadfully overcrowded with large numbers of prisoners who have never been convicted of any offence of violence of any kind, the way to solve the problem is not overwhelmingly to increase light sentences for serious offences, but to reduce sentences for many of the most trivial offences? Will he tell the House what action he proposes to take about that?

I do not think that the hon. Lady is correct, because she poses one problem in dismissing another. The problem of public anxiety to which my hon. Friends have been drawing attention is very real. The actual level of sentencing for crimes such as rape and robbery has been steadily increasing, but public confidence in the system is shaped by the occasional sentence that appears to be wayward in a lenient direction. I do not think that there is an enormous number of such sentences, but perhaps they attract disproportionate publicity. However, there is no doubt about the shock to confidence in the system when they occur.

Will my right hon. Friend take account of the substantial strength of feeling in the legal profession against giving the Court of Appeal the right to increase sentences? That strength of feeling arises not only because of the resource implications, but because of the alterations in the principles which have traditionally always been applied in our law to stop an accused person being subjected to double jeopardy.

As I said earlier, and as my hon. and learned Friend's intervention again illustrates, this would amount to a considerable revolution in what the prosecution in this country has always been about. I ask my hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Members to wait a little. I hope that when we come forward with our proposal on this matter he will find it reasonable.

The Home Secretary referred to sentences that were wayward in the direction of leniency. Does he regard the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill as being appropriate for sentencing for insider dealing on the stock exchange?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to his old pastures. I hope that our dealings across the Floor of the House will be reasonable and constructive. The right hon. Gentleman has imported a question from his last portfolio, which is a little unfair. He will be aware that it is only under this Government that insider dealing has been made an offence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with chief constables about the effect on the maintenance of law and order of (a) the number of late licenses granted and (b) the number of amusement arcades operating.

Discussions about amusement arcades were held with officers of the Metropolitan police in November of last year. We have recently asked the Association of Chief Police Officers for information on its experience of amusement arcades as part of our review of the adequacy of the law. The Department is working with the police and others on a number of initiatives to reduce problems associated with licensed premises generally.

Does the Minister agree that there appears to be a correlation between the increased granting of late-night licences and violence on the street? Does he further agree that amusement arcades are good only for profiteers? They reflect the values of our society and lead to truancy and increased child gambling, which is a phenomenon that is to be abhorred. Will the Minister give local authorities more control over the granting of licences for amusement arcades?

As to amusement arcades, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has anticipated the concern of the hon. Lady. She will recall that on 6 May my right hon. Friend announced a research programme designed to determine the extent of the use of arcades by young persons and whether that use is addictive and results in criminal or anti-social activity. When we have received the results of that research we will be in a better position to judge whether it is necessary or desirable to legislate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a related temptation for the younger age group is the increasing availability of lethal weapons? I have a constituent whose 13-year-old son had posted to his school a horrendous knife with a 10-in blade. The young people who are faced with these temptations are buying these weapons at low prices. This must be a contributory factor to the increasing violence and damage that is being carried out by this age group.

My hon. Friend has raised a serious point, about which Ministers are extremely concerned. We should like to come to the House with proposals as soon as we reasonably can.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one or two organisations, particularly the Spectrum Children's Trust, have already done some work on what is happening in amusement arcades. That shows that a growing number of children are playing truant from school in order to participate in these activities. Gambling is addictive among young people and many are in moral danger as the hours of opening increase. When the hon. Gentleman receives the results of the research, I hope that he will report quickly and look at those two aspects of the problem.

I am aware that that view is held by many reasonably-minded people. That is exactly why the programme of research has been commissioned. When we have received the report we will be in a better position to judge whether we should legislate. I am against the concept of a nanny state, and I do not contemplate legislation being introduced unless I consider it to be desirable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what figures he has available which allow a comparison to be made between the levels of serious violent crime in England and Wales, France and Germany.

