To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has now been made on clearing the backlog of nationality applications at Lunar house; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the present backlog of applications for British nationality.

Good progress is being made. All applications received before 31 December have been acknowledged and passports and other documents returned to applicants.

We still face a formidable task in dealing with some 268,000 outstanding citizenship applications. They include over 80,000 naturalisation applications and 187,000 for registration as British citizens. To deal with the latter we have decided to establish a new nationality office in Liverpool, where we will create over 100 new jobs. Suitable accommodation has been identified and negotiations for its lease are in hand.

It will not be practicable to reach decisions on all the registration applications by the end of the year, as the Select Committee on Home Affairs has recommended, but I am confident that a substantial proportion will be decided by April 1989 and the remainder during the following 12 months.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress that has been made and the staff at Lunar house on meeting their immense task. Does my hon. Friend agree that the heavy work load at Lunar house was the result of more than 250,000 people leaving it until the last minute, having been given seven years within which they could have applied? Does my hon. Friend also agree that publicity should be given earlier to help not only the staff at Lunar house but those who have made applications? Would it not be sensible to do that with passports, where early application is always sensible?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I shall pass his congratulations on to the staff and management at Lunar house, who have worked hard to deal with the great mountain of work that arrived, particularly in the last weeks of December.

Active publicity to remind people that registration for citizenship applications had to be in by the end of last year started fairly early in 1987. I was pressed to increase the advertising and the number of leaflets to ensure that everyone knew, and that was done. Such was the success of the advertising campaign that we received a great many nationalisation applications—more than usual—even though there was no deadline.

Will the Minister show some humility, in view of the answer that he has just given, to the plight of those 280,000 people who are suffering indignity, frustration and anxiety as a result of the Government's incompetence? Irrespective of his announcement about the 100 new jobs, when will he reach out to those who at present believe themselves to be stateless, respond to their requirements and do the necessary and honourable thing?

As the House will know, I am a naturally humble person. However, most of the people who applied—100,000 in December alone—had waited five years before the deadline was announced before submitting their applications. They were in no hurry to apply. The hon. Gentleman must realise that application for British citizenship is important and should not be decided in a great hurry. In the intervening period, while their applications are being processed, we have told them many times that they will lose nothing by way of social security, pension, housing benefits or voting rights, so they have nothing to worry about. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pass that message on to his constituents.

Does my hon. Friend realise that those hon. Members who represent constituencies which contain many immigrants could have told him that there would be a flood of applications? We recognise that those applications should be dealt with properly, if necessary, by employing a large number of temporary assistants.

My hon. Friend's expertise on this matter is very different from that of officials in the immigration and nationality department at Lunar house. They took advice from a number of people in 1986 and were advised that most of the people who wanted British citizenship under the registration procedures had already applied in previous years.

The Department has increased its administrative divisions by 300 posts in the past three years. One hundred and eighty clerical staff were recruited last year, and over 300 applications for clerical posts are being processed at present. I assure my hon. Friend that we are making every effort to increase the staff complement.

Why did the Minister reject the urgent advice given to him by senior members of his own staff last summer that the arrangements for dealing with the inevitable number of applications were wholly insufficient? He is also the victim of justified criticism from the Select Committee on Home Affairs which roundly criticised him for presiding over an administrative shambles when the Government had several years to plan for this. The hon. Gentleman should have appointed the necessary staff to deal with the applications. He has failed and he should resign.

The hon. Gentleman has again made his Second Reading speech on the Immigration Bill. There is no record of the trade union side at Lunar house having given officials and management such advice. When I met trade union officials at Lunar house in early February, they did not wish to recommend the staff at Lunar house even to do overtime. The management had to work extremely hard to persuade the staff to do overtime.

Is it not clear that, if present trends continue, accommodation will have to be found in this country over the next 10 years for about 500,000 new immigrants? What provision are the Government making in their costings for assisting those areas of the country, to which the immigrants are likely to come, to provide additional housing, schools and hospitals?

