asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what subjects were discussed during his recent visit to the Channel Islands; and if he will make a statement.

The main purpose of my visit was to acquaint myself with the islands and I greatly appreciated this opportunity to do so. A number of matters were raised with me informally during the visit, including the United Kingdom request for a contribution towards defence and international representation costs on behalf of the islands.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply. During his visit to Guernsey, was his attention drawn to the cases of Maurice Kirk and Joseph Gillow? The right hon and learned Gentleman has powers to intervene under the Criminal Justice Act 1961 in one case and has general powers in relation to the Channel Islands. As Maurice Kirk is on hunger strike in appalling conditions in Guernsey prison, and as Joseph Gillow is unable to live in a house which he owns, how many more breaches of human rights must there be on the islands before the right hon. and learned Gentleman exercises his statutory constitutional rights and responsibilities and intervenes in the islands' affairs?

The case of Mr. and Mrs Gillow, which involves Guernsey's housing laws, is before the European Commission of Human Rights. As regards Mr. Kirk, the administration of criminal justice in Guernsey is a matter for the island authorities.

The Home Secretay has powers.

Statutory powers exist for the United Kingdom Government, but the practice is that transfers of prisoners from Guernsey to the mainland are made in accordance with agreements with the islands for adult males sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment or more, and that is not Mr. Kirk's position.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the tax arrangements in the Channel Islands frequently have the effect of bringing into the sterling area foreign investment capital which would not otherwise arrive? Is it the Government's policy to encourage, rather than to abolish, these arrangements?

I can confirm that the tax regime that is operated in the Channel Islands is a matter for the islands and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfied that he has adequate powers to protect the interests of the United Kingdom. We are entirely content with the existing arrangements, which have the benefits to which my hon. Friend referred.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have completed an analysis of the answers to the civil defence questionnaires sent to local authorities.

Before the end of December, when a report will be made available to the House.

How many authorities have not completed the questionnaire, and what action will my right hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that they do?

All local authorities, except two, have completed and returned the questionnaire. It is expected that the two outstanding questionnaires will be returned by the end of the month. I imagine that my hon. Friend's concerns relate more to the answers in the questionnaires than to the questionnaires themselves.

Did the Home Secretary see the recent BBC television programmes which showed vividly the extent of death, devastation and destruction as a result of nuclear war? Does he agree that the programmes demonstrated clearly the futility of civil defence against nuclear attack?

I could not disagree more. I did not see the programme, but we do not need a television programme to tell us that, in the event of nuclear war, the destruction will be horrific. We also do not need a television programme to be fully aware that even the most elementary civil defence preparations could save millions of lives and greatly reduce injury and suffering.

How can local authorities adequately answer questionnaires or plan for civil defence if the Home Secretary refuses to share with them his planning assumptions about likely targets in their areas, the casualties likely to result from an attack and other consequences? If the major air threat is from conventional attack, as the Home Office now asserts, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what is the evidence for that assumption, why it differs from the NATO strategy and how, once an air attack against this country has been launched, local authorities are expected to decide whether it is a conventional or a nuclear attack?

All NATO countries make proper provision for civil defence, and we intend to do the same. My original answer showed that, even if the hon. Gentleman has difficulty in answering the questionnaire, local authorities seem to be doing so, which suggests that it has been directed to the right quarters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the warning systems to be introduced to advise the public of the presence of chemical gases, liquid or spray will be the same as those in use by the United Kingdom's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation partners.

Within NATO there is no standard warning system. We are studying how such warning could be given, building on present arrangements to warn of air attack and radioactive fallout. This work is being undertaken in close co-operation with our NATO allies.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the background to my question is that the Soviet Union has 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons and is continuing to add to them. Presumably there is some purpose attached to that. Despite what he has already said, will my hon. Friend ensure that the new consolidated guidance to local authorities covers protection of the public in the event of chemical attack?

That aspect is being worked on. If those initiatives are successful, there will be an addition to the circular. My hon. Friend raises an important point in stating the Soviet Union's chemical weaponry capability. It is worth bearing in mind that we unilaterally renounced chemical weapons in the late 1950s, but that does not seem to have had much impact on the Soviets. One wonders where unilateral disarmament stands in that scenario.

Do the civil defence responses referred to in the earlier question cover that aspect?

Yes.