International crime statistics are published periodically by Interpol. As my right hon. Friend said on 30 June, the latest figures show that there were fewer than two homicides per 100,000 population in England and Wales in 1984. The figures for France and West Germany were twice as high.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I do not wish to sound complacent, but it proves that it is contrary to the widely-held belief. Can my hon. Friend comment on the figures for petty crime, such as car thefts, break-ins and similar crimes, and, if so, will he elaborate?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the vast majority of crimes that inflate crime figures in this country are eminently avoidable. For example, 25 per cent. of indictable crime in this country is theft of or from cars, and about 20 per cent. of that takes place when cars are left unlocked.

Is the Minister aware that in Sheffield, parts of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and I represent, city centre pubs have been operating a system of early warning for the past five years in an attempt to stem the increase in violence? In spite of that, pub landlords and managers now face a dramatic increase in assaults. How will the Minister respond to the call of the vice president of the local Licensed Victuallers Association for harsher penalties?

I understand that it is a problem for inner-city pubs. I heard the vice president of the local Licensed Victuallers Association, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, on the "Today" programme recently making that very point. It is an inner-city problem and it is best dealt with largely by prevention and warning.

Has my hon. Friend any comparisons on statistics for street crimes between this country and France and Germany, especially in view of the new crime that appears to be gaining prevalence in south London, called steaming, where gangs of 30 of more attack people on buses and in shops and rob everybody in sight?

I do not have the figures on street crime at my fingertips because the lock on my Red Box jammed and it was only with the help of the policeman behind the Chair and a screwdriver that I was able to open it for 2.30 pm. I shall write to my hon. Friend with those details. I know that one of the main aims of the Metropolitan police force is to stamp out as vigorously as possible those forms of violent crime, and the courts have available an equally vigorous range of penalties to punish those who are convicted.

I welcome the Minister to his new job. Will he confirm that in the matter of non-violent crime England and Wales are somewhere near the top of the international league? For example, does he know that there is a burglary every 34 seconds and an act of theft or of handling stolen goods every 16 seconds? What is he going to do about that?

I must begin by reciprocating the welcome. I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his important post. I had not read about it. I hope that we have the same—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is indicating that it may be only temporary.

Is it not high time that we introduced legislation to prevent the sale of knives to under 18-yearolds? Does my hon. Friend recall that at one time there was great concern about the sale and use of flick-knives? That was abolished with great success. We cannot sell cigarettes to under 16-year-olds, we cannot sell liquor to under 18-year-olds, so why should they be able to buy knives?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong concern, which I know is shared on both sides of the House. It is something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to review the operation of existing legislation regarding safety at sports grounds and other public places; and if he will make a statement.

Parts II, III and IV of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987, which received Royal Assent on 15 May, amend the existing legislation for spectator safety at sports grounds and the licensing legislation for indoor premises. There are no plans for a further review.

Is the Minister able to reply to the submissions that have been sent to the Home Office by myself and others about the need for a public safety information Bill in view of the considered opinion of various experienced people and organisations that tragedies such as the Bradford football fire and the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster might have been avoided if the public had a statutory right of access to information on matters of public safety or the lack of it?

I have not yet seen the letter written by the hon. Gentleman. The Government are committed to improving safety standards, and the Act, to which I have already referred, greatly improves the standards of safety that the public are entitled to expect at sports grounds. Under that Act, local authorities have greatly increased powers to inspect and control. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a whole range of stands have now been brought within control, whereas previously they were not.

Would not sports grounds and other public places be somewhat safer if the Government would consider introducing a modern version of the stocks and pillories for football hooligans and other types of vandals who make life hell in our inner cities?

That is the sort of humorous suggestion that I have learnt to expect from my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable offences were committed during the last month for which figures are available; and what increase this represents compared with the position 10 years earlier.

There were 951,000 notifiable offences recorded by the police in the first quarter of 1987. The number in the first quarter of 1977 was 614,500. This represents an average annual increase of 4·5 per cent.

Does the Minister agree that those very serious figures do not represent the full picture? Does he accept that an increasing number of crimes are not reported which 10 years ago would have been reported? As the Home Office is given to establishing research programmes for a variety of activities, will the Minister institute a research inquiry into the incidence of non-reporting of offences that the police should certainly know about?

