asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley police as to how many persons have been arrested at Greenham common to the latest available date.

The chief constable tells us that up to 18 January there had been 1,175 arrests at Greenham common or in relation to actions there.

Of those who have been arrested, how many have been prosecuted and how many convicted? In view of the growing opposition of the general public to the deployment of missiles, as shown by opinion polls, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the imposition of punitive fines on those people and intimidation through arrests make a mockery of British justice and democracy?

The answer to the last part of the question is no, Sir. There is no question of intimidation or punitive fines.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what would make a mockery of British justice would be the notion that people who broke the law could get away with it simply by declaring themselves to be peace people?

I have every sympathy with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. The police have had an enormous amount to put up with and, like many others in the area, are becoming thoroughly fed up, although they are doing their duty manfully and successfully.

We all know how many policemen have been injured doing their duty, but is there any method of finding out how many of the women have been injured and hospitalised?

I do not have that information.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman get it?

Is it not time that stronger measures were used against the campers, who are disrupting the life of local people, causing injury to the police in the execution of their duty and bringing about a great increase in costs to ratepayers and taxpayers?

There is no doubt that the so-called peace camp at Greenham has become a consistent nuisance to the residents of the area, and a great expense. Even when those involved are not in breach of the criminal law, they are trespassing or are in breach of byelaws, or both. I wish to consider further the strong feelings understandably expressed by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Cheshire police into how many of those arrested outside the Stockport Messenger offices in Warrington during the recent picketing of those offices are not United Kingdom citizens.

The chief constable tells me that two of those arrested were born in Dublin, and are believed to be citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

How many of those arrested had nothing to do with Warrington or the printing industry?

On the worst night, 86 people were arrested, and only six of them were found to have anything whatever to do with the printing industry. They came from all over the country and included students, a school teacher, a social worker and even a young girl of 16 still at school.

Has any information come through official trade union channels about whether the unions disapprove of the fact that more than 80 per cent. of those who were arrested came from outside that trade and business?

I am afraid that I know of no such denunciation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consultations with political parties on changes in electoral law.

My colleagues in the other Home Departments and I wrote to the leaders of the political parties represented in the House on 1 November seeking their views on the principal recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. We are now considering the replies we have received and expect to announce our conclusions shortly.

Does the Home Secretary recognise that the proposal for a £1,000 deposit represents a requirement on a national political party to deposit more than £500,000 for the duration of a campaign? Will that not be seen as an attempt by a wealthy political party to undermine its opponents?

One has to consider not only the level of the deposit but the threshold at which it is forfeited. We shall need to consider all those matters in the round, taking account of the fact that when the deposit was fixed in 1918 it was set at £150. The Select Committee said that there was a very strong case for change. The Government's views will be expressed in a White Paper which will be published shortly.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the White Paper should mention those on holiday who are at present unable to vote and also those—and in some parts of the country they are quite numerous— who were prevented from voting at the previous election because of local government error? That important point should be considered, and there should be a way of rectifying that error.

I shall look into that point about error. I have long made it clear that it is my view and that of the Government that there is no reason why going on holiday should be regarded as something that leads to one being disfranchised.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the Ulster Unionist party would be very happy to enter into discussions with him, at his convenience, on electoral law issues in general, in addition to the more limited discussions that we have had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that indication.

I return to the question on the Order Paper and the subject of postal votes for holiday makers. Although everyone obviously hopes that agreement can be reached with the political parties, will my right hon. and learned Friend give a categorical assurance that, in the absence of any such agreement, that matter—about which many of our constituents feel very strongly—will be dealt with separately, and immediately?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the desirability of reaching agreement, but, equally, after engaging in consultations we shall have to take a view and decide what action to take. Obviously no one expects any one interest group to have a veto on proposals which otherwise seem right.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the Home Affairs Committee invited some parties—but not all the parties in the House—to give evidence? Would it not be wiser to recommend holding a Speaker's Conference before going on with any such changes? If there are to be changes about holiday voting, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the registering of votes in more than one location is banned, as that practice will not be necessary if people have the right to vote when on holiday?

On the question of a Speaker's Conference, I rather agree with Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd, who did not think that the practice was a satisfactory way of considering changes in electoral law. We have the Select Committee's view and I have engaged in consultations with the leaders of the political parties in the House.

With some of them.