My hon. Friend has already mentioned that we unilaterally renounced all our chemical and biological weapons at the end of the 1950s. Is he aware that the military commanders are most concerned about the situation in relation to what the troops, especially in Germany, would suffer? Will he give careful consideration to the steps required similarly to protect the civilian population?

Yes; that is precisely what we have in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current waiting period for interviews experienced by applicants for entry clearance corning from the Indian sub-continent.

At the end of the second quarter of this year, waiting time to first interview for applicants in the non-priority queue in Delhi was 10 months, in Bombay six months, in Pakistan 10 months and in Bangladesh 22 months. However, many applicants were placed in a priority queue and were interviewed in two months in India or Pakistan and in six months or less in Bangladesh.

Does the Minister agree that those figures hide the fact that a Government who profess to believe in the unity of the family actually divide families by making it more difficult for people to rejoin their families? Does he also agree that there is discrimination in that male fiancés have more problems coming here than female fiancées?

Families are divided due to a decision of members of those families to emigrate. That seems to have been forgotten. It is nonsense to say that our policy is to divide families when in the past 10 years no fewer than 350,000 wives and children have joined men settled here. A large number of husbands and fiancés are in fact entering this country. The primary purpose test is certainly not impossible to pass, as only 25 per cent. fail it. So it is also absurd to say that we are imposing an insuperable barrier against the entry of husbands and male fiancés.

Is it not almost contemptible of the Government to suggest, when one fiancé in four fails the primary purpose test, that that test does not amount to an unsurmountable barrier? Clearly, there is a high probability that fiancés will not be accepted. Does not the length of the waiting lists also show that the Government hold the fiancés of British citizens in contempt? Should not the Government devote more resources to the entry clearance procedure?

On the question of resources, there are more people employed at our post in Dacca to deal with entry clearance than at any other post in the world. The time must come when one decides that one cannot concentrate any more resources on a particular matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether local authorities are directed under his Department's guidelines to use training films for the training of civil defence volunteers and for the education of the general public on protective measures in the event of war.

It is for local authorities to decide how best to undertake local training and education, but we are considering how we can help with standard training material, including a film.

Will my hon. Friend consider the production of an up-to-date film on civil defence similar to that produced on NATO?

I shall consider with some urgency the provision of up-to-date film material on civil defence, and will study the NATO model to see whether it is appropriate.

The Minister may recall that I have previously asked what provisions are being made to train the trainers. In the light of his answer, I wonder whether more urgent consideration could be given to the provision of a film. When one realises how speedily television documentaries can be produced which can undermine the nation's morale, surely we should be producing, with equal speed, films designed to improve the facilities of the nation?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We must improve training facilities for the trainers. The hon. Gentleman will know about the Civil Defence college at Easingwold and the many courses run there, but it is necessary for us to improve the equipment.

Does the Minister intend to use his powers of direction under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983; and, if so, how soon?

As my right hon. and learned Friend has explained, local authorities are being invited to complete the questionnaire, which will be sent to the Home Department by the end of the year. The answers will then be assessed. There is no need to consider using the powers until we have fully analysed the responses to the questionnaire.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the Equal Opportunities Commission.

The Equal Opportunities Commission was established in accordance with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to amend that legislation.

Since its inception in 1975 the Equal Opportunities Commission has investigated only eight cases of discrimination, published reports on only four of those cases, and only once issued a non-discrimination notice. Is it not high time that this quango, which costs nearly £3·5 million a year to run, was abolished?

My hon. Friend must bear in mind that formal investigations form only part of the work of the EOC. In fairness, one should take account not only of the number of formal investigations but of the fact that in 1983, for instance, the commission's staff resolved 359 complaints without recourse to litigation or formal investigation.

Did the Minister hear the interview with Mr. Norman Willis of the TUC this morning — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then he should have—in which Mr. Willis said that the TUC had collected information about the effect of privatisation of cleaning and other services in hospitals, that cleaning firms were using girls of 15 to clean hospital wards and that they were being paid less than the women who had previously been employed? Does the Minister agree that he should refer that matter to the Equal Opportunities Commission and that it should be strengthened to enable it to do the job that it needs to do?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is that I did not hear what Mr. Norman Willis said this morning. However, it does not need a Minister to refer a matter to the Equal Opportunities Commission. If there appears to the hon. Lady to be a matter worthy of consideration by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the matter is in her hands.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many people believe that the Equal Opportunities Commission has now exhausted what opportunities it might have had to do its job? Is he sure that there is no better way in which the Government could spend £3,336,000 a year?