The Home Office is doing that all the time. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The incidence of reported crime has been rising, not falling. Through insurance, consultation with the police and better prevention, we are undoubtedly helping the situation. The hon. Gentleman is held in great respect in the House and in the Labour movement. If he would talk to Labour local authorities which publish material such as "Police Watch" in Manchester and "Policing London" in the metropolitan area which do such damage to public confidence in the police, he would help a great deal more.

Does my hon. Friend agree that opportunist crime has grown exactly in line with the growth in the availability of goods, money and property to steal? That is 96 per cent. of the crime problem. Does he also agree that there is, indeed, under-reporting, that crime will not be prevented by police patrols on the street, but that it will be stopped by the public working with the police, local authorities and other agencies to prevent it?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the facts and figures. He is also right that so much crime is preventable, especially small-scale burglaries. As he is a London Member, I put it to him that many London local authorities, rather than having nuclear-free or anti-police zones, should try to set up crime prevention zones.

In the light of the alarmingly increased figures that the Minister has given, even for reported crime, what real commitment do the Government have to improving crime prevention and what real resources do they intend to put into local authorities to enable them to improve street lighting to make neighbourhoods and estates safer and to carry out the real work of crime prevention that the Government have so far neglected?

Alas and alack, many London Labour-controlled authorities are the last places where we would consider putting extra resources for work of this kind. They spend the resources that they have on publishing periodicals such as "Policing London" and seek to damage police and public relations. Since the Government came to power, neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales have increased by 35,000. We also have crime prevention panels. The Government are committed to crime prevention.

In view of the known connection between alcohol abuse and the rising tide of crime, what steps are being taken to reduce the huge increase in illegal under-age drinking in public houses?

With respect, there is no clear evidence of the connection that my right hon. Friend suggests. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence of problems of alcohol abuse. My Department and the Department of Health and Social Security are looking into this all the time.

As the Minister is clearly anxious to make this into a political issue, and as the Government refuse to accept that the increased crime rate is the product of unemployment and deprivation, to what does he attribute the rise in crime in the past eight years, which has, been far faster than anywhere else in the Western world.

Crime has been rising all over Western Europe for the past 30 years. The rate of growth in this country is considerably less than in France, for example, and very much less than in other countries, such as Spain. One has only to consider a couple of randomly chosen periods. Between 1974 and 1979 violent crime was about 49 per cent. Between 1979 and 1986 it was only 32 per cent. The measures taken by the Government are beginning to work successfully on some elements of the increase in crime.

Given, as the Minister has said, that burglaries and break-ins form the largest category of crime and are certainly what the public are most worried about, does he agree that what is needed is not merely the extension of neighbourhood watch schemes, but more policemen on the beat? What is being done to study the relationship between drug abuse among many young people and the number of burglaries and break-ins undertaken by people who steal to feed their addiction?

The police are constantly looking at that connection, just as there are more and more police on the beat taking their important share of preventive work in society. The police, however many there were, could never possibly attempt to prevent all crime. It requires public cooperation and co-operation from everyone who wishes to see crime rates reduced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken by his Department to prevent child abuse and to improve the chances of the prosecution and conviction of those guilty of this crime.

We have been running a "Stranger Danger" campaign for several years, and await the advice of an independent working group on further publicity measures against child sex abuse. A group of experts is preparing draft guidance to the police on the investigation of these offences. The Criminal Justice Bill would permit children's evidence to be given at the Crown court by live video link. I have asked for comment on whether video recordings should be more readily admissible in evidence.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whenever there is an allegation of child abuse the police should be able to obtain a medical report on the child concerned so that they can decide whether to prosecute? Does he further agree that any attempt to prevent the police from so doing is to be deplored? Furthermore, is there not a clear case for substantially increasing the penalties available to the courts in cases of child neglect and for tightening the parole conditions on those convicted of child abuse?