That process began on 1 November and the time has come to take the matter forward. I do not believe that a ban on multiple registration could be put into practice, but I agree that plural voting is, and should remain, a criminal offence.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most people do not agree with the Select Committee's suggestion that citizens of the Irish Republic and other non-British citizens in this country should be entitled to vote at United Kingdom elections?

I am aware of what my hon. Friend says, but I should not care to express a view on majority opinion in this country.

How will the Secretary of State react when he hears the different views of the different party leaders? If, as seems likely, to judge from their actions on other issues, the Liberal leader's version of what he wants differs from that of the leader of the Social Democratic party, will the Secretary of State take into account the fact that if he stretches the consultations over a long period there is a fair chance that both will change their minds during that process and finish on opposite sides of the fence again?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is better able than I am to gauge these matters. We must proceed as best we can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to permit postal voting at parish council elections; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are considering possible changes in absent voting arrangements, including the introduction of postal voting at parish and community council elections.

Is it not obvious, especially in view of the correspondence that we have received, that the councils are not enthusiastic about this proposal? Does the Under-Secretary agree that it is an anomaly that electors can vote by post at every election except that of parish councils? Is the cost not of secondary importance and, indeed, negligible? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that parish councils play a big role in local affairs and that it is simple democracy that people should have a right to vote at such elections?

I accept that that is the only form of elections at which postal votes are not allowed. That is why we are examining this matter and have asked the National Association of Local Councils to look into the practicalities of such voting. The hon. Gentleman said that the cost was negligible, but I must point out that as long ago as 1980 it was estimated that the cost would be about £250,000 and would add 50 per cent. to the cost of running these elections. We are looking at this matter and will make our views known.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that this is an urgent and important matter for many disabled people, because without postal votes they are disfranchised? Moreover, should we not consider making it illegal for any building or structure which is inaccessible to disabled people to be used as a polling station?

I have every sympathy with the problems of disabled people and the right hon. Gentleman's point is one that we would want to bear in mind. I hope that returning officers, who have the responsibility of selecting polling stations, will always bear in mind the need to ensure that disabled people who wish to vote have ready access to polling stations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent national publicity campaign on the misuse of air weapons.

The campaign had two main aims: to encourage owners and users of air weapons to use them responsibly and safely, and to educate people about the existing law. The campaign was launched in London and Edinburgh in November to coincide with the pre-Christmas period. It is too early to assess what effect the campaign has had, but we shall evaluate it with the help of the police and others.

I appreciate that it is too early to form a considered judgment on whether the campaign has been beneficial, but during the next few months will my right hon. Friend carefully monitor reports of the misuse of air weapons, especially when that results in injuries to people or animals? In the meantime, will he give a pledge to the House that he will keep an open mind about the need to tighten the complicated law and regulations on the misuse of these weapons?

We are not thinking of introducing further firearms legislation, but I note my hon. Friend's point. It is worth noting that between 1981 and 1982 the number of offences involving air weapons fell by 5 per cent. in England and Wales and by 6 per cent. in Scotland, but we are certainly not complacent about this matter.

Will the Minister consider running a national publicity campaign against the misuse of crossbows? Will be hear that in mind when he is reviewing the legislation on other weapons?

We are watching carefully the evidence about crossbows which comes to us.

I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should introduce legislation to control airguns and crossbows instead of spending time on publicity campaigns, which I believe can be of only limited value.

The legislation on air weapons is already fairly tough. Most of the incidents which come to the attention of the police or others involve the commission of an offence under existing legislation.

rose—

Hear, hear.

You have only five years left, Robert.

Does the Minister accept that although we welcome the Gun Sense is Good Sense campaign, it is clearly inadequate in both intention and effect, especially as there are about 4 million air rifles in circulation and such weapons are increasingly used in the commission of serious crime, being responsible for about 2,000 accidents every year, many of them serious? Is it not time to do as the Minister's hon. Friends have suggested and embark on a more vigorous publicity campaign against abuse and review the legislation?

The House is clearly delighted at the elevation of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) to the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps because he has not yet had time to study these matters in detail, I believe that he is rushing to unjustified conclusions about the campaign, although I note his suggestions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any evidence of inmates who have abused solvents needing treatment in prisons and other custodial institutions: and if he will make a statement.

There are indications from a number of young offender establishments that a substantial proportion of inmates may have a history of solvent abuse. Some establishments are taking specific initiatives aimed at this problem. We are considering how to encourage and coordinate those initiatives.

