asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in his review of section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971.

The review of the administrative criteria governing the repatriation scheme under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 is virtually complete. However, before reaching final conclusions, my right hon. and learned Friend intends to take account also of the outcome of a complementary study of the possibility of combining the section 29 scheme with similar arrangements operated under supplementary benefit legislation. I hope shortly to be in a position to make a further statement about these matters.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that helpful and informative reply. When and if the merger takes place, will he ensure that the scheme is operated and administered by a Government Department and not by an International Social Service charity in Brixton? When the circular is put out eventually, will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that copies go to members of the ethnic press?

I cannot give the undertaking for which my hon. Friend asked. We have no reason to think that International Social Service of Great Britain has been operating the scheme in other than a most efficient and sensible fashion.

Do the Government recognise that it was always improper to entrust the performance of these statutory duties to a private body which declared itself unsympathetic to performing them?

I shall bear the right hon. Gentleman's view in mind. I can only repeat that we have no reason to think that International Social Service has not been operating the scheme in a sensible way.

Will my hon. and learned Friend make it clear that the Act, the Government and the Conservative party are unsympathetic towards any impression that we wish people to leave this country, other than of their own free will?

Yes. This is a sensitive matter. That is why I was cautious in replying to the second supplementary question. It is clearly our duty to let people know about the facilities available, but we must not give the impression that we are inducing people to leave because we do not wish them to be here.

Will the Minister take steps to end the public scandal of fiancés wishing to enter this country to marry British citizens being refused entry because those whom they wish to marry are unemployed and do not have adequate accommodation? Will he ensure that that scandal is ended as quickly as possible, rather than concern himself with repatriation?

rose——

Order. I am not sure that that relates to the question at all, but the Minister may make a brief reply.

I cannot see anything scandalous in making it a requirement that a person shall have means of support when he has entered the country. It is absurd to suggest that our immigration rules should operate in such a way as to allow people to enter the country and immediately become a charge on public funds.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by country of origin the number of persons who have been refused visitor's status to date in 1983.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were granted visitor's status to the United Kingdom to date in 1983; and what was the figure for the comparable period of 1982.

In the first nine months of 1983, 5·4 million passengers from outside the European Community were given admission and 10,625 passengers from all countries were refused leave to enter. I shall circulate in the Official Report details of the nationalities concerned. Separate information is not available as to the number of those refused who were seeking admission as visitors. In the same period, 4·1 million nationals of countries outside the European Community were admitted as visitors, compared with 3·6 million in the first nine months of 1982.

Will the Minister express the figures for refusals as percentages by nationality and account for any discrepancies?

I am prepared to table a list of the kind requested by the hon. Gentleman. In general, there are very few refusals compared with the number of people seeking entry. Even for the Indian subcontinent, where pressures to come here are naturally far greater than in, say, America, because of the discrepancy in the standard of living, I believe that the rate of refusal last year was 0·5 per cent. or about 1,000 out of 200,000 of those coming here from India, with similar figures for other countries of the subcontinent.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be widespread dismay at his statement yesterday that no further significant reduction in immigration can be expected, especially as the figure is now running at just under 29,000 per year? Will he give some partial reassurance by repeating the promise that he gave when the last set of immigration rules were passed, namely, that if the number of male fiancés seeking admission increases greatly the rules will be reviewed with a view to restricting the number?

The number of people accepted from the world as a whole and from the New Commonwealth has fallen significantly since the Government came to office in 1979, in pursuance of our declared aim of tightening the immigration rules. The point that I made at the Royal Commonwealth Society yesterday was that two thirds of the people now being accepted from the New Commonwealth are relatives of those already accepted for settlement. We must remember that the families of those settled before 1 January 1973 have a statutory right to come here. Moreover, Governments have given undertakings that families of men settled after that date will be allowed to enter.

rose——

Order. I appeal for shorter supplementary questions and for shorter answers.

Is the Minister aware that all who are interested in these matters have detected a concerted effort in recent months to reduce the number of visitors given permission to enter this country? Will he deny that the immigration service has been given such advice through a series of nods and winks from the Department?