I must remind my hon. Friend that although we have a plain duty to ensure that appropriate management systems are in place and that money is not wasted, we are under an obligation to ensure that discrimination on grounds of sex is abolished. I repeat that we have no plans to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which was directed towards that end.

If, as the Minister said, the Government believe that there is a continuing role for the Equal Opportunities Commission in combating discrimination on grounds of sex, why do the Government not accept the commission's proposals, which were published many months ago, for strengthening its powers, which would require legislative change?

As I remember it, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 puts a duty on the Equal Opportunities Commission to review legislation and make recommendations to the Government if it thinks that amendments are necessary. We have received no proposals from the commission suggesting changes to the legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report of the committee of inquiry into proposals to amend the Shops Act 1950.

The report was published yesterday. I am grateful to the committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Robin Auld, for its valuable study of an area in which there is general agreement that the present law is unsatisfactory. I welcome the report, and we shall give it the most careful consideration.

In view of the committee's unanimous view that the Shops Act should be repealed, does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to bring forward legislation in this Session or during the lifetime of the present Parliament to repeal the 1950 Act? If he is not prepared to give that assurance, why was the inquiry deemed necessary?

I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I said at the time, the inquiry was set up because there was widespread agreement that restrictions on trading laws affecting trading during the week and on Sundays were in need of reform, but there were differing views about how to do that. The committee's task was to establish what recommendations it could make to deal with those unsatisfactory circumstances. We shall consider the report urgently. In the light of the reaction to it, I hope in the not-too-distant future to be able to make a statement to the House about the Government's intentions.

Will the Home Secretary take more account of people who live near shopping centres and rely on Sundays for a bit of peace and quiet, those who regard Sunday as having an important role in the traditions of our country, and the families of women shop workers who like mum to be at home on Sunday?

Mr. Auld's committee considered all of those issues and concluded that none of them should stand in the way of a major liberalisation of our commercial life.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of those who oppose the opening of shops on Sunday are people who, when on holiday abroad, expect to find the shops open on Sunday? Will he ensure that the Home Office accelerates the passage of legislation in this House so that we can break free from the shackles of Sunday closing?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point about people going abroad. As I have said, the Government do not intend that consideration of this report should be long delayed. Having considered it and the reactions to it, we shall make a statement to the House, I hope in the early part of next year.

Is the Home Secretary aware that for practising Christians throughout the country any decision to change the law will be an affront to their ideals? Why is he so intent on destroying the traditional British Sunday?

I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's views reflect the entirety of religious opinion in the country.

In view of the unanimity of these recommendations and the strong support for them on both sides of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to indicate to local authorities, including my own in Bromley, that they should not now pursue further prosecutions under the Shops Act, pending a change in the law?

I could not possibly give such an indication. The Conservative party and Government believe in the rule of law; and until it is properly changed by Parliament reaching a conclusion the law remains as it is.

Why is it not possible for the Home Secretary to show the same enthusiasm for enforcing the Shops Act 1950 as he has shown in enforcing the sequestration provisions of the Trade Union Act? When will he apply the same standard to both? Has he also noted the report's suggestion that we should retain wages councils?

I certainly noted that recommendation, which will be considered alongside the general review of wages councils undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, enforcement is a matter for the local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to obtain the full results of the research done with simulated nuclear explosions in the United States of America.

The United States has already made its results available. In addition, the United Kingdom has participated in the last two trials at the White Sands range in New Mexico.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. When the figures are published, will he ensure that they are in a form which allows us to understand the fission fragment elements of the research? Will he also ensure that a copy is placed in the Library of the House?

The results of the research have been used in the review of the casualty and damage effects of nuclear weapons to be published next year. I assure my hon. Friend that a copy will be placed in the Library.

Will the Minister tell us how much it costs to simulate a nuclear attack?

No.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to improve standards of crime prevention.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority his Department gives to crime prevention.

One of my right hon. and learned Friend's first acts on becoming Home Secretary was to set up the crime prevention unit within the Home Office. The joint departmental circular issued last January has prompted a wide range of activities, involving the police, other local agencies and the public. Activities include the growth of neighbourhood watch schemes, the national conference of crime prevention panel representatives in Cardiff last month, which I attended, and the current regional publicity campaign, which my right hon. and learned Friend launched last month.