Is my hon. Friend aware that at Ashford remand centre and some other penal establishments for people under the age of 18 some of the inmates are beyond all psychiatric and medical help— indeed, beyond coherent life outside— as a result of glue sniffing? Will he seek powers to prosecute people who sell solvents to youngsters under the age of 18, as it is vital that something should be done?

rose—

Mr. Greville Janner.

I am quite happy not to answer the last question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may let you know the next time a question gives me difficulty.

Is the Minister aware that his delayed answer is thoroughly unsatisfactory and that the terrifying spread of solvent abuse and glue-sniffing cannot be dealt with by a voluntary code? Will he introduce legislation at once to impose heavy fines and prison sentences on people who push glue and solvents in the knowledge that they will be abused, whether to people under 18 or to anyone else?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we are considering the state of English law in relation to the case in Scotland where it was alleged that glue-sniffing kits were being sold. There is, however no evidence to suggest that that is the problem in England, where the problem is far more likely to be the sale in good faith of items which can be abused, which include a wide range of household items, to people who then abuse them. We take the problem very seriously, but we believe that education and offering assistance to those who sniff solvents, together with the police power to take young people found sniffing glue to a place of safety, is far more likely to deal with the situation than the imposition of criminal penalties as suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the progress made by the Metropolitan police in antiterrorist activity during the Christmas recess.

During the recess the Metropolitan police continued their inquiries following the series of explosions which took place in London during the pre-Christmas period. The main thrust of the investigation is directed towards following up the very large number of statements made following the Harrods explosion and the forensic analysis of the evidence collected at the scene.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the whole House and the country support the police in this dangerous and difficult work? Can he say whether the strong measures that he announced to the House just before Christmas, including extra police deployed in counter-terrorism activity, are still in force?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expression of support for the police. The Metropolitan police are continuing with the measures introduced after the Harrods attack, including the availability of bomb threat vehicles on 24-hour patrol and increased CID and Special Branch officers.

One of the sick and nasty aspects of the terrorist activity must have been the number of bomb hoaxers at the time. Will my right hon. and learned Friend commend the vigilance of the telephone authorities and the police in apprehending those perpetrators and, of course, the stiff sentences that were handed out? Is he in a position to say how many hoaxers there were, and how many of them were apprehended?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the really wildly anti-social behaviour, to put it very mildly, of people who engage in hoaxes. It is difficult to assess the total number, because it is not always possible to distinguish between people who are making a report which they know to be false and those reporting something which they believe to be genuine but turns out not to be. The burden on the police is absolutely enormous, and it interferes with the work in a way in which the whole House would condemn when people make a hoax call.

Does the Home Secretary recall that when he made his statement to the House on 19 December and was asked about the possibility of car parking bans he said that, on the advice of the Commissioner, he thought that such bans would not be helpful, yet it appears that since then there have been bans on Harrods and other possible target buildings? I wonder whether the policy has changed and whether the Home Secretary could give the House some more information about it, as it seems to put the terrorists in a position of not knowing where they can park vehicles, which is surely helpful?

No, the general policy has not changed. The position, as I indicated to the House, is that I consulted the Commissioner, who told me that the possibility of a general ban, as opposed to any particular prevention of parking on a limited basis for a particular time, had been carefully considered but that he did not think it would materially asssist in reducing the risk of terrorist bomb incidents in London. In considering this the House will, of course, bear in mind the very considerable experience which the Commissioner had in handling matters of this kind when he was Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to revise the Government's estimate of the likely casualties after a nuclear attack.

We expect to be able to publish revised information about the blast and radiation effects of nuclear weapons in the course of the year. We cannot estimate the likely casualties which would depend on many unforseeable matters, including, of course, the nature of any attack.

Will the Government accept that their calculations have massively underestimated the likely casualties arising from various nuclear attack scenarios? In particular, does the Minister accept that these calculations fail to take account of the additional radiation arising from the blast destruction of buildings?

We are updating our estimates and information and that will be published. One of the difficulties about this subject is the way in which some people persist in believing that the only possibility worth considering is a massive nuclear attack. That is simply not so. Civil defence planning and training must deal with a whole range of possibilities, including, of course, conventional attack.

Will my right hon. Friend please make it clear that a increasing number of countries are capable of joining the nuclear powers and therefore any hostilities of this sort could come from one of those, which would create a very different scale of casualties from that following action by one of the super powers? Therefore, it would be quite wrong to reject civil defence purely and merely because some people believe that a major confrontation is quite incomprehensible.