That is utter rubbish. The hon. Gentleman should read the text of my reply. The number of people entering this country has risen since 1982. The number of refusals has risen in proportion.

Is the Minister aware that increasing distress is being caused to family visitors and is undermining good community relations? Does he appreciate that the phrases used by Ministers to justify their decisions—a letter to me recently stated that

"there seems to be no good reason for this … family visit … at this time"—

"He would not appear to have sufficient incentive to return home"

The right hon. Gentleman and others, I fear, seem to have forgotten that Parliament approved new rules as recently as February this year. Those rules require immigration officers in Britain to be satisfied that a person seeking entry as a visitor is a genuine visitor. The point made in the letter about which the right hon. Gentleman complains is that among the factors which weighed in the immigration officer's mind before refusing entry was that there did not seem to be a good reason for that person to spend an enormous amount of money on a visit at that particular time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the total cost to civilian police of policing in relation to military bases where nuclear weapons are located or planned to be located.

For good security reasons, successive Governments have not confirmed or denied the presence of nuclear warheads at particular bases, but if asked to do so I would readily provide information about the cost of policing any particular base in England and Wales.

If the Government are so obsessed with cutting public expenditure, why is the cost of policing Greenham common now more than £1·5 million per year, on the Government's own estimation? If, as the Government claim, the American weapons of death are here to defend the people, what justification is there for forcing the people to spend more than £1·5 million of their own money defending those weapons against the people?

If the hon. Gentleman is as concerned about public expenditure as he purports to be, perhaps he will persuade some of his friends not to turn up at Greenham common, so that more money is available for more constructive purposes than policing that base.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although letting police costs fall where they lie may be a sound principle in general, it cannot be applied with equity in situations requiring exceptional measures to be taken by the police on a continuing basis?

All police forces must sometimes meet demands that can be characterised as of national as well as local significance. The Government meet more than 60 per cent. of the cost of policing Greenham common. Nevertheless, in view of the exceptional burden on the Thames Valley police, we are considering whether there is some means by which the Government can help.

Does the Home Secretary agree that it is unjust to place upon local ratepayers the responsibility of paying anything, let alone 40 per cent., towards the cost of policing Greenham common or, for that matter, the kind of organised public disorder that has taken place in Warrington?

I should not go as far the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend's supplementary question shows the sympathy that I have for the ratepayers who are currently having to meet a proportion of the cost of policing Greenham common.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in addition to the cost that falls upon the ratepayers because of the need to deploy police officers to defend the Queen's peace, another cost is that paid in the neighbourhoods from which the police presence has been withdrawn to police such major demonstrations? The consequent cost to many people of burglaries and vandalism, which arise because the police are removed, is great.

I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the successful applicants for the 12 pilot cable television licences.

My right hon. and learned Friend did so on 25 November, in reply to my hon. Friend's earlier question. We intend to issue pilot project licences to 11 applicants, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of further discussions with them on some specific points in their applications.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Were the successful applicants judged just on the intrinsic merits of their applications and financial strengths, or were there further implications in the choices made? Does my right hon. Friend foresee that the further implications might be useful for additional applicants when the first round of applications begins after the introduction of the legislation next year?

The applications for the pilot project were of a high quality. Above all, we were looking for systems which showed a positive contribution to applying advanced technology, of providing a comprehensive range of programme services and having the capability for interactive services.

As it is now standard practice for companies which gain Independent Broadcasting Authority franchises flagrantly to break their promises in every instance and disregard everything that they said to obtain the franchises, what assurances can the Minister give that that will not happen with cable television?

We have today published the Cable and Broadcasting Bill. If the hon. Gentleman reads it, he will realise that the Government are proposing, if Parliament agrees, to set up a cable authority to provide safeguards to deal with precisely such matters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the text of the speech made by the Minister of State to the National Council of Voluntary Organisations on 13 November.

I have placed a copy in the Library today.

Will the Minister be good enough to deposit in the Library an explanation of what he meant by

"political activities carried out by charitable organisations."?