As my hon. Friend will realise, that is a matter not so much for the Home Office as for the Department of the Environment. However, we are actively engaged in a number of initiatives—for example, an inner cities initiative to help those who have recently arrived in this country to become involved in their own small businesses. Last year the number arriving here for permanent settlement was 45,000—the lowest for many years and only about half of what it was in the 1970s.

Is the Minister aware that 60 per cent. of telephone calls coming into Lunar house are wholly ignored, not even being received on a telephone answering machine? How does he justify that policy?

The hon. Gentleman's remarks are out of date. The telephone inquiry bureau has shown a marked improvement in recent weeks, and an improvement was certainly needed.

Since I have been there.

A few weeks ago the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) visited Lunar house, and they spent the greater part of their time, according to the Observer, looking for a photo opportunity in front of the mail bags. That may have been of great help to becoming a political tennis star, but it did nothing to help the problems of Lunar house.

rose—

Order. This is an important matter, but I hope that we can now proceed more rapidly.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and what matters were discussed.

I am in regular touch with both chairmen on a wide range of broadcasting matters.

Next time my right hon. Friend meets the two gentlemen concerned, will he remind them that those who broadcast to the nation are part of the nation, not an elitist super race apart? Will he further remind them that it is they who act as censors and that the new Broadcasting Standards Council will serve as a vital test of accountability towards the viewer, which is badly needed? Does my right hon. Friend consider that one best suited to serve that accountability purpose may be Mrs. Mary Whitehouse?

Mrs. Whitehouse's role in this matter has been well recognised. The truth is that it has been difficult to portray Sir William Rees-Mogg convincingly either as a gauleiter or as a vandal. I hope that as the waves subside on this matter he can get on with the broadcasting authorities and work out how the new council will operate in practice. We can judge a little later what the statutory definition and power should be.

rose—

Order. I remind hon. Members that there is a further question about the Broadcasting Standards Council.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairmen of the IBA and BBC, will he congratulate them on the continuing high standard of broadcasting in the United Kingdom and assure them of his support to ensure that their independence is not compromised?

Indeed, Sir. When we publish a White Paper on television, which will probably not be until the autumn, the hon. and learned Gentleman will see the huge change that will come over television in the form of greatly expanded choice for viewers, going well beyond the present scope of the BBC and IBA. We must deregulate to make that wider choice available, while keeping a grip on standards.

In the light of the decision by the two authorities to allow a television broadcast giving a one-sided account of the Gibraltar incident, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that those two authorities serve the public interest? Should there not be a review of who is to determine public interest, rather than leave it to a group of nominated people and programme makers who are not elected to that capacity?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear to both chairmen, in his letters about showing the programmes on Gibraltar, that he was appealing to them on grounds of responsibility rather than law. My view is that it is for the broadcasting authorities to discharge their duties in this area and that they are helped rather than hindered by a robust give-and-take between broadcasters and politicians.

Leaving aside the obvious and continuous vendetta by many Tories against the broadcasting authorities, in his talks with the chairmen of those authorities did the Home Secretary mention that he would make it far more difficult for retired people to get a concessionary television licence? Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement in his written answer that appears in yesterday's Hansard will be greeted with disgust by many retired people who will now find it more difficult to obtain a concessionary television licence fee? Why should not all pensioners be able to claim a concessionary television licence fee on the lines that I proposed in my Bill that was defeated?

If we did what the hon. Gentleman suggests, the cost to other licence holders, many of whom are worse off than pensioners, would he substantial. The hon. Gentleman has not thought the matter through. We had to deal with the unsatisfactory 5p concessionary licence. We could not abolish it without substantial grievance and hardship. The solution that I outlined yesterday is sensible and fair in the circumstances.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures he is taking to co-ordinate action against terrorism, in the light of recent events.