That is a valid point, but even if one is thinking of the two main alliances, it is conceivable to imagine a period of conventional warfare.

Is it not a fact that if there were an all-out nuclear attack life on this island would cease to exist? What is the Minister's estimate of the number of people in this country who have access to nuclear shelters? If he is to look at the figures, will he read the document issued by the British Medical Association, which estimated figures much higher than those given by the Government?

We have discussed this with the BMA, which, I am glad to say, is now co-operating with us in producing guidance on what could be done to help medical services in such circumstances. Nobody is underestimating the appalling consequences of a nuclear attack, but many people would survive, particularly from the consequences of radiation, and they could be saved. I have never understood the argument that because not every one could be saved, no attempt should he made to save anyone.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how a man applying to come to the United Kingdom to join his wife or fiancee can prove that it is not his primary purpose to come to the United Kingdom.

There is no absolute criterion. Each application must be examined individually. In applying the rules approved by Parliament we require an applicant to give a full explanation of the circumstances of his marriage or proposed marriage and of his intention to live with his bride in the United Kingdom rather than in his own country. This process provides ample opportunity for an applicant to demonstrate that his main reason for marrying was not to obtain admission to the United Kingdom for settlement.

Is the Minister aware that the Kafkaesque rule is being used to prevent many young Asian British women from having the right to choose to marry whom they please and is separating many young families? Will he issue instructions on how the rule is to be interpreted? Or will he continue to allow entry certificate officers to use it to refuse whomsoever they choose, remembering that it is for the applicant impossible to prove the point?

I do not agree with the last proposition advanced by the hon. Lady. Entry clearance officers receive guidance on a wide range of matters, and it does not appear to me that this rule is very difficult to apply. Entry clearance officers interpret the plain words of the rules, which do not prevent arranged marriages but prevent marriage from being used by men just to get here.

Will my hon. and learned Friend review the system by which visitors and potential immigrants can sometimes use Members of Parliament as a means of extending their potential stay? Although hon. Members are, generally speaking, quite capable of dealing with such issues, they are seldom in a position to make an objective judgment as to whether such people should stay in this country for a long time.

That is a different matter. It is not for me to suggest that hon. Members should not have the right to come to me and make representations about individual constituency cases.

Will the Minister stop using the argument about recourse to public funds as a way of refusing entry to husbands and male fiancés? Women who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed should not be penalised for living with their husbands, or from marrying.

It is not a question of my having recourse to the argument about public funds. The rules, which were approved by Parliament as recently as last February, say that it shall be a qualification for admission as a wife or female fiancée that a person will not become a charge on public funds, and that seems to be perfectly reasonable.

Is the Minister aware that the most reprehensible discrimination is now being officially practised against United Kingdom citizens just because they are of Asian origin? Is he further aware that apart from the cases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) referred, where United Kingdom citizens find it almost impossible to prove a negative—that they will live together as man and wife and that that is the only reason for their marriage—these practices now extend to registrars of marriages uniquely asking Asian citizens to produce passports before agreeing to conduct their weddings?

I cannot accept that discrimination is exercised by our immigration officers. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the legislation expressly provides that the rules shall be applied by our immigration officers without regard to race, religion or creed, and therefore I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's propositions. Our immigration officers carry out a difficult task extremely well.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to police authorities about the circumstances in which police inquiries may be made about those who write letters to the press.

The question of the particular inquiries to be made in any case must be for the chief officer of a force to decide in all the circumstances.

Does the Home Secretary accept that considerable concern remains about the way in which Mrs. Madeline Haigh, who lives in Sutton Coldfield and was the subject of an Adjournment debate, was investigated and lied to by the Special Branch—which is not in any way denied—because of letters that she had written to the local press about cruise missiles Will the Home Secretary, having studied the case, give clear guidance to police forces, including the Special Branch, to the effect that other citizens should not be subject to the type of harassment and infringement of civil liberties that Mrs. Haigh experienced last year?

The chief officers of police, and myself for that matter, fully recognise that the fact that somebody holds or expresses particular opinions cannot by itself justify action by the police. In the case of Mrs. Haigh, the chief constable has stated publicly that the original information did not warrant the attention that it was given. In the debate on 21 December 1983 reference was clearly made to the report which identified what had gone wrong in that case and the action taken by the chief constable.