I made it clear in my speech that I was talking about party political activities. I see nothing wrong in voluntary bodies campaigning even for changes in the law — and, in the case of charities, within the restraints of the law. I said that in the longer term a neutral or an apolitical stance was important for the voluntary sector and in its own interests.

Is it a welcome fact that an increasing number of voluntary organisations that are financed partly by public money devote a growing proportion of their time and money to campaigning on what they think Parliament and the Government should do? Why should the Government be expected to vote finance for such matters? Would it not be much better if voluntary organisations and charities concentrated more on their traditional role of helping people direct?

I said in my speech that if I were a member of the management team of a charity or voluntary body I should rather be criticised for putting too much emphasis on services to clients and too little on their political context, than to risk the opposite criticism and a loss of public good will.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Williams committee report on obscenity and film censorship.

It is clear that there are very wide differences of opinion on the direction and the form any new legislation should take. These differences were reflected in the public reaction to the Williams report and we are not satisfied that its recommendations, taken as a whole, constitute a sufficient basis of agreement for the purpose of comprehensive legislation in this field.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Lord Chief Justice, when presenting the Darwin lecture, gave it as his opinion that there was a direct link, albeit imitative, between the sex and brutality depicted in pornography and films and the rise in the number of sex crimes and crimes of violence? If the Lord Chief Justice is right, is there not a moral imperative on the Government to take further action?

Since the Government have been in office they have taken action against sex establishments. We have supported private Members' legislation against sex shops and fake cinema clubs. During the present Parliament, the Government have already given the strongest support to a useful measure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) to curb video nasties. We will give the most serious attention to any similar proposals.

As one of the main drawbacks in this area is that juries persist in acquitting defendants because of the unworkable legal definition of "obscenity", will my hon. Friend consider redrafting the obscenity legislation to contain a list of actions which the most reasonable people in the world would consider to be obscene?

Problems arise in the listing approach. I have already said that we take the matter seriously and are open to suggestions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the change between the number of burglaries recorded in the first half of 1983 and the corresponding figure for 1979.

Between the first half of 1979 and the first half of 1983 the number of offences of burglary recorded by the police in England and Wales increased by about half.

Is the Home Secretary aware that in the first six months of the year one burglary was committed, on average, every one to one and a half minutes? The crime of burglary is costing about £127 per second. Would it not be better to use these resources to provide more intruder alarms for the elderly, to put more policemen on the beat and to extend the home watch scheme? Do not the figures that I have quoted give the lie to the Prime Minister's oft-repeated remark that there is no relationship between massive unemployment and the massive increase in the number of burglaries?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I support crime prevention measures. One of my first actions at the Home Office was to establish a crime prevention unit, thereby forwarding these matters.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the successful take-up of both the home beat scheme and the neighbourhood watch scheme throughout the metropolis?

I welcome the opportunity to do that, and do so readily.

Does the Home Secretary accept that the best way to put a damper on the crime explosion that has occurred since the Government have been in office is for them to take measures to get people back to work?

It is important that unemployment should be reduced as rapidly as possible. Unemployment is a scourge on our society and a social evil, but it is not the cause of crime. I also believe that the best long-term prospect for sustaining employment is for the Government to complete the work of putting right the economy.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted that the number of burglaries has increased by 50 per cent. under his Government. As he said recently that it would take time to curb crime, will he now say precisely how long it will take to reduce the number of burglaries to their level under the Labour Government?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that making such a political distinction does not add anything to his case. If he is nimble in his arithmetic, he might appreciate that whereas the increase in burglary offences between the first half of 1979 and the first half of 1983 was indeed 50 per cent., the total for the first six months of 1983 was only 3 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period last year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in reviewing the cases in which Dr. Clift gave forensic evidence; and when a statement can be expected.

The review is nearing completion and hope to be able to announce my conclusions soon.

Is the Home Secretaray aware that I especially welcome his reply, because Dr. Clift's forensic evidence has helped to convict one of my constituents of murder? That evidence has now been discredited. Other people who have been convicted because of Dr. Clift's evidence now have the right to have their cases reviewed, but, as there is a long delay in that process, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that every case in which Dr. Clift gave evidence will be reviewed by the committee?