In addition to the measures on crime prevention which the Government are taking, will my hon. Friend encourage the building industry to see what more can be done in the design and construction of windows and doors to make houses much more secure than they are at present?

Yes, I willingly accept my hon. Friend's observations. He may be aware that there is a standing committee in the Home Office, which I chair, which brings together the industries involved in providing crime prevention technology and those involved in policing and local authorities. New British standards have been issued concerning guidance on house furniture. Most important, architects must recognise that crime prevention can begin on the drawing board.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer and the action taken by the Government. Is he aware that there is widespread concern in Enfield about the level of crime there, and that it is being matched by the splendid response of people in the borough through supporting their neighbourhood watch schemes and by beat policemen? Does he accept that a response from the Home Office about policing levels is necessary?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the introduction of neighbourhood watch schemes has played a significant part in the reduction of crime against domestic property. He will know that about 30 such schemes have been established in the borough, including two in Edmonton. I hope that there will be another one in Edmonton shortly. It is through such devices that local communities can help to prevent wanton burglary of houses.

When will the Government do something to prevent the form of crime about which many of my constituents are especially worried? When people purchase electrical consumer goods they are sometimes flogged absolutely worthless insurance policies to cover breakdowns and the companies issuing them disappear from the face of earth. Should not the Government do something about that form of crime?

The hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, recognise that that matter is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the consumer protection council.

Can the Minister remember the present Home Secretary, and previous Home Secretaries, standing at the Dispatch Box and informing the House that the police force had been increased by 5,000? Despite that, we continue to talk about crime prevention and I hardly see a bobby on the beat. When will his Department do something about that, because that is what crime prevention is about?

I remind the hon. Gentleman, whose observations are always original, that the police force is engaged in a number of activities at present in addition to its natural role of community policing to prevent crime. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the police force is determined to improve and increase the standard of community policing, upon which he quite rightly lays great stress.

Bearing in mind the impact that conventional police patrolling has on crime prevention, will my hon. Friend consider expanding the special constabulary, which is unpaid, and putting the specials on the beat patrols, which are presently vacant because of industrial unrest?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the increasing importance of the special constabulary. I assure him that this year it has played a particularly important role in dealing with certain issues. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will consider the future role of the specials in that regard.

The Minister's answers about better doors, windows, locks and porters on vandalised and criminalised estates would be more convincing if he gave the House a guarantee. Will he today give the House a guarantee that he will see the Secretary of State for the Environment about it and confirm that any local authority which introduces such schemes will not be rate-capped?

Not even the hon. Gentleman will expect me to give an assurance in respect of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the introduction of many of these schemes can lead to direct savings in local authority housing costs and the costs of introducing other forms of technical protection for buildings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if local authority emergency planning teams will be involved in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil-military exercises.

It would not be appropriate for local authorities to participate in such exercises, which are designed to test central Government's civil and military command and control procedures in a war crisis. But local authorities are normally invited to participate in the annual warning and fallout reporting exercise.

My hon. Friend's reply is not unexpected. I understand that next year there is to be a major military home exercise. Will he assure me that local authorities and the civil defence will be involved in it?

I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance because, as he said, the exercise is fundamentally a military one. However, I assure him that we are encouraging district, county and regional exercises, such as the successful West Wind exercise, which was carried out in the west country in November last year. Local authorities will gain valuable training through such exercises.

During military exercises involving cruise missiles outside Greenham common, is it normal police practice to incarcerate women and children in mud pits?

The hon. Gentleman had better write to me with a description of what he has in mind. I should make it clear to him, in case he misunderstands, that the role of the police in the protection of that base, and the need for policemen to be there, is entirely due to the fact that some members of the public are carrying on a demonstration there.

Would it not demonstrate the dangerous futility of trying to pretend that there is any protection against nuclear war if the local authority civil defence teams were able to attend those exercises?

The hon. Gentleman is an expert on futility. In the event of conventional or nuclear war, nothing is as important as the protection of local citizens. I hope that he, as a former member of Leeds city council, took every measure possible for the protection of the citizens of Leeds.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the present position of local government advice on civil defence is absurd? If there were a holocaust, it would be ridiculous for the nation to be led by faceless, unknown local bureaucrats. We want people such as Glenn Hoddle in London or Bryan Robson in Manchester, or Mr. Botham —people whose faces are well known—[Interruption.] I am being serious. We need people whose faces are well known to the nation to lead us at a time of trouble, not faceless bureaucrats.

