To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with broadcasters in Scotland on future options for Gaelic television.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met Comunn Na Gaidhlig to discuss Gaelic television.

I have had a number of discussions with broadcasters in Scotland during the course of this year, and with Comunn Na Gaidhlig in September of last year, about the provision of television and radio programmes in the Gaelic language. More recently, officials have met Comunn Na Gaidhlig and other interested parties to discuss this subject.

Has the Minister had time to read the System 3 poll in today's issue of The Scotsman, which shows support from two thirds of the people of Scotland for increased Gaelic broadcasting? Does he recognise the support that there is from Scottish Members on both sides of the House for the principle of a Gaelic broadcasting council, as suggested by Comunn Na Gaidhlig, and modelled on the Peacock recommendations that so influenced the Government's own plans? Will the Government take up Comunn Na Gaidhlig's imaginative idea and establish a Gaelic broadcasting council that will put Gaelic broadcasting on a new footing for the future?

Yes, I read the result of that poll in today's issue of The Scotsman, and I am well aware of the many comments made by Scottish Members in the broadcasting debate in the Scottish Grand Committee two days ago. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider carefully current views about increased Gaelic broadcasting, be it television or radio.

I am delighted that the Minister met Comunn Na Gaidhlig. When he next visits Tiree, will he discuss with the people their support for the provision of Gaelic television broadcasting? Does he accept that 10 hours a week is the absolute minimum for a basic Gaelic television service? Will he take a bold initiative to secure the future of the Gaelic language?

I expect that the next time that I am, with permission, in the hon. Lady's constituency and on the isle of Tiree, I shall hear representations about the provision of Gaelic broadcasting. When I was last on Tiree I received particular representations about the use of Gaelic in Schools, and I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is making available £850,000 this year for that purpose. I point out to the hon. Lady, who is very interested in the subject, that the 1988 report of Scottish Television—the largest independent television company in Scotland—comments:

"One in 100 of our viewers is a Gaelic speaker, and we maximised our service to them by showing programmes made by both Grampian and ourselves."

Will my hon. Friend say exactly how many Scottish Members can speak Gaelic?

I can say to my hon. Friend "ceud mille failte", which means a hundred thousand greetings. That is about the limit of my Gaelic. Opposition Members must tell the House how many of them speak Gaelic. Only 82,000 of the Scottish population of 5·2 million speak Gaelic, which is about 1·5 per cent.

Does the Minister accept that this is not merely a matter of who does or does not speak Gaelic? The Scottish community is united in wishing to see the regeneration of that part of our culture. Does he also accept that as £13 million has left Scotland to fund the Welsh channel and as our Welsh counterparts would not wish their advantage to be our disadvantage, a similar level of investment in Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland would ensure that we could regenerate our language?

I understand what the hon. Lady says and I should be the last to belittle Scottish interest in regenerating the Gaelic language. There were some 1,400 hours of radio broadcasts in Gaelic last year, although the number of television hours fell from about 114 to 77. The broadcasters must have their fingers on the pulse—that goes for the BBC as well as the independent companies —of Scottish requirements. If they thought that there was a strong need, particularly for more television in Gaelic, they would go out of their way to satisfy that demand.

Am I right in estimating mathematically, from what my hon. Friend has said, that there are about 150,000 Gaelic speakers? That compares with several million cockney speakers. What will he do to arrange a separate television channel for cockneys?

That is an extremely dangerous question for a Member like myself who lives in Sussex to answer. Many ethnic minorities in Scotland would be interested in programmes in their languages, particularly with the development of community radio. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) did not say that we are looking into the arrangements for S4C in Welsh.

Does the Minister realise that over the past few years great strides have been made in promoting the speaking of Gaelic, not as some special obscure subject but as part of day-to-day life? Does he accept that television is one of the greatest influences on culture and that there is a need for a structured Gaelic broadcasting council, as proposed by Comunn Na Gaidhlig, to promote Gaelic? Or, is his attitude that Gaelic broadcasting should be shuffled off into the night hours as a result of the pressures of the market place and that if it cannot be made to pay, it does not matter?

I have in front of me the Labour policy document on broadcasting, "Broadcasting in a free society", which has just been produced. I see nothing in it about broadcasting in Gaelic. Doubtless the hon. Gentleman played a considerable part in writing it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the physical condition of police stations within the Metropolitan police district.