The committee has to cover more than 1,500 cases in which Dr. Clift was involved since 1967. Obviously, special attention has been given to the 123 contested cases in which he gave evidence. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is a serious review and, therefore, must necessarily take time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce measures to implement the Erroll committee's report on liquor licensing.

A number of the Erroll committee's recommendations have been implemented. Since that committee reported, indicators of the harm alcohol misuse may cause have been showing a serious and deteriorating situation. In 1981 the Government issued the publication "Drinking Sensibly" to stimulate discussion and create a background of informed public opinion, in the light of which Government strategies could be formulated. We have no plans to introduce legislation at present.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the licensing laws cause a great deal of dissatisfaction? Is there not at least a strong case for introducing limited reforms, such as those introduced in Scotland a few years ago, which are working satisfactorily?

I appreciate the strength of opinion in favour of that approach, just as I appreciate the strength of opinion that the increasing numbers of hospital admissions through alcoholism and the increasing number of accidents where alcohol has been a factor should lead, as the Expenditure Committee recommended in 1977, to extreme caution in any liberalisation of the licensing laws.

When the Minister considers the Erroll report, will he ensure that privately run clubs—such as working men's clubs — will not be subject to interference? They are properly run clubs, managed by their members. Will the Minister assure us that the Erroll report will not interfere with such clubs?

I have already made it clear that we have no plan to introduce legislation at present, so the hon. Gentleman need not have any fears.

Have not successive Governments recognised that the position is unsatisfactory? Does my hon. Friend agree that producing a leaflet called "Drinking Sensibly" is no substitute for action? As the Government have been elected for a five-year term, should they not take their courage in their hands and deal with a problem that must be dealt with sooner or later?

I must correct my hon. Friend on his point about the leaflet. It was a substantial publication from the Department of Health and Social Security, which dealt seriously with the increase in alcohol abuse. While I understand that many people sincerely believe that the licensing laws could be relaxed without any adverse effect on alcohol abuse, there are many others who equally sincerely, and with equal merit, believe the contrary. On that basis, the Government would not be right to press ahead with any reform.

Does the Minister accept that many clubs — especially the working men's clubs referred to by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) — which play an important role in the community are facing increasing financial difficulties? Will he consider assisting them—[Interruption.]

I could not hear all of what the hon. Gentleman said, but the Government certainly have no plans to nationalise clubs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who escaped from custody in each of the past five years have subsequently been convicted (a) for homicide and (b) for other offences of violence committed whilst at large.

Of those adult prisoners who escaped from closed prisons in 1981 and 1982, two were convicted of offences of manslaughter committed while they were unlawfully at large. Further information is not readily available.

Is the Minister satisfied with present arrangements in the light of recent offences committed by prisoners while in transit? Is he aware of recent reports that five murderers have escaped in as many weeks from one open prison?

I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's last point, other than to say that I do not think he is right. We cannot be satisfied while there are a substantial number of escapes, especially of prisoners under escort. In July this year the deputy director-general of the prison service issued some practical general guidance on the subject to all governors in an attempt to improve the position.

Does not research from the Minister's Department show that long-term prisoners released on licence are less likely to commit further offences? Will not the Home Secretary's decision to restrict parole for certain offenders lead to the likelihood of further offences being committed by those prisoners? Will not that decision also encourage the "escape mentality"?

That question has nothing to do with the question on the Order Paper, which deals with escapes from custody.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on illegal drug trafficking in the United Kingdom.

The Government recognise the evidence of rapid and substantial growth in illegal trafficking of controlled drugs, particularly heroin, and are committed to action aimed at preventing illegal importation, stopping the supply within the United Kingdom and reducing it at source.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the Lord Chief Justice's Darwin lecture, when Lord Lane made the serious allegation that the Government were doing nothing to stem what he called the flow of death—heroin from Pakistan?