In this year of 1984, above all, ought not the Home Secretary to stamp hard upon such a disquieting manifestation of the snooper state?

As the chief constable investigated the matter and explained the position extremely candidly in a way which I should have thought would command respect, I do not think that the language used by the right hon. Gentleman is justified.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and women were in prison at the most recent count.

On 13 January 1984 there were 40,930 males and 1,387 females in prison department custody.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that considerable public support exists for his efforts to reduce the prison population? By how many does he hope to reduce the numbers of prisoners?

I do not think that it is possible to give an estimate of the numbers at any specific time, because so much is dependent upon the level of crime in the courts. I believe that the reduction in the minimum qualifying period for parole, the efforts that we are making to reduce the number of fine defaulters who are currently in prison and the other action that is being taken, will have a positive effect in the direction that my hon. Friend calls for and commends.

How many prisoners have been convicted on the evidence of Home Office forensic scientists, especially that of the discredited scientist Dr. Clift? Is there any truth in press reports that the two-year old investigation into the cases of Dr. Clift is complete but unpublished, and that no fewer than 12 cases are to be referred to the Court of Appeal? If that is the position, why was Fleet street informed before the House of Commons? Is it not time that the Home Secretary made a full statement in the House?

It is correct to say that the review referred to by the right hon. Gentleman has been completed. I intend to announce its outcome very shortly.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is never to allow prison capacity to determine sentencing policy? Will he inform the House of the latest figures for the prison building programme, which is designed to meet the problem?

My hon. Friend is quite right. That is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The prison building programme, which was initiated by my predecessor, is being extended and accelerated. By 1991 the programme will provide 6,600 places in 14 prisons and a further 4,000 places as a result of redevelopment in existing prisons, which, on present trends, should lead to the end of overcrowding.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that one consequence of the figures he has given is that prisoners are still being kept on remand in police cells? Is he aware also that one man has died in a police cell since the new year? The promises which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made last year and reiterated in the article that appeared in The Times on 4 January seem rather hollow.

The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed, because my promise has been fulfilled. There were no prisoners in police cells over the new year and there are none today. Since the new year only a few prisoners have been held overnight in police cells, and nearly all of them were taken to prison the following day. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is entirely different from the use of police cells for regular custody, which is a process that has come to an end. The hon. Gentleman could do more to show appreciation for what the prison department has achieved in accordance with my undertaking.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a high proportion of women prisoners, especially in Holloway, have been incarcerated for petty offences such as non-payment of prostitution fines and shoplifting fines? Does he accept that imprisonment is not necessarily the best way of dealing with the problems of these women, especially in view of the fact that there is a high proportion of drugs used in Holloway prison? Will he try to convince the House that he has some sensible options to offer in dealing with this problem?

Women who need not be in prison should not be imprisoned for a moment longer than is necessary, and I have referred in previous answers to some of the initiatives that have been taken. A circular is shortly to be issued to the courts on fine enforcement. It is aimed specifically at promoting effective enforcement without the need to commit to prison. I hope that the hon. Lady will bear in mind that we are giving serious consideration to the implementation of section 49 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, which will enable the courts to order a defaulter to undertake community service. I hope that she will accept that real steps are being taken to deal with some of the problems that she has identified.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now completed his review of the administrative criteria governing the repatriation scheme under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971; and if he will make a statement.

The review of the criteria has been completed arid we propose to make a number of changes. We shall shortly be issuing a revised circular to local authorities and other interested bodies describing them. In consultation with the DHSS, we have also completed a review of the feasibility of combining the section 29 scheme with similar arrangements operated under supplementary benefit legislation. We have decided that there should be a single principal repatriation scheme based on the section 29 scheme. The effects of this change will also be described in the new circular.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his political courage in reviewing these schemes, but may I press on him the importance of ensuring that the schemes are administered by a Government Department?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he wants. The ISS has long experience of immigration welfare work. If we did not use the ISS, we would have to provide finance and staff for a separate unit within central Government.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear, whenever he addresses his mind to this issue both inside and outside the House, that there can be no opportunity for mass repatriation of Asians or West Indians, and that those people should be encouraged to take British citizenship as fast as they can? We are talking about the third generation—the babies of the babies—and pure racism lies behind the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor).

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is quite wrong to give those who are lawfully settled here the impression that they are unwelcome and that we want them to clear off. However, it is right to give help to those who genuinely want to go but cannot afford to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited Wandsworth prison.