My hon. Friend is right to dramatise the importance of true leadership in a crisis. The Government will be reviewing their civil defence preparations after considering the questionnaires which are now being completed by the local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action he is taking to control the total running costs of his Department.

Keeping running costs to the minimum needed to carry out its functions is a continuous objective of my Department. Plans for tightening control over Home Office running costs were included in the White Paper on financial management in Government Departments, which was published in July 1984.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend taking every opportunity to privatise services in his Department?

We are taking every opportunity where the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

What would be the additional cost of setting up an independent inquiry into the case of Dr. Clift so as to allay the disquiet which has arisen about the judicial and Home Office handling of his case? Is it not disgraceful and deplorable that the Home Office has refused to evaluate the new evidence which has emerged, and failed to set up an independent inquiry?

The objection to such an inquiry is related not to its cost but to the fact that, in all the circumstances, I do not believe it to be justified.

How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile his answers with the plan to set up an independent prosecution service, which on the Government's estimate will cost more than £5 million, which I suggest is a gross underestimate? It will probably cost three times as much.

Whatever the merits or disadvantages of an independent prosecution service—in my view the merits are considerable—it has nothing to do with the running costs of my Department.

Does the Home Secretary recall his Department's White Paper on immigration from the Indian subcontinent, published in November 1982, which contained a commitment to have enough staff to ensure a continuing reduction in queues and waiting times on the subcontinent? Does he stick to that commitment?

Queues are shorter now than they were under the Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the increase in drug trafficking and usage.

The Government give high priority to measures to combat drug trafficking and misuse, the increase in which is a matter of grave concern to us all. A ministerial group has been established to co-ordinate and develop strategy, as part of which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that 160 more customs officers will be provided to counter drugs smuggling. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has also announced a major education and prevention campaign and the provision of more resources for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has decided to introduce a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for trafficking in class A drugs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the country will welcome the strong measures that have been taken? Does he know that it is rumoured that over 200 lb of heroin are finding their way into London every week? Can he assure the House that if there is a demand for more police and more assistance to combat this appalling crime he will make them available?

There is no doubt that a large quantity of heroin is being brought into the country. The precise amount is not clear, and some extremely unfortunate statistics are being bandied around, which have no foundation. I can tell my hon. Friend, and I think that this will encourage him, that in the first 10 months of this year the Customs and Excise seized 257 kilos of heroin, as against 212 kilos for the whole of last year, and the Metropolitan police have seized some 28 kilos of heroin in the first 10 months of this year, as against 5·7 kilos for the whole of last year.

Does the Minister recall that during the Conservative party conference the Home Secretary announced that there would be legislation to deal with this? Why did this promise not appear in the Queen's Speech?

Because there is not room in the Queen's Speech for everything. The Government intend to introduce an increase in penalties at the earliest convenient moment. If a private Member successful in the ballot were minded to bring forward such a measure, we would give him every support.

asked the Seccretary of State for the Home Department how many of those convicted for offences involving the unlawful supply of drugs received prison sentences of five years and more in each of the last six years for which figures are available.

Taking all offences relating to controlled drugs, including the unlawful import or export of drugs, the figures for the years from 1978 to 1983 are as follows: 1978, 71; 1979, 69; 1980, 69; 1981, 116; 1982, 123 and 1983, 238.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many courts regard the supply of relatively small amounts of drugs as a relatively minor offence? As the suppliers are an essential link in the chain leading to the misery of drug addiction, does my hon. Friend share that view?

No, I do not. Of more relevance to the courts is the fact that the Lord Chief Justice does not share that view, and following his guidelines on sentencing policy for drug offences in December 1982, in the case of Aramah, the number of drug traffickers sentenced to more than five years' imprisonment increased from the 1982 level of 123 to 238 in 1983.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is some relationship between the reduction of 3,500 customs officers in the past five years and the number of unlawful drugs on the streets? Why do we have to wait for two years before drug pushers can be put in gaol for life?