The Lord Chief Justice was doing a public service by drawing attention to the magnitude of the problem. However, it is also right to draw attention to the offer of aid for law enforcement activities in Pakistan, worth 180,000 in this financial year, which is currently being considered by the Government of Pakistan. There is close co-operation between the Pakistan law enforcement agencies and our own customs and police, and other action is being taken. I readily agree that we should look for ways to improve the position.

What steps do the Government propose to take to ensure that it is less easy for hard drugs to be stolen from chemists' shops and doctors' surgeries?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the report on security from the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, which was published yesterday. The report recommends a number of improvements in security arrangements. I am urgently seeking views on its recommendations and intend to announce my decision when I have considered them.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we place such countries as Thailand in a difficult position when we urge them to tighten up their defences against drug trafficking, and then raise a furore when they imprison our youngsters'? We cannot have it both ways.

I would never raise a furore about citizens of the United Kingdom being punished for offences that would be serious offences in this country.

How can we have any faith in a Government's attempt to control drug trafficking, or to find where the £27 million that was snatched from under the noses of the police at Heathrow has gone, when that Government are more concerned with directing police to guard the Yankee bases and to protect rogue employers such as Eddie Shah? If they got their priorities right they might control drug trafficking.

The hon. Gentleman is not making a useful contribution to this problem.

Is not the Home Secretary being complacent about Britain's hard drug problem, which all social agencies say is virtually out of control? What specific proposals does he have to tackle that problem?

The hon. Gentleman has not heard me say anthing that remotely smacks of complacency. He should know that police drug squads are increasingly concentrating their resources against major traffickers. I shall be meeting representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers later today to discuss ways in which police efforts to bring traffickers to justice can be strengthened.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to improve the enforcement of the law on pedal cycle lighting in the London Metropolitan area.

The enforcement of the law on pedal cycle lighting in the Metropolitan police district, like the enforcement of other road traffic laws, is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of recorded convictions for this offence during the whole of last year was rather less than the number of pedal cyclists that one is likely to observe in 20 minutes on the streets of London? Is it not a scandal that no attempt to enforce the law is being made?

My right hon. Friend will accept that a serious attempt is being made to enforce the law with regard to cycling. It is probably sensible that, in most cases, the police should deal with the matter by way of a caution rather than by prosecution.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to release transcripts of the interrogation of Sir Oswald Mosley by Lord Birkett in July 1940 under the Defence of the Realm Act; and if he will make a statement.

The review of these papers is now complete and I have decided to release for public inspection the complete transcripts of the Mosleys' hearings before the advisory committee, chaired by Lord Birkett. I have also decided to release all the other files on the detention and interrogation of Sir Oswald and Lady Mosley, with the exception of a very few files which will remain closed on security grounds. The files to be released will be made available from 12 December in the Public Record Office.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will the publication of the transcripts reveal Lord Birkett's recommendation as to whether Sir Oswald Mosley should or should not be detained under the Defence of the Realm Act?

Yes. After a lengthy hearing in July 1940, the advisory committee concluded that the order for Sir Oswald Mosley's detention should continue. The committee's full report explaining why it came to that conclusion is to be found in one of the files which will be disclosed.

I thank the Home Secretary for the release of the papers, especially the Birkett papers. Does he really expect us to believe that there is anything in those papers, whose age is between 40 and 50 years, that can conceivably threaten security today? What are the real reasons for holding back those papers that he is holding back? Who is being covered up?

The hon. Gentleman's capacity for believing in the conspiracy theory is almost unlimited. I assure him that the reason for the very small number of files being kept closed—six out of about 140—has nothing whatever to do with covering up any person. They are being kept closed simply because the information in them would reveal material about the methods of the security services' operations. It would not be in the public interest to disclose that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that magistrates have sufficient powers to deal with offences arising from football hooliganism.

The penalties available for all the main offences associated with football hooliganism are substantial, and include custodial sentences. For the more serious offences, magistrates may commit the defendant to the Crown court for trial or sentence.