My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet visited Wandsworth prison, but my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State did so on 10 October last year.

Is the Minister aware that Wandsworth prison, like many similar establishments, is overcrowded and lacks amenities? It is very old and there is a continuing problem of staffing. He will be aware that the new prison building programme will be of help. However, does he not agree that the only real solution to the continuing prison problems—the Home Secretary has announced figures today—is to begin to have meaningful reductions in the numbers in prison? When will we see the Government taking action to achieve that?

That will take time. Meanwhile, as the hon. Member indicated, there is a big programme of renovation at Wandsworth, costing £10 million. Not only will this increase the accommodation available for prisoners, but there will be provision for new staff. It will also improve standards inside the prison.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

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.

Has my right hon. Friend noted reports of discussions between Mr. Shultz and Mr. Gromyko in Stockholm yesterday? Does she hope, like me, that the Russians will return to the negotiating table following the proposals from the United States? Does she not think that the way to true disarmament is through painstaking discussion and negotiation rather than through the simpleminded proposal of the Leader of the Opposition earlier this year advocating one-sided disarmament?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I welcome the talks that took place between Mr. Shultz and Mr. Gromyko. They were lengthy and they must have led to greater knowledge and understanding of one another's viewpoint. As my hon. Friend says, there is no substitute for detailed disarmament talks. There is no hope of getting the Russians back to the table unless we have something to negotiate with, which we should not have had if we had already renounced nuclear weapons.

In advance of today's debate has the Prime Minister read the two reports issued yesterday of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Citizens Advice Bureaux about the Government's housing benefit scheme? Will she accept that the conclusions of the reports are correct and that the Government's proposals will widen the poverty trap?

I have not read those reports in detail, but I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that housing benefit now costs some £3·7 billion per year. It is very much up on what it was. It applies to one family in three. There has to be a limit to the amount that can be given in housing benefit, bearing in mind that each and every penny comes from the other two families unless it comes from the taxation of those who get the benefit. Every extra item of public expenditure is put on the working population.

Why does the Prime Minister keep on giving the impression that £3·7 billion is new money that is a gift from the Government? Does she know that under the changes proposed by the Government a 65-year-old widow with £75 weekly income from an occupational pension, which was paid for whilst in work, and a national insurance pension, who is paying £23 per week in rent and rates, will lose £4·52 income per week? Is not the Prime Minister ashamed of taking money from people like that? Will she instruct the Secretary of State to give notice in this afternoon's debate that these proposals will be cancelled?

No, Sir. We are spending £3·7 billion this year, an increase over and above inflation of 80 per cent. on spending under the Labour Government. The reductions in housing benefit that have been announced begin to concentrate help on those most in need. No one on supplementary benefit and no pensioner with an income of less than £9·75 above the level of retirement pension need lose by the changes.

I am more than willing to give credit where it is due, even to this Government, but what justification can there be for people on this level of income to be given a little bit with one hand when great armfuls are taken back with the other? Will the Prime Minister now answer the question? Will she get rid of the amendment to the scheme? Will she instruct the Secretary of State to do so or will she enjoy the ignominy of being a robber of some of the poorest in society?

I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are some households in receipt of benefit with the main earner well above the average earnings — [Interruption.] I said "No" right at the beginning, had the right hon. Gentleman been listening carefully, which I do not expect him to do. He speaks of giving with one hand and taking away with the other, but I point out that this happens in many cases with welfare benefits, and comes from the fact that we are taxing people so highly—[Interruption.]

Order. All this noise takes time out of Question Time.

I am delighted with that response, because almost every Opposition Member asks for extra expenditure, which means extra taxation. They will not accept the answer from the Government that we are trying to reduce public expenditure and to lower taxation. People are paying taxes from one pocket and having to seek means-tested benefit for the other. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seek reduced public expenditure, leading to reduced taxation.

The right hon. Lady was elected to cut taxes and raise benefit. She promised that she would do both but has failed to do either. Is it not time to give an explanation more convincing than the dodges she pulls twice a week?

With regard to taxation, we have reduced direct taxation—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman tackles me. The promise in the 1979 manifesto was:

"We shall cut income tax at all levels".

Order. This noise is very unseemly. [Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition asked a question and the House wants to hear the answer.

What is more, real take-home pay for a family on average earnings has risen by 6 per cent. under this Government. Under the Labour Government it remained static.