My hon. Friend is right on the first point. This would clearly fall within the scope of the inquiry which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced last week. There was a real problem in Cleveland on this point, which I have discussed with the chief constable. I believe that the disagreement about the local guidelines there has now been sorted out. My hon. Friend is right on the second point. One of the changes that we propose to introduce in the new Criminal Justice Bill is to increase from two years to 10 the maximum term of imprisonment for neglect of a child. Many cases involve more serious charges with more serious penalties, but even where it is only a question of neglect, we believe that the maximum should be increased.

Does the Home Secretary have any information about High Court injunctions issued against the parents of children who are alleged to be victims of abuse, forbidding parents from communicating with anyone, including lawyers and doctors, about the circumstances of their case? Will he make urgent inquiries into this matter, and does he agree that if such injunctions have been issued they are wholly unacceptable?

I do not think that this is a matter strictly for me, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to point my inquiries in a particular direction, that is if he will give me particulars of what he has heard, I shall ensure that the matter is properly investigated.

While public concern is fully justified, does my right hon. Friend know whether, or have the impression that, there is more of this than there was in the past?

It is hard to say and any impression must be subjective. The number of reported cases has obviously increased sharply, but, equally obviously, as society becomes more receptive to these stories, the proportion of abuses reported is likely to increase. It is difficult to go beyond that.

Is the Home Secretary aware that when a child who has been sexually abused in its family is then removed from the family it causes the child more distress? A better alternative would be for a power to exist which requires the abusing male to be removed from the family. In his review of child law, will he look into this possibility, which already exists in many states in the United States of America?

I shall certainly ensure that those who are looking into this aspect of the law take that suggestion into account.

Has my right hon. Friend taken on board the fact that the nation is extremely angry about the reported rise in child abuse? Does he agree that Parliament has made adequate sentencing provisions and that our judges are doing a sloppy job in some cases? May I ask him to be cautious about the advice that he receives from the Lord Chief Justice when he shapes the Criminal Justice Bill, because that man has not distinguished himself recently in some of his judgments?

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not criticise a judge in this manner.

My criticism was of his judgment, not of the man himself.

Order. That is not good enough.

Do you wish me to give the House the reason why I said what I did, Mr. Speaker?

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not waste time. Will he please withdraw his criticism of that judge?

Yes, I withdraw the statement.

May I deal with the less controversial part of my hon. Friend's question? I think that he is being a little too timid. I do not think that Parliament has completed its job in this regard, and that is why we propose to increase the maximum penalty for neglect.

If the Home Secretary is really seeking a framework and apparatus to prevent child sex abuse in future, will he, in the course of his continuing child care review, look very carefully at the model in Scotland? The children's panel there allows all the statutory authorities to come together in casework conferences, which really do prevent problems from reaching a stage at which children are sexually abused.

I am sure that the inquiry will take that into account.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future financing of sound and television broadcasting, of direct broadcasting by satellite and of cable television in, or received by, the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

We accept the judgment of the Peacock committee that the BBC should not be financed through advertising and that for the time being the licence fee should remain the principal source of income. Both cable and direct broadcasting by satellite are able to draw on advertising and subscription revenue. We shall consider whether subscription may have a larger part to play in the light of comments on our consultants' report published last week. We shall consider the future of sound broadcasting in the light of responses to our Green Paper.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the assumption of his new responsibilities for broadcasting?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I fully understand his enthusiasm for subscription, but I think that it would be right now for us to await the comments on the lengthy independent consultants' report, which we have just published, and which goes into the technical and economic feasibility of subscription.

Will the Minister assure the House that any changes in financing will not be used for further attacks by the Government on the BBC? In considering financing, will he give the House an assurance that he will seek to remove the anomalies whereby pensioners in warden-serviced accommodation receive free television licences, but other pensioners do not? The House seeks a common low-cost television licence for all pensioners, who deserve at least that advantage from the Government, as they receive no others.

I do not believe that there is any politician in the House who does not think at times that he is the subject of unfair attacks by one broadcasting channel or another. We have looked into the question of concessionary television licences, and we have expanded them to include the mentally handicapped and the disabled. We took these steps to improve the system that was introduced by the last Labour Government. At the moment, we see no way of improving it further.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an estimate of the additional man hours required to deal with the extra paperwork and administration resulting from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; and if he will estimate the effect on the number of policemen on the beat.