Has the Minister seen an article in The Guardian today which reports the chairman of the Football Association as saying that, if the Government do not introduce legislation to help with the problem of known hooligans going abroad, there is little that the Football Association can do about what happens at away matches? Will the Minister consider introducing a system such as that employed by the Amateur Athletics Association, which has a register of supporters? Does he agree that people's names could then be withdrawn from such a register by magistrates in the event of hooliganism?

I and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the disgraceful behaviour of a small minority of British sports fans when British clubs or the national team play overseas. It would be a major step to do what the chairman of the Football Association has asked. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport is considering these matters during his regular contact with the football authorities and Ministers with responsibility for sport in other European countries.

In the light of the meeting that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport had with his counterparts in Rotterdam recently and the success of that meeting, will my hon. Friend consider meeting his European counterparts to persuade them to ensure that their magistrates come down hard on the British thugs who are bringing the good name of football into disrepute?

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport has already taken it up. Sometimes, alleged hooligans who are arrested and confined overnight do not have charges brought against them. That is most unsatisfactory from all points of view.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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. This evening I shall be attending a diplomatic reception at Buckingham palace given by Her Majesty the Queen.

Since the Prime Minister's return home has she had an opportunity to read yesterday's speech by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) and the comments made in an interview on television during the weekend by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, both of whom linked unemployment with the increasing level of violence and lawlessness? Do those comments herald a new dawn of realism and understanding in the Tory party, and has it yet dawned on the right hon. Lady?

With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the policy that I am pursuing now is precisely the same as that which I pursued when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) was a distinguished member of my Cabinet. They are also the policies on which we won the general election so handsomely. On the latter part of this question, the hon. Gentleman should refer to the excellent investigation carried out by the Social Science Research Council, which found that there was no connection between unemployment and crime.

In an effort to resolve the continuing dispute at the Stockport Messenger, will the Prime Minister use the power which we know she has and, at the least, get her Secretary of State for Employment to invite Mr. Shah, the National Graphical Association and the chairman of ACAS to meet the Secretary of State for discussions to pursue a resolution of the dispute and arrange for that meeting to be in London?

No, Sir. ACAS was set up by the Labour Government. It exists to act as a reconciliation agency in disputes. One of the parties involved will be seeing ACAS this afternoon. It is not the Government's function to take these matters over.

We have heard much of the Prime Minister's policy of non-intervention. On 14 October Mr. Shah obtained his first two injunctions under the 1980 and 1982 legislation. That was also the day on which the Prime Minister met Mr. Shah in the north and—[Interruption.] If the Prime Minister wants photographic evidence I have it here. The Sale and Altrincham Messenger of 21 October carries two photographs of the Prime Minister in deep conversation with Mr. Shah. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] So much for non-intervention. When she met Mr. Shah, did she counsel peace or conflict? Did she advise him to pursue industrial relations by litigation or by negotiation?

I advise everyone, employer or employee, to keep within the law, because the law is their best protection. I do not discuss particular industrial relations problems with particular employers. Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the NGA to obey the law and to purge its contempt of court?

The Prime Minister has not answered the question. She is refusing to give an honest answer to the question. Is she really trying to persuade the House that on the very day that this business man went to court and got two injunctions, she, as the authoress of the two pieces of legislation that gave rise to the injunction, did not discuss this matter with him? Is not the fact that the Conservative party and the alliance parties want this dispute to be more bitter and more prolonged for purposes of political profit, when we on the Opposition Benches, and every reasonable person, want the dispute to be resolved so that we can have peace in the printing industry and on Fleet street?

This dispute is about an attempt to impose—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must listen in silence to the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Order. I repeat what I said yesterday—if we cannot have order in this House, how can we expect it outside?

This dispute is about an attempt to impose a closed shop on employees, who did not want it, by a process of union intimidation, and further to prevent that company from producing a newspaper by unlawful picketing under the criminal law. The employer has rightly sought the protection of the courts. The protection of the law is there for every citizen in the land and it is to be used. The law is wholly separate from politics.

as Baker asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 December.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the support that she will receive in the negotiations next week in Athens, and does she accept that the own resources of the Community should not be increased unless arrangements on the budgetary process and the common agricultural policy are arrived at that are satisfactory to the House?

Yes, I firmly agree. The objective at Athens is to achieve a fair sharing of the financial burden of the Community among the several members, so that no member pays to the Community a share disproportionate to its relative prosperity. It is particularly important that we get a safety net for our contribution. It is also very important that we get control of expenditure under the Community budget, and in particular under the common agricultural policy.

Does the right hon. Lady recognise that she should tell the House what was the advice that she gave to Mr. Shah? However, does she agree that, regardless of the more recent legislation, the mass picketing that is going on was illegal under the Labour Government's legislation, and that that should be condemned, and hon. Members participating in those pickets should be repudiated by their party leader?

I do not advise anyone upon the law. That is a matter for their professional advisers and their solicitors, and most wise politicians would take that view. With regard to the mass picketing, that is a matter for the criminal law. That has been the position for decades, certainly long before our last legislation.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a first-class Commonwealth conference. Following the long statement by Mr. Mugabe, does my right hon. Friend now feel that there is a real hope for the British airmen still imprisoned in Zimbabwe — and for their families — of early release?

I saw Mr. Mugabe in Delhi at the Commonwealth conference and we had a conversation in which this issue arose. I understand that the fourth of the air force officers was released when his case came before a review tribunal, which recommended his release. I understand that the other three cases will come before the review tribunal and go through the usual process, we hope with the same result.

Has the Prime Minister been advised on the allegation made while she was away that an eminent member of the judiciary was acting as adviser to one of her Departments, and that the Home Secretary yesterday said that the facts had been distorted? What were the facts?

I am not in a position to comment — [Interruption.] — on double hearsay. I have full confidence in the judiciary, which is independent of politics and must remain so.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

Before the right hon. Lady replies to my question, she should give a reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who presented her with a question that has not yet been answered. In the meantime, will she read in today's Official Report the Standing Order No. 10 application made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in which he inquired whether she was aware of what had transpired in the Peruvian peace talks and had been informed on 2 May before the sinking of the Belgrano—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] All the information that was contained in yesterday's application came from the Wall Street Journal. Will she now decide whether she will take legal action against that newspaper for fabrication, or will she make a statement to the House and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I read the Standing Order No. 10 application and I read the report, the information in which is totally and utterly wrong.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of a widespread demand on the Conservative Benches for the publication of a document setting out the political priorities for containing public expenditure m this Parliament, and will she give her support to the publication of such a document?

Obviously we are looking at the long-term consequences of the present trend of public expenditure. We shall let my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have as much information as we possibly can. We must have the information to make a proper assessment of the taxation consequences of certain levels of public expenditure.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Post Office Engineering Union imposed a weekly levy of £1 on all its members, to be used solely for political purposes. In view of this, will she consider recommending to the chairman of British Telecom that an alternative union, the Engineering Officers Technical Association, be empowered to act and negotiate on behalf of the technical officers, who would prefer to belong to a union that worked for them rather than to a union that works largely for political purposes?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but it is for the chairman of British Telecom to take whatever decisions are in the best interests of the business. I understand that some members of the POEU have been reluctant to pay the levy. That shows that they have made a better assessment than some of their leaders of the benefits of privatisation.

Will the Prime Minister reconsider the decision to increase fuel prices at a time when the British Gas Corporation could reduce prices by 10 per cent. and carry on making its current profits? If riot, will the right hon. Lady accept that she is setting herself up as jury, judge and executioner of many sick, disabled and elderly people? Does the right hon. Lady relish the prospect of becoming a mass murderer in coming winters?

I have already answered that question. The amount of gas is limited. Present supplies are made up in large part of cheap gas from the southern basin of the North sea at 6p a therm, progressively supplemented by imported gas at 19p a therm. It is therefore inevitable that gas prices will rise over the years. To keep them artificially low would be to use gas in this generation at the cost of the future. That would be a short-sighted policy. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to his own Government's record on gas prices he will find that they deliberately loaded gas prices on to industry in order to keep them down for the consumer. The most recent Labour Government loaded gas prices on to industry to the tune of 291 per cent. We have done it only to the extent of 85 per cent.