The receiver for the Metropolitan police district wrote to the Home Department on this subject on 26 June 1987. The Metropolitan police estate was also the subject of a report published by the National Audit Office on 22 June 1989.

I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Is he aware of the poor physical conditions of several Metropolitan police stations, particularly Bexleyheath station, and that such poor facilities could result in a lack of efficiency and morale in the police force?

My hon. Friend is right to focus on Bexleyheath. I accept that it is coming to the end of its useful life. I hope that we shall be able to provide capital allocations for the purchase of a new site in due course. My hon. Friend put the question persuasively.

Is the Minister aware of the importance of this question? Despite repeated promises by him and other Ministers in his Department, remand prisoners are still kept in police cells and women prisoners in particular are kept in the most deplorable conditions, lacking washing and exercise facilities. That should be of great concern to the Minister.

It has indeed been a problem. I am glad to say, however, that we have substantially reduced the number of prisoners in police cells in the south-east. The precise figure is not in my head, but it is between 20 and 40.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the ministerial group on crime prevention.

The ministerial group on crime prevention manages our successful crime prevention strategy. Its recently published progress report records how it does this: the prototype crime-free car, the reduction by over a third in the number of coin meter break-ins and the programme of Government-funded security measures for passengers on the London Underground are just three examples of initiatives which it supervises.

My right hon. Friend's ministerial group is doing excellent work, and many Conservative Members have noticed the drop of 6 per cent. in recorded crime in the past 12 months. Will my right hon. Friend remember, however, that crime prevention can be achieved in a number of ways?

Yes. Personally, I have considerable sympathy with that recommendation by the Carlisle committee. We are examining the recommendations coherently and as a whole, and of course a change in the law will be needed.

Does the Home Secretary agree that crime prevention is wider than the simple act of dealing with matters such as break-ins? Does he agree that experience in America has shown the value of educational programmes, particularly in respect of crimes connected with drug abuse? Might not such programmes, perhaps funded by the Home Office supported by the Department of Education and Science, be explored as a means of preventing young people from becoming involved with addictive drugs?

Indeed, they must be explored. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. It is not simply a matter of enforcing the law, although that is very important: a reduction in demand for drugs—heroin, cocaine or "crack"—through education of the young in particular is crucial, perhaps even more important than law enforcement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making towards securing greater value for money from the Metropolitan police service.

My Department and the Metropolitan police are working hard to improve the use of resources and to secure better value for money. Measures have included a continuing programme of civilianisation, efficiency scrutinies and contracting-out of services, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will now conduct independent inspections of the Metropolitan police.

Can my right hon. Friend give us some idea of the progress that has been made in the past three years in civilianising clerical jobs in the Metropolitan police force and contracting out other non-police work? According to the audit report, less than 25 per cent. of police time is spent policing out on the job, in the case of inspectors the figure is as little as 40 per cent. Most of their time is spent in the station doing clerical work.

My hon. Friend is right. Much has been done, and much remains to be done. Between 1 April 1985 and March this year more than 400 police officers were released for operational duties because of civilianisation, and I have authorised 200 additional civil staff this financial year to release 200 more officers. There is a similar story on contracting out. One result of such activity is that the hours spent on street duty by London's uniformed police officers rose by 9 per cent. last year.

Has the Home Secretary read the National Audit Office report which outlines innumerable examples of poor estate management by the Metropolitan police? What action does he intend to take, or must policemen in the London area still work in Victorian conditions without any understanding by the Home Secretary of their problems, with the resultant effects on morale?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has already answered a question on that precise point. We have a programme for improving and modernising police stations, particularly in London. I hope that some of the new capital spending arrangements that are coming into effect will enable the Met to do more than it has done already.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the number of fingerprint officers were to be increased, the crime detection rate would be higher? Is he aware that only 40,000 out of 2 million crimes where fingerprints were left behind were solved in that way?

There has been concern about the pace at which the new techniques are being introduced. It is something that I am reviewing.

Is the system of screening, by which the importance of 999 calls is assessed before they are answered, intended to make the Metropolitan police force more cost effective? What proportion of 999 calls are not answered as a result of screening?

I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's latter point without notice, but I shall certainly let him know. I am glad to correct a misleading figure that has appeared in the newspapers—that only 15 per cent. of reported crimes are screened in. The figure is just about double that—30 per cent. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would disagree with the principle that the police should devote resources to solving crimes where they have a reasonable chance of locating the criminal because there are clues. No crimes are screened out by category. Crimes are screened out when there is no particular clue or reason to suppose that the offender can be located. I think that the public understand that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report of the Law Commission No. 177: "A Criminal Code for England and Wales".