The first estimate cannot be given because we do not know how much time the police spent on record-keeping before the Act came into force. In many cases where the Act imposes a statutory requirement the police were already keeping records in order to avoid arguments and get convictions. In other cases, new recording requirements act as necessary safeguards on the exercise of additional police powers. How many police officers are available for beat patrolling in any area at a particular time obviously depends on many factors and no one could estimate reliably the effect of any one of them.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. At a meeting with local Members of Parliament the chief constable of Humberside said that the requirement to take a verbatim record of all statements was taking up a considerable amount of additional time, that it was putting pressure on police manpower and that it was also making it more difficult to get at the truth, because the cross-questioning of suspects became slower and more tedious, those who were prone to lie had more time to think about what they were saying and therefore it was more diffcult to catch them out.

I know of that point, but it is also a fact that in London and Greater Manchester the police forces had already moved to the taking of something like contemporaneous notes, because they had found that, unless they did that, what went on in a police station was afterwards challenged and they were not securing convictions. That was the reasoning that lay behind that provision in the Act. Tape recording is the answer, and as we introduce it steadily throughout the country, as we are doing, it will solve that problem.

As my right hon. Friend's officials have been unable to provide him with any estimates, why does he not examine the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary? His estimate is that 2,400 man years and £45 million of additional expenditure were required to do the training for the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and that there has been a significant reduction in arrests and clear-ups, which the Chief Inspector of Constabulary thinks must be connected with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I support the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, but when he considers police manpower I hope that my right hon. Friend will take into account the problems that this legislation has created.

Of course I have read the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. It showed that there was a considerable once-for-all training burden on the police. In some rural areas, the need for custody sergeants produces a demand for manpower that I regard as legitimate. I do not accept that record-keeping in police stations is unnecessary. My hon. Friend will have noticed with pleasure that the clear-up rate after the dip last year has begun to improve. It was 5 per cent. up in the first quarter of this year, compared with the first quarter of last year.

As the Home Secretary does not know how much extra work the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has produced, will he undertake to make inquiries of the police to find out? Does he not recall the Opposition warning predicting that, instead of setting out the responsibilities of the citizen and the powers of the police, the Act would turn into no more than a bureaucratic nightmare?

I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say that when, day after day and night after night, we faced detailed Opposition amendments to increase the paperwork, to increase the bureaucracy and to load on to the police burdens which their representatives and we decided were quite unreasonable. The general election has given the hon. Gentleman amnesia.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to improve the pensions of police widows in cases where such pensions are already in payment.

In common with all state and public service pensions, police widows' pensions were increased by 2·1 per cent. from 6 April; a further cost of living increase will be due next April.

May I gently remind my hon. Friend of the police claim that reserved widows' pensions could not be met because my hon. Friend was fearful of setting a precedent by increasing a pension that was already in payment? I draw his attention to the fact that such increases are now becoming increasingly common in the commercial sector. I hope that he will look again at this matter from the point of view that the public service should not lag behind what is becoming increasingly good practice elsewhere.

I am afraid that I cannot encourage my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was very sympathetic, but I am afraid that it was not possible to agree increases of the kind that were suggested. There were essentially two reasons for that. First, to do so would breach a long-standing convention that public sector pensions should not be enhanced retrospectively. Secondly, because there were other groups in comparable situations, the cost of making the concession would be very great indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to produce the regulations necessary to give effect to the Data Protection Act; and if he will make a statement.

We intend to lay the necessary orders immediately Parliament returns after the summer recess.

Does the Minister not accept that that leaves a very short time for the people who are expected to implement these regulations in November, when the Data Protection Act 1984 provisions take effect? Is he aware that the chairman of the British Medical Association consultants' committee is saying that it might cost as much as £30 for an access fee for people to get access to their medical records? Will he assure the House that the fee levels set by the regulations will not prohibit people from having access to their records because of financial constraints?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's first contention. The orders will be laid around about 20 October and there will be plenty of time for them to be debated in the House before they come into force on 11 November. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about the fee, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) in a written answer on 1 July that we would be announcing the level of the fee very shortly.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 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 the House I shall be having further meetings later today, before departing for Washington this evening.

May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the latest unemployment figures released today. which show that for the 12th consecutive month the number of people unemployed is dropping? Is it not the case that in relation to the north-west, which shows the second largest drop, in a free and open economy at last the north is showing what it is capable of doing?

Yes, I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that latest reduction in unemployment. which is the 12th successive reduction. The north-west is one of the areas that are reducing the level of unemployment fastest. The north-west is also doing very well under this Government's policies of faster growth, privatisation arid Trident, which is being built in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is also benefiting from an excellent new hospital in Furness. The north-west is doing very well.

The Prime Minister said that she would not support any proposals to impose VAT on food, gas or electricity. Why can she not bring herself to give exactly the same precise undertaking on children's clothing and children's shoes?

I made it very clear during the election precisely what undertakings I would give. I also made it very clear that although there were certain people in the House, particularly right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who wish to constrain the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is not part of my duty to constrain him in his annual Budget. That takes place only once a year, unlike what happened under the previous Labour Government, when Budgets took place frequently.

I am sorry, but on the subject of children's clothing and shoes the Prime Minister was anything but clear during the general election. Why does she not say now, in exactly the precise terms that she has used when referring to other items, that she would not have such a proposal coming before the House? Or would she, like the Paymaster General, suggest that such proposals would be vetoed? That is precisely what the Paymaster General said this morning.

I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman. He will go on raising scares and we will be able to point out how, on a day when the unemployment figures were down, he tried to raise another scare. [Interruption.] Of course he did.

The problem is the move to impose VAT on what are currently zero rated items of considerable importance to the family budget. Does the right hon. Lady agree with the words of the Paymaster General that the Government would

"in fact veto VAT on food, fuel, children's clothing and shoes"

My hon. Friend the Paymaster General specifically confirmed what I said during the general election campaign, and that was his precise purpose. I am well aware of the words that he used. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman does not welcome the fall in unemployment.

My right hon. Friend's chief scientific advisers will doubtless have drawn her attention to the immense significance of the facts reported recently by our embassy in Tokyo, that the Japanese are marketing a I megabit semiconductor, are about to market a 4 megabit semi conductor, are designing a 16 megabit semiconductor and are reaching out to 64. As the issue has now moved into the public domain with the publication in the United States of the defence science task force report on semiconductor dependency, will my right hon. Friend seek to place this issue on the agenda for her discussions with the President of the United States so that the joint response in the West—the Alvey programme and American efforts—can be co-ordinated?

I must confess to my hon. Friend that I do not think that that issue will be at the top of my agenda for this visit to the United States, which will be a short one. Other matters will be at the top. My hon. Friend is well aware of the substantial research and development budget that is paid for by the taxpayer, and I know that he is anxious to encourage more research and development expenditure from the private sector.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 July.

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

Will the Prime Minister reconsider the introduction of a poll tax? Is she aware that in my consituency two adults will pay £1 a week more if it is introduced, that three adults will pay £8 a week more, that four adults will pay £15 a week more and that a single pensioner on supplementary benefit will have to find £1·50 a week more from his pension? For these people and millions of others is it not so much a poll tax as a pole axe?

The majority of widows, single people and single parents will pay a good deal less under a community charge. There will be an 80 per cent. rebate and an addition to supplementary benefit to help people pay. Those who will suffer most are those who are suffering most now under the rating system in areas where there are high-spending Labour councils, or those who are living in the London area.

asked the Prime Minister when she next intends to make an official visit to York.

I have at present no plans to do so.

While the citizens of York will be disappointed that my right hon. Friend has not yet decided on a date for a return visit, may I ask her to comment on the possibility of further profit-related pay, bearing in mind that in York and the rest of the country about 21,000 companies have decided already to obtain information from the Inland Revenue on how they can implement profit-related pay?

I believe that the innovations of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Finance Bill have been widely welcomed. As my hon. Friend has said, many companies are making inquiries about profit-related pay, realising that their work people could benefit substantially if they introduced the system. I hope that advantage will be taken of it.

rose——

Does the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) relate to York?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Had the Prime Minister been making a trip to York, would she have taken the opportunity to explain to low-paid workers there and in other cities how it is that she has now withdrawn her opposition to a 20 per cent. rise in hon. Members' salaries that will take them from £370 a week to £450, while she maintains her opposition to the claim of hundreds of thousands of low-paid Government workers whose average take-home pay is only £3 a week more than the rise that she is prepared to accept for Members of Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be getting universal support from all those who heard his question.

As I returned from the United States last weekend I was wondering whether my right hon. Friend——

Order. Did the hon. Gentleman return via York?

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 July.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that some families on supplementary benefit will be worse off as a result of the introduction of the poll tax, which replaces rates and water charges?

Because the amount that will be added to supplementary benefit or family income support is an average amount, some will be worse off and some will he considerably better off. That is inevitable in an average—some worse, some better.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on the splendid unemployment figures announced today—[Interruption.]—which have already been referred to? However, will she also consult her colleagues as to the ways in which job creation can be improved in our manufacturing industries? New jobs are very important, but we also want to make a big impact in creating more new jobs in manufacturing industry.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Most of the new jobs are coming from economic growth, thanks to the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are proving extremely good. Manufacturing industry is highly competitive. Its productivity is going up and investment is good. We get more jobs in manufacturing and in small businesses only by turning out goods at prices and with designs that people will buy, and by having highly competitive and efficient industries. Our policies are producing that.

Has the Prime Minister had time to consider the reply given by the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) last Thursday? If so, could she make a statement and, particularly, could she confirm that there is forensic evidence to suggest that the same weapon has been used, allegedly, in Loyalist and Republican paramilitary terrorism?

I do not think that it is for me to say anything about that kind of evidence. It is not within my responsibility.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the VAT structure, introduced when we abolished purchase tax and selective employment tax with a single positive rate and zero rating for essential items is better than anything else in Europe, and that if we are to harmonise at all it should he on our basis? As I steered the original legislation through the House, with some advice at official level from a Mr. Cockfield, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the abolition of zero rating would not be acceptable to the House?

We have made that clear. We must be able to determine our own structure of VAT. A number of other countries also take the view that they must be free to determine their own structure, and they are just as much against the proposal as we are. The possibility of this going through is negligible.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 July.

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

Will the Prime Minister explain why families who look after elderly parents, thus saving the state money, in line with the Victorian values that the Prime Minister supports, should be penalised by the poll tax?

As the hon. Member is aware, the poorest will be protected—[Interruption.] Oh, yes. The poorest will be protected by an 80 per cent. rebate and by an addition to supplementary benefit to enable them to pay the remaining 20 per cent. We believe that rates are levied on far too narrow a base. They are a grossly unfair tax. We believe that the services that are provided by local authorities are provided on a personal basis and that all people, save the poorest, should make a contribution to them. Most people accept that.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 July.

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

Although we should retain local control over the rates of VAT and, indeed, on whether something should be VAT rated at all, does my right hon. Friend agree that the ultimate objective of the EEC Commission—the free internal market—is highly desirable and was probably the big prize that we expected to gain when we joined the Common Market?

Yes, the completion of the internal market is extremely important. There is a great deal to do in standardising and getting safety regulations across the Common Market with things such as television, electrical goods and services, which would genuinely enable us to get a full and complete internal market. We have never accepted the view that we need approximation of taxation to complete the internal market and we do not accept it now.

Does the Prime Minister recall the statement in the Government White Paper on the privatisation of British Airways, where the Government's objective was said to be the creation of a multi-choice system of airlines? Does that not sound a bit hollow in the light of today's takeover?

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, there is a private notice question on the matter later, which will be answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.