Has my right hon. Friend taken time this week to examine the achievements of the Conservative-controlled Birmingham city council, of which I am a member, which for the second year running has announced a cut in rates? Does this not give the lie to the wets on both sides of the House, however distinguished they may be, who say that it cannot be done?

Birmingham, under Tory control, has an excellent record of living within its means thanks to excellent financial management, which brings benefit to the ratepayer.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 January.

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

Why does not the Prime Minister face the simple fact that it is the working poor who are the sufferers from the benefit cuts that she proposes, just as it is they who are the sufferers from the current levels of income tax? She talks many times about incentives to work, but does she not realise that that is what she is denying them?

If one looks at the proportion— according to average earnings— that goes to an average family of four on social security benefit, I am advised that the income that it gets in that way is bigger in relation to average earnings than it was under the Labour Government. On that basis, the position of the working poor has improved.

Has my right hon. Friend had time this week to see the result of the survey undertaken for the Institute of Directors? [Interruption.] Did she note that 84 per cent. of those who responded said that their businesses were doing well, and that 61 per cent. said that they were far more optimistic than they were six months ago? Does that not show that the nation was right to trust the Conservative leadership rather than the failing leaderships offered by the Opposition parties?

Yes. We had one of the highest annual growth rates among European Community nations last year. Industrial output was up 3 per cent. on a year earlier, chemicals were up 8 per cent. on the same period last year, car production was up 18 per cent. on 1982, and private sector housing starts were 17 per cent. higher than in the same period. Generally, there is a greater air of optimism both here and in Europe about the future.

Does the Prime Minister confirm or deny that on a recent visit to Oman she had meetings with her son Mark? If she did what was the nature of that visit? Was it commercial or social?

There is nothing that I can usefully add to what I said on this subject earlier the week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] I suggest, with respect, that we concentrate on seeing why we do not get more contracts and — [Interruption]—I am going to see that we do. [Interruption.]

On that matter, will my right hon. Friend recognise that there is widespread appreciation on the Conservative Benches—and, I suspect, throughout the country—of the unfailing efforts that she has made to bring contracts home to this country? [Interruption.] Will she totally disregard the snide campaign being conducted from the Opposition Benches and by some organs of the national press?

I am concerned to get more contracts for this country, to help provide more jobs for this country. I sometimes think that Opposition Members are not concerned about improving the living conditions in this country and that they would rather have more unemployment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend reflect briefly on the Leader of the Opposition's excursion to Athens? Did not the right hon. Gentleman display abroad, as he displays at home, his enthusiasm for the expropriation and disposal of assets that do not belong to him?

Yes. The right hon. Gentleman is constantly trying to spend more of other people's money or give away other people's property.

Will the Prime Minister accept from me the appreciation of my constituents, who greatly admired her courage at Christmas when she visited the UDR, the RUC and Regular Army bases on the frontier at Aughnacloy? Does she not deplore attempts to blacken the reputation of 32,000 Ulstermen who have served with honour in the UDR? Will she acknowledge that only a minute proportion of those who have served during the past 15 years have strayed outside the law? Will she further agree with me that Cardinal O'Fiaich's recent astonishing attempt to justify Sinn Fein membership should not give rise to a blanket condemnation of all Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland?

I gladly pay tribute to the excellent work that the UDR has done in Northern Ireland and I totally and utterly agree with the hon. Member: one never condemns one group of people compared with another, one condemns violence wherever it occurs and by whomsoever it is perpetrated.

While congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his recent visit to the Middle East, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give every support to King Hussein, who is trying to return the West Bank to the control of the indigenous population?

King Hussein has, as my hon. Friend knows, recently recalled the Parliament of Jordan which, of course, includes recalling those who represented the West Bank in that Parliament. I believe that that was an encouraging step. I earnestly hope that the time will come when further negotiations can take place on the fundamental Arab-Israeli problem in the middle east.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the recent exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time you will have heard a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) regarding the visit to Oman of the Prime Minister and her son. Would you draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the fact that she failed to answer a very simple question —[Interruption]—that—

Order. The hon. Member cannot carry on with that now.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice and guidance? Is there any way at all, any parliamentary means whatsoever, by which we can get the Prime Minister to answer questions about her son's visit to Oman? I tabled questions and I received no answer.

Order. That is an abuse. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are many ways of raising any kind of matter in this place.