The Law Commission's report has only recently been presented to Parliament. The Government are at present studying its proposals.

The Minister will be aware that his father was not satisfied with that answer in another place. Does he acknowledge that these proposals, conceived when my right hon. Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was Home Secretary 21 years ago, have truly come of age? Does he accept, in the words of the Law Commission, that it is crucial to the liberty of the individual and the protection of society that people should easily have access to the criminal law? Does he also accept that their implementation would save time and money and would modernise the criminal law by making it more accessible, comprehensible, consistent and certain?

I certainly agree that the report was produced by a team of extremely distinguished contributors, both lawyers and academics. The report deserves the closest possible consideration by the Government, which it will be given. There are undoubtedly a substantial number of advantages in codification, but there are also some objections to be considered. We have to come to a balanced view, after full consideration.

Will my hon. Friend remember that whereas the existing corpus of criminal law is, for the most part, pretty clear and understandable, the introduction of a totally new code, using new language and new concepts and even introducing changes of substance, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), would lead to fiendish complexity and give employment only to the lawyers?

My hon. Friend has identified some of the problems that are foreseen. One could never codify the criminal law in its entirety. It is at least possible that one might inhibit the courts in their development of the criminal law. However, it is a distinguished report which deserves careful consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources the Government currently make available to those organisations concerned with counselling the victims of serious crimes against the person.

This year we are providing nearly £4 million to victim support, chiefly to enable local schemes to employ staff to organise their services. The schemes help the victims of a wide range of crimes, including serious crimes against the person. I understand that the Department of Health will this year give £25,000 to the London rape counselling and research project to support the national element of its work. Other organisations which receive Government grants may help victims of crime, but not as their primary function.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. In considering non-custodial offences, will the Government give priority to offenders having to pay victims?

I regard this as an extremely important suggestion. As the House will know, the criminal law already makes provision for compensation to be paid by offenders in appropriate circumstances, and the courts will bear that consideration in mind.

Although I believe strongly in bail, remission and parole, and have not changed my mind, is it not absolutely essential that careful consideration is given by the authorities before any of those apply to people charged with or convicted of violent offences, including rape? Bearing in mind what the Home Secretary said a few moments ago, does the Minister recognise that the public needs to be reassured about these matters, after some very disturbing cases?

Unusually, I am in considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. The criteria set out in the Bail Act 1976 are about right and certainly take account of the anxieties that he has expressed.

With serious crimes, is there not a good case for ensuring that the criminal is subject to effective supervision when he is released from prison, as was identified in the Carlisle report?

That is an extremely interesting suggestion which deserves the fullest consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received seeking legislation to provide free television licences for all retirement pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

Since I last replied to a question from the hon. Member on this subject on 7 June, we have received one letter, referred to us by an hon. Member, seeking free television licences for retirement pensioners.

The truth is that the many pensioners involved in this almighty muddle, with a few receiving free television licences and millions not, are tired of writing to the Government because they know that they are so hard-hearted that they will not respond, so they ask Labour Members of Parliament to raise the matter in the House of Commons. Is the Minister aware that in the past I0 years pensioners have been robbed of £600 a year by the Government since they broke the link with earnings? That would pay for nearly 10 television licences. When the Home Secretary gets the sack from the Prime Minister, he will pick up £7,000. He will be able to pay for televisions and licences for the rest of his life.

This is the fourth time that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question this Session. He sounds increasingly like a cracked record with the needle stuck in the groove. I give him the same answer as before. We do not believe that television licences are a proper instrument of social policy. Free television licences for pensioners would cost about £400 million, which would mean an increase of about half for everyone else. Many in need would not benefit. The right way to help those in need is through the pensions and benefits system, not through television licences.

A real sense of grievance is felt by pensioners who have to pay the full television licence fee when they see their neighbours paying the lesser fee. Is the Minister aware that the problem has been worsened as in some cases pensioners who live in accommodation under the control of a warden have to pay the full licence fee, whereas their predecessors paid the smaller fee?