The Government have taken and will continue to take a leading role in international co-operation to prevent and fight terrorism. I shall be meeting Interior and Justice Ministers of the Trevi Group on 3 June at Munich and we shall take stock of a number of recent improvements in European co-operation in this area and, I dare say, discuss further proposals. Within the United Kingdom I believe that there is effective co-operation between the police and other agencies concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 is important? Is it not a great shame, bearing in mind the important fight against terrorism, that the official Opposition refused to support the Act although they supported it when they were in office? They have opposed it only since they have become the Opposition.

The Opposition not only supported the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984; they invented it. We will have to produce and put before the House a new Prevention of Terrorism Bill because the old one is coming towards the end of its five-year life. That will give the Opposition a chance to reflect and take stock. Reinforcing my hon. Friend's comments, it would considerably strengthen the nation's efforts against terrorism if Opposition Members could bring themselves to change their position yet again and support a robust measure.

Does the Secretary of State agree that sentencing policy should play a major part in the fight against terrorism? In the Secretary of State's view, what conditions should a convicted terrorist have to meet to qualify for remission of sentence?

That depends on the offence for which the terrorist was convicted. If the hon. Gentleman wants to draw specific cases or instances to my attention or to that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I hope that he will do so.

As regards international terrorism, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he and his international colleagues will bend their minds to the difficult question of press and television coverage of incidents like the recent hijacking? Does he agree that the considerable publicity given to hijackers' demands can sometimes contribute to the problems of terrorism? Will he consider the difficult area of censorship associated with that problem?

I agree that it is a difficult and sensitive area. It is a matter not so much of censorship as of responsibility. Obviously the broadcasting media in any free society need to report the news with some calculation of the consequences of their actions in what they do and do not show. That matter needs consideration.

Does the Home Secretary accept that pressure from the Common Market will mean the removal of all internal barriers by 1992? Is he satisfied that adequate precautions will be taken to scrutinise people to detect terrorists and the movement of drugs after 1992? Does he further accept that while he may have reservations about this, many member states want the complete removal of barriers, whatever the consequences for the increase of international drug trafficking and terrorism?

The hon. Gentleman has made a very important point. Fortunately, we are not alone in stressing its importance. The Single European Act, from which the movement towards 1992 flowed, made it clear that member states must be free to continue to take effective measures against terrorists and drug traffickers. In all our detailed discussions on the movement towards 1992—for example, regarding the Channel tunnel—it will be important to maintain effective controls for those purposes.

What is the media's role in the fight against terrorism? It would seem that they compete with each other in providing entertainment for the public rather than an objective review of the facts. What can be done to prevent the media from providing gratuitous support for acts of terrorism?

The media need to consider carefully, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, the distinction between reporting the news—letting the citizen know what is happening, without disguising the fact that we live in a brutal and violent world—and adding gratuitously to scenes of violence, thus providing, according to Lord Annan's description when he discussed this matter, additional publicity which serves the terrorist without actually adding in any way to the information of the citizen.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet decided on the terms of reference for the Broadcasting Standards Council.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the terms of reference for the Broadcasting Standards Council in his statement to the House on 16 May.

Is the Minister aware that on 16 May the Secretary of State failed to give an assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the Broadcasting Standards Council would not interfere with the political and current affairs contents of programmes and would restrict itself to standards of decency? Is he further aware that there is a great deal of anxiety that the council will duplicate what already exists simply so that the Government can manipulate it? The Government already have the press in their pocket. Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that the broadcasting authorities will be free to comment as they see fit?

Of course broadcasting authorities will be free to comment as they see fit. They have already commented and made known their views on the setting up of the Broadcasting Standards Council. Doubtless it is right that they should have that democratic right, and that will continue.

On his first point, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. When my right hon. Friend announced the setting up of the council, he described its remit and said that it was strictly confined to questions of sex, violence and standards of taste and decency. When asked whether it would be possible for those powers to be added to or diminished, he made the point that the council's role will be debated in the House—for example, in the course of future legislation. I have no doubt that at that time hon. Members on both sides of the House will seek to add to or diminish its powers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many parents in Britain are angry about the steady diet of pornography, near-pornography and violence that is fed to their children on practically a nightly basis and fed up with the whining and whingeing of the broadcasting authorities which have been given plenty of opportunities to put their house in order, but have deliberately refused to do so?

I agree with my hon. the learned Friend. It was because of that anxiety that, in our election manifesto a year ago, we committed ourselves to bringing forward proposals for stronger and more effective arrangements. That is what we are now doing. I hope that the Broadcasting Standards Council will prove the cure to the disease. If so, its setting up will prove a worthwhile exercise.

I am sure that the Prime Minister wants to make the BBC as fair and impartial as The Sun and the Daily Mail. How long will the Broadcasting Standards Council exist on a non-statutory basis, and how much will Sir William Rees-Mogg be paid as chairman of that censorship body?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to refer to the council as a censorship body. Its purpose to reflect the views of and receive complaints from the public on programme content and decency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has constituents, as I have, who will be pleased that an outside body is now looking at such complaints.

Sir William Rees-Mogg will receive a salary at the outset of £30,000 a year. We are setting up the council on a non-statutory basis so that it can get on with its work straight away. If legislation is needed to reinforce its work, that will be incorporated in the major broadcasting Bill that we shall bring before Parliament in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on proposals to use electronic tagging for remand prisoners.

We have received correspondence from interested bodies suggesting various uses for electronic tagging, including its use for people remanded on bail. We are making inquiries into the systems which are available and considering what applications they might usefully have.

I thank my hon. Friend for his open-minded response. Does he agree that when one fifth of the prison population are on remand, and when two thirds of the women and one third of the men on remand do not subsequently receive custodial sentences, in the interests of civil liberty, cost saving and public confidence it is right that the tagging option should be explored? Will he join me in condemning the knee-jerk reaction of the Labour party, which is only too anxious to complain about the size of the remand population, but which looks with a closed mind at any prospect of tackling it?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition do not have an idea between them about dealing with the remand problem. Electronic tagging, subject to many safeguards, may be extremely useful in enabling people to be kept on remand outside the prison system. I am sure that that would be welcomed by all Members.

Does the Minister agree that some courts may be less willing than others to have people tagged by the attachment of an object, either voluntarily or compulsorily, to their arms or legs? Will the Home Office consider alternatives, including the provision of the equivalent of a paging device in the accused's home, which would allow the police to make spot checks on a remanded person's whereabouts?

The hon. and learned Gentleman, unlike many of the hon. Gentlemen surrounding him, is extremely open-minded and is at least prepared to examine proposals aimed at achieving a reduction in the prison population. He may agree with me that asking people to carry an electronic tag or a paging device would be less of an intrusion into civil liberties than putting them in gaol.

Does my hon. Friend agree that technological developments now make it possible for a variety of strategies to be considered under the general umbrella of tagging? Does he agree also that, as this debate continues, even probation officers are beginning to recognise the advantage of keeping people out of prison, and perhaps some people out of remand centres, by the adoption of such technology?

The technologies are developing rapidly and I agree with my hon. Friend that the probation service now has a golden opportunity to move centre stage in dealing with remand prisoners and with others who might otherwise be sent to gaol for committing non-violent, non-serious crimes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to establish a remand centre in north Wales.

None at present. Last month the Prisons Building Board invited the private sector to submit outline proposals for the construction of urban remand centres. The responses are still being evaluated, but any new remand centres are likely to be sited in the main conurbations.

Is the Minister aware that the majority of remand prisoners in north Wales are held at Risley remand centre, which is a considerable distance from that region's rural areas? There is also concern about the conditions at Risley. Is the Minister not worried about the terrible inconvenience caused to the families of remand prisoners in having to travel the distances involved, as well as that caused to their solicitors and to the prisoners themselves? Will he review his decision and consider providing remand facilities in north Wales?

There is a place in the building programme for a prison at Wrexham. Unfortunately, that proposal has not been received with complete enthusiasm by the local representatives. I hope that the point made by the hon. Gentleman will be considered by local residents.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to alter the present right to silence of suspects and defendants in criminal cases.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) yesterday.

Does the Minister agree that, while the mass of police interrogations are carried out in an exemplary manner, there have been worrying cases of alleged confessions that have afterwards been found to he false? This can be seen in the conclusions of the Mars-Jones inquiry. Examples are the Timothy Evans case and the Confait case, in which several youths, one mentally retarded, were alleged to have made confessions which were afterwards found to be false. Does the Minister not consider that any decision on ending the right to silence is premature, and that in attempting to create a law to deal with hardened criminals he is putting at grave peril the interests of the weak, the inadequate and the innocent?

The weak, the inadequate and the innocent are well covered by the codes of practice in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The hon. Gentleman is right. This is a complex subject, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced an inquiry yesterday.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the comprehensive answer that he gave to my written question yesterday. When my hon. Friend assesses this problem, will he look very carefully at the Criminal Law Revision Committee report of 1972, bearing in mind that when the right to silence was introduced there were no solicitors in police stations or at interviews, or any tape recordings? We must keep pace with the new advances in technology and the changes in the laws of evidence.

My hon. Friend is right. Since the CLRC reported in 1972 many changes have taken place, both in legislation, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and in technology, such as the universal introduction of tape recording in police stations, which we hope to have in place by 1991. These are complex issues, however, and that is why my right hon. Friend said in answer to my hon. Friend's question yesterday that he would look into the matter as soon as possible.

Does the Minister not realise that there is widespread concern about the proposed erosion of the principle that someone is innocent until proved guilty? Why is the Home Secretary going ahead with the abolition of the right to silence before the results of the Government-funded research are published? Is it not irresponsible to make such a fundamental change to our criminal procedures without first obtaining all the evidence that is available? If the Government are willing to spend money on research, why are they not willing to wait until the findings of that research are forthcoming?

The hon. Lady is a little confused about the issues. My right hon. and learned Friend is not proposing to abolish the right to silence. He is proposing to set up a committee to look into the possibilities of abolishing the "right to ambush", by which I mean a defendant introducing into a trial at the last minute a line of defence that has not been previously disclosed. This often means that a prosecution case collapses, and sometimes people with a case to answer go free.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish his Green Paper on plans to introduce the private sector into the remand system.

Before the summer recess. We are also moving forward with the selection and appointment of management consultants to help in examining the practical issues.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of overcrowding, drug abuse and other serious problems affecting our prisons it is unwise and inappropriate to expose unconvicted men and women to such a system? We have a lot to learn from certain American states about the treatment of remand prisoners.

I think that my hon. Friend is probably right. I believe that the new bail hostels that I have announced will help, but I hope that we can bring the private sector into the business of not only constructing, but possibly managing, remand centres. We have asked the private sector for ideas on design and on quick methods of constructing open prisons and remand centres. We have had 30 responses, which I find encouraging. The Prisons Building Board will go through the responses and work out the proposals in greater detail.

Will my right hon. Friend consider very carefully the close involvement of the private sector in the design and building of special remand centres? Will he also consider the smaller, localised remand centre, perhaps attached to or close to a court, or group of courts, so that there can be speedy access to people in custody and they can be remanded without the problem of having to go to distant police stations or prisons?

The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes. His second suggestion is well worth considering in the Green Paper that we are preparing.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of police forces have, for each year since 1974, been (a) tried and (b) convicted for conspiring to pervert the cause of justice.

The available information about criminal charges brought against police officers does not identify separately charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and I regret that the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Does the Minister agree that there has been much anxiety about a number of cases over the years, culminating in two recent cases, the Chelsea gang case, and the Stirton case, where the dubious fabricated evidence has cost the taxpayer money? Will the Home Secretary review the present arrangements, by bringing out a Green Paper?

There is absolutely no need.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the very small proportion of police officers who attempt to pervert the course of justice is symptomatic of what a good police force we have? Does he agree also that it compares favourably with police forces abroad, and that we should be concerned about the number of police officers who are injured?

Absolutely.

Why is the Police Federation so reluctant to give legal support to Inspector Woollard? Does the federation believe that if he were to go to court some police officers would be prosecuted for offences?

I should be inclined to ask the chairman of the Police Federation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicle owners have been convicted of double parking in London in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Drivers who double park may be charged with the offences of breaching waiting restrictions, unnecessary obstruction or leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position. In the Metropolitan and City police force areas there were over 11,500 convictions for these offences and nearly 2·7 million fixed penalty notices were issued. These offences may also be committed by persons who have not double parked, and I regret that it is not possible to identify double parking cases within these total figures.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the serious shortage of parking spaces in London and the increase in double parking for that reason? What view does he take of parking tickets being issued at 4 am and 5 am when people have double parked for short periods because no other parking is available? Will he take steps to see that more parking is made available, so that double parking may cease?

I suspect that the case to which my hon. Friend is referring reinforces his belief that it is best to travel to work on a horse.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to break down future statistics for the use of firearms in the commission of crimes between those that are, or are not, held on firearm or shotgun certificates.

It is not practicable, because many firearms used in offences are either not recovered or have had their serial numbers or distinguishing marks removed. There is no way of telling, therefore, whether they were originally held on a firearm or on a shotgun certificate.

Given the considerable burdens that the new legislation will impose on legitimate shooters, will my hon. Friend reconsider whether he could publish as much as possible about the difference between guns which are held legally and those which are not known to be held legally, and whether he can measure as far as possible the leakage of legitimate guns, badly stored, into the illegitimate sector?

My hon. Friend will find two provisions in the Bill which will reassure him: first, the requirement for shotgun owners to identify and list their guns; and, secondly, the additional obligation on dealers to keep their registers for five years.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a statement on his proposals for the reform of the Official Secrets Acts.

I hope, as already stated, to lay before Parliament next month a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

Can the Home Secretary give precise details of the timetable? Reform has been promised for eight or nine years. He was party to the punishing of his own Back Benchers some weeks ago, and precisely laid out on BBC radio some days after that what the White Paper would contain. Can he set out a timetable for the Bill after the White Paper and what consultations are likely?

The hon. Gentleman has got the history wrong. We restarted work on this in April of last year. I said, I think for the first time in December last year when my hon. Friend's Bill was debated, that we intended to lay before Parliament next month a White Paper. That is still our intention.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the law and order budget within his Department for 1988–89; what was the comparable budget for the last 10 years; and what proportion of the budget is devoted to police manpower costs.

The Home Office law and order budget for 1988–89 is £5,098 million, of which 61 per cent, is devoted to police manpower costs. I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report the figures for the Home Office law and order budget for previous years.

Are not those figures proof-positive of the Government's commitment to the police force? Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those Left-wing Labour councils throughout the country which knock the police constantly, spend ratepayers' resources on that and thus destroy the safety of law-abiding citizens whom they are supposed to represent?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. There are still too many snipers of the police about, and unfortunately some of them are still on the Opposition Benches.

The figures are as follows:

This is the gross expenditure in England and Wales on police, prisons, the magistrates' courts, the probation service and the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

Will the Prime Minister reflect on the reception that she received last Saturday at Hampden park? Does she now realise that some of her decisions are even worse than the referee's? Last Tuesday, when she replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), she stated that everyone in the country had enjoyed increased prosperity. Will she explain why, in 1979, my constituents in Ogmore were employed in the steel works and in the mines and were earning £150 to £240 a week, whereas many are now on the dole and have been unemployed for five years, as have 2 million others? How can she say that they are enjoying increased prosperity?

The answers to the parts of the question that I was able to hear are, first, that I very much enjoyed the game at Hampden park and the visit to the flower festival in the morning, and we had an excellent conference the night before. Secondly, everyone has participated in the increased prosperity. Average earnings are very much up, taxation is very much down, personal allowances are very much increased, social security benefits have increased enormously and so have the health services.

Will my right hon. Friend consider whether any action can be taken against the BBC and ITV for their attitude towards the security forces in the fight against terrorism? Would any other country tolerate such behaviour, and is not their action a stab in the back for the nation?

As my hon. Friend is very well aware, if there are any complaints they should be made, not to me, but to the BBC complaints authority or to the chairman.

Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the effect on the pound/deutschmark rate of the interest rate— [Interruption.]

Order. It takes up a lot of time.

Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the effect on the pound/deutschmark rate of the interest rate cut on Tuesday?

I made a very comprehensive statement on Tuesday. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know the unwisdom of asking direct questions about the exchange rate, he should see what happened when certain Labour Back Benchers, who later became Front Benchers, asked such questions of—as they are now—Lord Wilson and Lord Callaghan. It was absolutely catastrophic. I have nothing to add to the statement that I made on Tuesday.

Now perhaps the Prime Minister will give us the answer. Is she satisfied that D 3·17 to the pound is sustainable, or unsustainable?

I have nothing further to add. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the references that I made. He will learn a great deal from them.

Now that we have seen yet another substantial fall in unemployment as a result of the Government's policies, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it was in March 1979 that the closure of Corby steel works was announced and 8,000 people lost their jobs in my constituency? Today, the number of people out of work and claiming benefit in Corby town has fallen below 2,000 for the first time.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Corby is an excellent example of a town undergoing the necessary reconstruction of a major industry and having the enterprise to find new jobs for the people there, and a new prosperity. I congratulate my hon. Friend.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) the Prime Minister referred to income tax being very much lower. How does she justify the fact that as a direct result of the tax loopholes and tax advantages that her Government have created, a 51-year-old man earning £1 million a year can apparently pay no income tax? How is that a fair tax system, and what will she do to close those loopholes?

Under the new tax system those at the top of the scale pay a bigger proportion of the total amount than they did previously. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the speech of the New Zealand Socialist Minister for Finance, who has now made the top rate of tax 33p in the pound. One of the reasons for that is that he believes it is good for the people at the bottom of the pile to have a higher standard of living.

To ask the Prime Minister if the next meeting of the European Council will discuss the special arrangements for the import of New Zealand butter; and if she will make a statement.

I am not aware of any plans to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend fight hard to prevent the EEC further cutting New Zealand butter imports and depriving British housewives of freedom of choice, particularly as New Zealand has never let Britain down when we have been in trouble? Will she bear in mind the massive damage being done to New Zealand, Australia and the Third world by the Common Market spending over £200 million of taxpayers' money every week dumping butter on the world market at 6p a pound?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we have done more than any other Government to get the surpluses under control in the Common Market, in particular at the last meeting that we had, because we were very much aware of the truth of what my hon. Friend said. The surpluses affect other countries which depend to a considerable extent upon the export of agricultural products. The New Zealand butter agreement will come up again shortly for examination and we expect the Commission to make proposals. New Zealand exports far less butter to Britain than it used to do, but it is an important part of its economy and many people in this country wish to continue to be able to buy that butter, and I assume that they will be able to do so.

Will the Prime Minister recall the speed with which the New Zealanders came to our support in 1939? Will she consider visiting the airfields in Lincolnshire and the war graves all the way from El Alamein to the Austrian border and reflect on the price that New Zealanders paid while supporting us, and support the New Zealanders in the EEC?

I thought that I was doing just that in my reply, because butter exports are very much a part of the New Zealand economy. People here still wish to purchase that country's butter—and lamb—and I am very much aware that the import quotas have been reduced steadily from 165,000 tonnes in 1973 to 74,000 tonnes this year. A new agreement will be negotiated, which I hope will be satisfactory to all concerned.

Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, although many people agree that the older generations of New Zealanders, in the first and second world wars, supported us superbly, as they did in the Falklands, the present New Zealand Government, under Labour, have reneged on their duty to contribute to the defence of the free world and the position has radically changed?

I am very much aware that our ships are not able to go to New Zealand at the moment—which I think is a great tragedy both for our Navy and for many people in New Zealand—because the New Zealand Government insists on the ships not having any nuclear weapons or on asking questions about that, and of course we cannot say whether they have because of our obligations to NATO. Nevertheless, I do not think that that would warrant taking it out of the New Zealand people by not doing everything that we can to see that they have a thoroughly satisfactory arrangement for the continued sale of butter to the Common Market.

Having used the un-word "unwisdom", and having called in aid the good example of the New Zealand Socialist Government, will the Prime Minister now give an assurance that there will be no cruise missiles on the Clyde?

I shall give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall take whatever measures are necessary to keep a continued effective nuclear deterrent and to carry out our obligations to NATO.

Will my right hon. Friend accept, though, that fairminded New Zealanders agree that the arrangement for New Zealand, which is very welcome in all parts of the House, has been a very good one for that country, but that that does not gainsay the need for New Zealand to find other markets, including the Soviet Union, because New Zealanders sell more butter there than the EEC does?

Yes, but I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that when they have a drop in quota from 165,000 tonnes in 1973 to 74,000 tonnes this year they have had to be very active in finding other markets, particularly those in the Pacific basin.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

In the Prime Minister's busy day, will she find time to consider the conviction for murder of Mr. Robert McConnell, a Unionist paramilitary, and investigate who authorised the decision of the RUC to destroy its case notes rather than bring prosecutions against two members of the SAS, Sergeant Aitken and Corporal McGow, who supplied the sub-machine gun used in the murder? Will she therefore report urgently to the House on who authorises SAS operations at political and operational levels at home and abroad?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, decisions about prosecutions are not for me. They are for the prosecuting authorities. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, I suggest that he puts it to those authorities, rather than give it under privilege. We do not discuss matters relating to the SAS, and no one would want us to do so unless he wished to undermine the security of this country.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's most heartening unemployment and employment statistics underscore our burgeoning economy? Should we not now be placing the greatest emphasis on training our young people in the skills that will be needed in the 21st century, the shortage of which is beginning to worry successful employers?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that the figures today are very encouraging indeed. Unemployment has fallen for 21 months in succession and over the last year by about half a million. I agree with him also that we shall need more and more skilled people for the jobs that are available. I hope that everyone, including the trade unions, will support the new adult training scheme, which is intended to give skills to about 600,000 unemployed people to enable them to get the jobs that employers are ready to offer.

Will the Prime Minister explain how 200 of my constituents, who are skilled workers and who received their redundancy notices from Courtaulds last week, have participated in the new prosperity that she says is for everyone?

Yes it is difficult for anyone who suddenly faces redundancy, but most people understand that there must be a restructuring of industry. There has to be change. One cannot go on making goods for which there is no demand. The many people, from both sides of the House, who come to see me fully understand that these things have to happen and they set about trying to find companies to go to the area or people who will take up the enterprise allowance to create the jobs and work of the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give some thought this afternoon to the constitutional difficulty that has been exposed by the fate of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill? When the Government are apparently neutral on an important moral issue it is quite impossible for that issue to be settled by means of a private Member's Bill, however meritorious is may be and however much support it may get in this place. Is there not therefore a duty on my right hon. Friend to change her mind about this single constitutional issue? Matters of this sort ultimately depend for decision on the Government giving the opportunity for them to be settled in Government time. It will take only a few minutes one evening at the end of business to settle this one way or the other.

I would not necessarily accept that there is a constitutional difficulty of the kind that my hon. Friend describes. Many of us have had to take through private Member's Bills that started by being very controversial, and some of us handled them in very different ways. A great deal depends on that, and I do not accept that there is a constitutional difficulty just because this Bill has not got through. I think that the decision we took not to provide time for private Member's Bills was correct.