The hon. Gentleman keeps banging on that point, although he has nothing to back it up. In 1980 the customs seized 38 kilos of heroin, and I have just given the figures for the first 10 months of this year, when 257 kilos of heroin were seized. The reason for that increase is that static, predictable checks are not the way to stop drug smuggling. Doubling the number of special investigators into heroin, which is what we have done, is the way, not only to seize more drugs, but to catch more of the Mr. Bigs, rather than needle-in-haystack operations to catch couriers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem of drugs goes well beyond the courts and that there is a serious drug trafficking problem in Her Majesty's prisons? Will he give an undertaking that his Department will review the training given to prison officers in the detection of drugs, as at the moment it is inadequate?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is right in saying that. Certainly it is the case that we are looking at the problem of drugs in prison. In so far as my hon. Friend is influenced in asking his question by the report from the Prison Officers' Association, it has been invited to substantiate the assertions contained in that report and has thus far failed to do so.

Does the Minister appreciate that many police officers, in both the CID and uniformed branch, think that a great deal more could be done to apprehend criminals pushing drugs if they did not have to spend so much time bashing pickets in the coal-mining areas?

There is one simple answer to that. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should stop the violence on the picket lines and then the police would go away.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial assistance the Government are providing for police authorities during the miners' dispute.

The Home Office normally meets 50 per cent. of approved policing costs. Because of the exceptional expenditure incurred by some police authorities in policing the dispute, I have announced arrangements which mean that we shall meet 90 per cent. of the approved additional costs of policing the dispute above the product of a penny rate in a police area. Furthermore, once a police authority's own contribution amounts to the product of a three quarter penny rate, all further additional expenditure incurred in policing the dispute will be met in full by the Exchequer, however long the dispute lasts.

In our local police system police authorities must play their financial part. However, is not the Government's assistance necessary and welcome? Will my right hon. and learned Friend commend the police in the mining areas, who withstand brutal attacks with such courage and patience?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Having had the opportunity of meeting the police in one such area—south Yorkshire—only on Saturday, I unhesitatingly commend their magnificent efforts in the face of tremendous provocation.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 November.

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.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a union calls its members out on strike, a strike which can often cause great inconvenience and cost to the community at large, the responsibility for looking after those strikers should fall on the union responsible?

Yes, I agree. That is what was proposed in our 1979 manifesto, which was overwhelmingly endorsed and passed into law in the Social Security (No.2) Act 1980, under which deductions from benefit payable to strikers' families are made.

Did the Prime Minister hear the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on the radio this morning admit that the Specified Sums Order 1984 will further reduce the real value—the purchasing power—of the social security payments that are made to the families of striking miners? What possible justification can there be for that gratuitously vindictive act? Does the Prime Minister still not realise that such callousness confirms our long-held view that she is less concerned with the waste and suffering of the miners' dispute than with the hope of scoring a cheap political victory?

If, in accordance with the Act, the NUM meets its obligations to the strikers, they will get the full benefit of the social security uprating because the NUM will provide the £16. The callousness and vindictiveness should be turned upon those in the NUM who are prepared to use the money for mob violence rather than for paying the miners.

Why does the Prime Minister continually pretend that this is necessary under the Act when the Act gives her powers to change the regulations and the payment? Secondly, if the right hon. Lady is so conscious and certain of the righteousness of her cause, why does she try to sneak the order through at the last moment rather than present it to the House properly? Indeed, to coin a phrase that she will remember from Question Time a week ago, why does she not have the guts to come down and explain it herself?

First, the point of the Act is that those who belong to trade unions are entitled to look to them for a part of their benefit while they are on strike. If the NUM carried out its obligations, those strikers would be receiving £16 next week. Secondly, the formula is contained in section 6(2) of the Social Security Act 1980. It is automatically applied every year, and has been every year since 1980. In 1980 the sum was £12. In 1981, by formula, it was £13; in 1982, by formula, £14·50; in 1983, by formula, £15 and in 1984, by automatic formula, £16. The right hon. Gentleman could have calculated that. As for explaining it, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tried to, but was prevented from doing so by the rowdiest scenes that this House has ever seen, perpetrated by members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party. [Interruption.]

rose—

Order. The Prime Minister gave a very detailed reply, and I shall call the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).

I think that the right hon. Members who were shouting me down were complaining about noise in the House last night. Why does the Prime Minister persist in telling the House that she had no choice other than to implement the order in the way in which she chose to do? There are two sections within the Act which allow her and the Government to vary the order if they so choose. However, she has not chosen to vary the order and, therefore, she must take direct responsibility for what happens in terms of suffering, hardship and bitterness.

A special regulation has to be brought before the House to alter the formula contained in that Act. Every single thing that the right hon. Gentleman says should be turned against the NUM for its callousness in not looking after its members and in calling them out on strike without a ballot and then refusing to give them any help during the strike.