I am aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend refers. As he knows, last year we considered the adjustment of the concessionary licences. We produced a scheme that was intended to go back to the original intention—helping those in residential nursing homes or accommodation attended by a full-time warden. At the same time we continue to give the concession for all those who previously benefited from it. It is not perfect, but it is the best that could be devised in a scheme that was increasingly becoming full of holes.

Is the Minister aware that, on 23 June this year, the day that the Home Secretary visited Leicester, the 3,000th Leicestershire pensioner signed a petition—which, incidentally, was launced by my mother, who is a pensioner—calling for free television licences for pensioners? As Minister with responsibility for broadcasting the hon. Gentleman has access in his offices to television sets without having to pay for a licence. Television is the only form of entertainment for many pensioners. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his meanness in denying them a free television licence means that they are denied their only form of entertainment?

Of course, everyone realises that pensioners, like many others, depend a great deal on television, but the hon. Gentleman is echoing the nonsense in the Labour party's proposals for broadcasting. The Labour party says, and I assume that the hon. Gentleman supports it, that the licence fee should remain the main source of the BBC's income. At the same time, however, the hon. Gentleman suggests that low-income groups and pensioners should be exempted from the licence fee. That would mean that the licence fee would have to increase by at least half for everyone else—from £66 to over £101. That is Labour party policy. It is not just an election bribe; it is a penalty.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with his proposal to create an executive agency for the issuing of passports.

Draft proposals have been prepared as a basis for consultation with other Government Departments and the trade unions concerned. A change of status would make it easier to incorporate relevant private sector experience, and I am keen to see this done to the maximum possible extent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that delays in issuing passports in Liverpool have caused applicants in the north considerable inconvenience and anxiety? The prospect of executive agency status, which would bring a much clearer definition of executive responsibility, has been on the agenda for over a year. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when he expects to set a timetable for implementation of this policy and what part setting a deadline for the computer system to be fully operational will play in that?

Year after year, we have long delays at the passport offices and, year after year, we have promises that this will end, but that has not happened this year. Again there were long queues in Glasgow. It is impossible to get through by telephone to the Glasgow passport office. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there must be an expansion of staff resources —never mind computerization—to deal with the predictable surge in passport demand every summer?

It would not have been sensible to do what the union required, which was to employ large numbers of extra permanent staff for a service that ebbs and flows. We have reached agreement with the union on that aspect. I agree that the service to the public must be substantially improved. A long-term solution depends upon a mixture of two things—computerisation, which has started in Glasgow, and a change in the nature of management, bringing to the greatest possible extent the relevant experience of the private sector to the passport offices.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from the recent industrial action in the passport offices, the system of issuing passports and dealing with queries has been massively incompetent for years? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if he applied his formidable intellect to resolving the existing problems, which are certain to continue unless his reforms are implemented, this matter could be put right once and for all within three months?

I do not think that my hon. Friend is quarrelling with the ultimate objective or with the two ways that I have suggested of meeting it. Certainly, they are preferable to continuing as we have in recent years. The immediate task is to clear up after the recent industrial action and to reduce the arrears. We are doing that partly by overtime, partly by employing extra temporary staff, and partly by a limited increase in the number of permanent staff. In the short term, that is the only way of improving the service to the public. In the longer term, we must act more drastically, as I have suggested.

The whole House, as well as the public, could almost certainly have anticipated the problems that we have had this year. Home Office figures in the past have demonstrated the way in which demand has been outstripping the capacity to deal with them. Does the Home Secretary agree that this is a serious example of bad management in the passport office? During the introduction of the computer system, should he not have ensured that enough staff were available to deal with any contingencies and delays?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that, particularly when a large part of the public's recent misery has been brought about by the Civil and Public Servants Association and the action that it took in Liverpool. [Interruption.] Hon. Members would not expect me to staff up the passport office to deal with bloody-mindedness on the part of the union. I agree that the long-term future includes a basic change in the way in which the passport office is manned.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the real rage of some of our constituents who, in 1989, find it impossible to travel on their holidays or to go to the United States of America, purely because of the incompetence of the passport office? Will he assure the House that, whatever steps he intends to take, which the whole House will believe are entirely laudable, he will see that the reforms are pressed through with great vigour so that our constituents will no longer be so grossly inconvenienced?

Yes, indeed. This is an example of a public service that has fallen below the level that the public should expect. There is a long history to it, which we can debate on another occasion. [Interruption.] I believe that we have now found, and are now putting into effect through computerisation, the correct answers. As my hon. Friend suggested, I intend to press on with all energy.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet able to make a further statement as to the case of Mr. Albert Baker.

We are considering Mr. Baker's application for permanent transfer to Northern Ireland. We shall reach a decision as soon as possible.

Does the Minister agree that, given that Albert Baker has now been in prison for over 15 years —admittedly for four horrifying sectarian murders of quite innocent Catholics—there is now growing suspicion that the constant refusal to make any move on the case of Albert Baker is related to the fact that he has begun to name those members of the security forces and the RUC who provided the weapons that he used in the murders, and that there is now an interest on the part of the Government to keep him inside for as long as possible so that those matters will not be properly aired when Albert Baker gets out?

I have always noted that, when the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, he brings discredit upon himself. The only reason why, hitherto, a refusal has been given is because the Northern Ireland Office has concluded that he would be at risk in the general prison system in Northern Ireland and that, by reason of his behaviour, he is unfit to be housed in the special unit. We are looking at the matter again, and he will be told the decision shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet the Governor of Hong Kong to discuss immigration issues.

I have no present plans for a further meeting with the Governor whom I last saw in London on 8 June. But I am in constant touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who was in Hong Kong between 2 and 4 July and who is himself in close touch with the Government of Hong Kong.

From his own experience of Peking, does the Home Secretary accept that, throughout Chinese history, whatever their domestic agonies have been, they have at least respected their international agreements?

The House will debate this matter this afternoon. It goes well beyond my responsibilities, but I am quite sure that we need to assume, and work for, the reality of the Chinese honouring their promises in regard to Hong Kong.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that over-excited comparisons with Portugal and their provisions for Macao are not justified, because the people there who have automatic right of entry to Portugal, and therefore to the EEC, number only just in excess of 100,000? After the Foreign Secretary's declaration during his recent visit, there is plenty of time to work out, in a calm atmosphere, a rational solution for the people who wish genuinely to apply to come to this country. Is it not self-evident that priority categories should include people who have connections with Britain, who work here and who travel between here and Hong Kong frequently?

My hon. Friend is right about numbers. Our citizenship law since 1981 has been based firmly on residency, as Portugal's has not. The thrust of the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, I think, right. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are trying to work out ways in which the existing arrangements can be made more flexible so that key people in the public and private sectors can be given assurances of one kind or another which will encourage them to stay in Hong Kong.

Has the Home Secretary noticed that there is a feeling of revulsion throughout the country at the idea that some citizens of Hong Kong may be able to buy their way into Britain because they possess £150,000? Will he repudiate that principle for Hong Kong immigrants and for immigrants from other parts of the Commonwealth?

The principle of people coming here with adequate means has been established for a long time, including under a Labour Government. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman to this extent any scheme that we work out—we are working on a scheme as I have just said —cannot simply be based on the principle that those with the longest purses have the greatest rights.

Did the Home Secretary hear the words of the Governor of Hong Kong who made it plain that, if the right of abode were granted as a last resort to British dependent territory passport holders, there would not be the sudden influx which appears to be what is worrying the Government about meeting their moral obligations in this matter?

I do not think that the House of Commons would welcome it if the Government came to the House with a proposition based on that assumption, which we simply could not prove. If we suggest that the right of abode should, at least in theory, be given to a large number of people—3 million, 3·25 million or 5 million—I think that a responsible House of Commons and a responsible Government would need to consider the possibility of that right being taken up. I do not think that we can seriously discuss such a proposal without making that assumption.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of people held on remand in prison on the latest available date; and what it was 12 months ago?

At the end of May this year, 10,540 prisoners were held on remand in prisons or in police cells. I am glad to say that that is 1,040 fewer than 12 months ago.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Assuming that they have not all escaped, that is rather good news. Does he have equally good news relating to remand prisoners held in police cells because a year ago they were keeping the police from their proper duty of guarding the streets of London and elsewhere?

Yes, indeed, I do. My hon. Friend is right. At its worst, roughly 2,000 remand prisoners were held in police cells each night. The latest figure, for earlier this week, was 194, of whom 160 are in the north, because of the recent disturbances at Risley, and of whom only 34 are in the metropolitan area and the south-east. That is a big improvement.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the figures that he has just given include young remand prisoners at Armley prison in Leeds and that there have been a number of suicides among these young men? Is he satisfied that the conditions in that prison are suitable for young remand prisoners?

It will be a long time before I am satisfied that, despite all the efforts, the conditions in Armley prison are suitable for any prisoner, whether convicted or on remand. The hon. Gentleman knows that because we have discussed it. We have a long way to go before prisons such as Armley are in a satisfactory state. All that one can say is that over the past year there has been a great deal of progress.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable of Lancashire; and what matters were discussed.

My right hon. Friend last met the chief constable of the Lancashire constabulary at the Association of Chief Police Officers' drugs conference in April, when they discussed a number of matters of mutual interest. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met the chief constable and members of the police authority on 11 July, to discuss police manpower and the costs of security arrangements at party conferences in Blackpool.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Can he confirm to the House the excellent progress that the Lancashire police force is making in increasing its crime protection rate to 49 per cent., while reducing the incidence of burglaries by 10 per cent. and implementing neighbourhood watch schemes? In the light of that excellent performance, can he give me the reassurance that he will take a broad range of representations into account when Lancashire next requests more police officers to further its excellent work?

I think, perhaps, that the Lancashire constabulary does not have a more persuasive friend than my hon. Friend.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to look at the statement made recently by President Bush in Hungary? Does he agree that the western technology and finance that is now going behind the iron curtain will result, in time, in the rolling-back of the iron curtan and the end of 40 years of impoverishment for Communist countries?

I have. On this, as on so many other issues, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush share a common outlook and approach. The House will recall that when the Polish president visited Britain recently my right hon. Friend was able to announce a package of help for Poland on its road to democracy and free markets, of very much the same kind as that which President Bush launched during the successful visit that he has just concluded to eastern Europe.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House tell the Secretary of State for Transport to stop sabotaging the talks between the trade unions and British Rail? The trade unions represent railmen on less than £100 per week while the chairman of British Rail is on £100,000. While he is about it, will he ask Maurice Saatchi of Saatchi and Saatchi plc who has just received an increase of £125,000 per year from £500,000 to £625,000, to donate a bit of time to a public information campaign to demonstrate that when there are strikes on the railways it is the fault of the Government who are pulling the strings of the puppet BR management?

I entirely refute the hon. Gentleman's accusation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has intervened in the strike. He certainly has not. The strike hurts everybody and benefits no one. It causes misery to commuters in London and other big cities. It hits old people and children who are particularly dependent on public transport. In my view, the unions should stop it, go back to work and negotiate with the management.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Leader of the House aware that British Rail's proposal to build a high-speed rail link in my constituency will have a massively damaging effect on five villages with no benefit whatsoever for local commuters or residents? Is he further aware that British Rail has a solution at its disposal, which is to give an undertaking to provide a further five miles of tunnelling and that if that undertaking were given and the five miles of tunnelling were provided, local opposition would largely be withdrawn?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's continuing concern about British Rail's proposal. British Rail's route, which was announced in March, will have significantly less impact on people and the environment than its original routes options. British Rail clearly took on board many of the suggestions put to it during the consultations. I recognise that my hon. Friend is not entirely satisfied with the changes that British Rail agreed. I hope that he will continue to pursue his concern direct with British Rail. I assure him, however, that before British Rail can proceed, it will have to convince Parliament that a new line is needed and that it has minimised the impact on people and the environment.

In his earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), was the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that British Rail, in its response to the pay recommendations by the arbitration tribunal, was not acting upon the advice of the Government?

I am absolutely saying that. I am saying that this is a dispute which is for the management of British Rail and for the trade unions to resolve. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has given it neither instructions nor guidance.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on that answer? Is he seriously asking anyone to believe that the Secretary of State for Transport, in those circumstances, can meet the chairman of British Rail on Tuesday and the one thing that they do not talk about is the response that the Government want to the arbitration recommendations? Is that not stretching belief beyond all possible credulity?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on Monday that he was seeing the chairman of British Rail on Tuesday, which he did. He discussed a number of matters with him. There was no question of the Government giving any guidance or instructions.

The constant demand from the Opposition is that the Government should intervene constructively. That, too, is the demand of the travelling public. It disgraces the Government that they will not do that. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us here and now the absolute undertaking that the Government will in no circumstances make any intervention that will in any sense tie the hands of British Rail and prevent it from freely negotiating a proper bargain with the rail unions?

I remind the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman. I shall remind him of something that was said the last time that we had a major rail strike.

"It is wholly unjustified, damaging to the long term prospects of the railways and inexcusable in the inconvenience that it is causing to the travelling public."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition were a perfect example of why it is difficult to get good quality managers to work in a nationalised industry? It is because they are perpetually being mucked around by politicians and would-be politicians, such as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). Would it not be more appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to ring up his friend, Jimmy Knapp, and tell him to quit all the posturing and come to an agreement on pay, without forcing railway men to lose more money in future strikes?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no reason why the dispute cannot be brought to an end. It is for reasonable people to get together and to settle it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Governor of the Bank of England has called the leading banks to crisis talks in the next two or three days because of the massive increase in lending to the property market? Is he aware that yesterday's figures show that property lending is at the highest ever recorded figure—worse than during the Barber boom—at 14 per cent.? If that lending continues those banks will have to lend money so that the institutions can pay back just the interest, which has gone through the roof during the past few days. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1972 when we had the last Barber boom, it resulted in the then Government being kicked from office? The chances are that that is what will happen to this one.

I can confirm no such thing. I can confirm, however, that the summit countries are meeting in Paris and that the Prime Minister will be able to say that in the 1980s investment was growing faster in this country than in any other European country, that we have created more jobs than other European countries and that we have more people in work than ever before. We have a record rate of new business formations, and British business and industry have enjoyed better conditions and sound investment during the past few years than ever before. That is much more relevant to the real world than the machinations of the hon. Gentleman's mind.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing sympathy to the graduates of university of Sussex whose ceremony yesterday was disrupted by picketing by members of the National and Local Government Officers Association? Does he further agree that the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who said, expletive deleted, that the union would be better joining the Labour party, will not resolve the dispute?

I certainly share my hon. Friend's view. All those who were deprived of essential social services yesterday and children whose nurseries were closed b) NALGO action deserve full sympathy. I even have some sympathy for the spot of bother experienced by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), but I think that the Labour party hardly needs another paymaster as it is already in hock to enough unions.

Is the Minister aware that the number of young men committing suicide between the age of 20 and 24 has jumped by more than 60 per cent. during the past decade of mass unemployment? The Government, however, have carried out no research into any relationship between mass unemployment and the increase in the suicide rate. Are we to assume that the Government are not even interested in finding out the all too tragic consequences of their misuse of mass unemployment as a legitimate economic tool of management?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would therefore welcome today's announcement of a further fall in unemployment of 26,000 in June. That means that the figure has been falling continuously for 35 months. The hon. Gentleman should also note that the age group to which he referred has experienced the largest fall in unemployment.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend reflect further on the NALGO strike as another example of people inflicting maximum inconvenience on the public at minimum disadvantage to themselves? Surely that throws doubt on that union's professed wish to care for the public. Does it not further call into question the wisdom of our entrusting the care of the community to such people and their political masters?

My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. The people who have gone on strike have hurt the public, lost money themselves and gained absolutely nothing.

Does the Leader of the House, who does travel by train, unlike the Prime Minister, recognise, as the public most certainly do, that the railwaymen's dispute over pay and conditions is entirely genuine? Does he not appreciate that British Rail has mishandled the dispute from beginning to end and that Government and ministerial statements amount to intervention of the worst and most divisive kind? Did the Secretary of State for Transport discuss this matter with the chairman of British Rail when he met him?

I cannot keep repeating the answer, but I shall do so for the hon. and learned Gentleman for whom I have a great affection. I said that my right hon. Friend had a meeting with the chairman of British Rail and that they discussed many matters. However, my right hon. Friend did not give guidance or instructions to British Rail.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

I have been asked to reply.

In view of a recent court case, would my right hon. Friend consider making changes in the parole system to ensure that compulsive rapists are retained for their full prison sentence? Will he explain what has happened to the Carlisle report which has, apparently, been languishing on somebody's desk in the Home Office since November?

I can explain the position to my hon. Friend and sympathise with his question. The idea of having more supervision for serious offenders after their release is one of the recommendations of the Carlisle committee, which needs to be looked at as a whole. They would require a change in the law. Offenders are already placed under supervision if they are released on parole. David Evans was refused parole, as are almost all serious offenders serving five years or more. However, he was released when he had served his sentence minus the statutory remission when he could no longer be lawfully held in prison. This tragic case adds weight to the argument for a change in the law. Supervision could help, but it could not guarantee that a new offence would not be committed.