Since there can be no excuse or justification for the disgraceful exhibition that was staged last night by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and some of Mr. Scargill's other friends in this House, may I assure my right hon. Friend that you, Mr. Speaker, will have the full support of Conservative Members for whatever action you think necessary to protect the rights of my right hon. Friend's Government and the democratically elected majority that she represents?

Yes, Sir. The Government replied to a specific request from the Opposition to make a statement. The Government were then prevented—almost physically, I understand—from making that statement. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will dissociate itself from the disgraceful scenes last night.

Would it not have been wiser if the Prime Minister, instead of rounding up the reduction from 75p to £1, had used section 6(3) of the Act to introduce regulations that would have meant an increase of £15·50? That would also have been in line with the increase introduced for supplementary benefit. [Interruption.] That would have been fair to the miners and would have demonstrated—

Here is some money for the right hon. Gentleman. Here is an old threepenny bit—fewer sides than him.

There are some of us in this House who are going to be heard—[Interruption]— despite—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is asking a question and has every right to be heard.

I have every right, just as the House has rights which were flouted last night, thus damaging reasoned debate. There is a real question here. [Interruption.] The Government could have been fairer to miners' families and miners themselves and shown greater sensitivity over this very delicate issue if they had increased—[Interruption.] No, Mr. Speaker. I shall not be harried by this mob.

Order. This disorder is not fair to the House or to other hon. Members with questions on the Order Paper.

I shall stand until hell freezes over. I put it to the Prime Minister, in answer to a reasoned debate, that regulations to increase the deduction from £15 to £15·50 would have been fairer.

No. The formula under the Act was applied precisely. To change that formula would have required new regulations to be brought before the House. The formula was used this year, as it has been used every year since 1980. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would join me in expecting unions which call their members out on strike to have some obligation to pay them strike money—to pay them the amount which would otherwise be deducted.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 November.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that the disruption last night was disgraceful? Does she further agree that those concerned should apologise both to Mr. Speaker and to the House as a whole?

That would be a very nice way to end a very ugly incident.

Does not the Prime Minister's continued refusal to answer the direct question, repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), demonstrate what a guilty conscience she has? Will she now say clearly that the Government have the power under the Act not to increase the needs allowance? May we have a straight answer? Is this not proof of the Government's main purpose, which is simply to break the NUM's power?

The figure given by my right hon. Friend arose from the precise application of the formula contained in the 1980 Act. If that formula is to be altered, secondary legislation must be brought before the House. The formula has been applied precisely every year since the Act was passed. The sum started at £12 a week. The same application of the formula has been published in the results every year. If the hon. Gentleman has any conscience, perhaps he will address it to the NUM and ask it to help its own people whom it called out on strike.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 November.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to provide a good Christmas for miners' families is for the miners to return tomorrow rather than for them to rely on hand-outs from local authorities such as Kirk lees metropolitan authority?

Yes. Some local authorities are providing hand-outs and this is causing deep offence to many ratepayers. I agree that a return to normal and a return to work by the striking miners would be best for the industry, best for the families and best for the country. My right hon. and hon. Friends would all welcome that very much indeed.

How does the Prime Minister respond to the Irish Prime Minister's charge that she was "gratuitously offensive"?

With total disagreement. I do not understand his comment in any way.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 November.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Derbyshire county council has decided to recall all of its stationery, including school notepaper, at an estimated cost of £50,000 so that the slogan

"Derbyshire supports nuclear-free zones"

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a disgraceful waste of money. My hon. Friend made his point effectively in his question.

The right hon. Lady has been hard put today to defend the indefensible—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]—in relation to starving women and children as a consequence of her action. Since the right hon. Lady is trying to get some mileage out of the matter of conduct in the House, I ask her to read the Adjournment debate that took place on Monday night. [Interruption.] Thirty Conservative Members came into the House, after a very good dinner, and during the whole of that debate tried to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) from making his speech. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Lady endorse that conduct?

I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of the hon. Gentleman's question. Sometimes it is not easy to hear the whole of the questions against the background of noise. With regard to the amount that will be paid to the families of those on strike, even if the NUM does not pay them their £16, the facts are that some 85 per cent. of miners' families who are receiving supplementary benefit will have a net cash increase in their benefit, about 6,000 will have no change and only about 100 people are likely to receive less benefit. I shall read the Adjournment debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred.