asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers granted temporary admission to the United Kingdom absconded in 1984; and what percentage this is of those so admitted.

In 1984 a total of 8,527 passengers were given temporary admission either pending further examination or after refusal of leave to enter. Of these, 187 or just over 2 per cent absconded.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Tamils fleeing persecution would make as good citizens of this country as the children of the Lithuanians who fled from their country a generation ago?

The matter raised by the hon. Lady is of great importance, but it goes very wide of this question. A short time ago we announced what we think is a fair policy towards Tamils. First, we shall acknowledge and honour our obligations under the United Nations convention on refugees. Secondly, we have said that we shall not send back any Tamil who would suffer severe hardship if returned.

In view of those figures, does the Minister agree that his officials are refusing to let many genuine visitors into this country and putting them in the humiliating position of being detained at airports and having to seek out a Member of Parliament in order to get permission to see their relatives? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman also agree that we should—

Order. The question is about absconding. Is not this matter a little wide of the question?

No, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Lady may proceed.

It is absolutely in order.

With respect, I decide that.

I am always willing to oblige, Mr. Speaker. Some might say that the low level of absconding confirms the judgment of immigration officers in granting temporary admission. It is somewhat illogical to argue that, because people have not absconded, they must have qualified for entry as visitors and therefore were wrongly refused entry.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that last Tuesday evening, for the first lime, a Tamil who had sought asylum in this country was returned direct to Sri Lanka and that that occurred because of an administrative muddle by Home Office officials? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now say categorically—

Order. The same rules apply to the Front Bench as to the Back Bench. That question would more correctly be asked on question No. 8.

The issue concerns a person who, I believe, was held in custody to prevent him absconding.

The point is that he did not abscond.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present manning levels of police forces.

There were 120,364 police officers and 39,299 civilian staff in England and Wales on 30 April. This was a total increase of 12,919 since May 1979; it was also an increase of 461 since March of this year.

I applaud the professionalism and dedication of the police and welcome the measures that the Government have taken to increase manpower, but the fact remains that the burden of responsibility and duty that the police must now shoulder has increased significantly since 1979. In some parts of the country there appears to be little more than a minimum level of effective policing. Will the Government give urgent consideration to a further increase in police manpower?

I agree that the burdens on the police since 1979 have increased, and it is for exactly that reason that the numbers of police have been increased.

With regard to the position in particular parts of the country, obviously I consider applications for increases in police establishment on their merits.

If there are sufficient police, why have the numbers of crimes increased from 2.5 million in 1979 to 3.5 million in 1984?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows enough about the causes of crime to realise that they relate as much to what criminals do as to the presence of policemen. Were it not for the strengthening of the forces of law and order, I have no doubt whatever that, with the increase in crime that is occurring all over the Western world, crime would be far worse in this country.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in cases recently brought to my attention, there has been a delay of over 15 minutes in response to an emergency call before even one police officer has arrived on the scene? Obviously, further action, such as an arrest, is precluded until reinforcements arrive. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a reflection of inadequate manning levels and that the public should be assured that they will have a prompt and efficient response to any emergency call?

I agree that it is important that emergency calls should be dealt with on an emergency basis. My hon. Friend obviously has a particular case in mind. If she would like to get in touch with me, I shall look into it and see what went wrong.

Given that the Home Secretary thinks that he has done so much for the police in manning and other areas, why does he think that he received such a hostile reception at the police conference?

The hon. Gentleman might like to compare that response with the one that his right hon. Friend received.

I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend is committed to doing everything he can to ensure that we have an efficient and effective police force, but is he aware that there is widespread concern among officers in the metropolis that the present restrictions on overtime may be hampering inquiries? Will he investigate those allegations?

It is important that the police should operate efficiently. I think that the measures that the commissioner has introduced to regulate overtime are an important part of the process of ensuring that the police do operate efficiently.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many miners arrested during the miners' strike are still in prison; and if he will make a statement. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): The occupation of prisoners is not recorded centrally.

Is the Minister aware that during the miners' strike most Ministers talked of the strike as being a political strike? If that is the case, those miners who are still in prison are political prisoners. If it is in order for Ministers to trot over to east European countries and claim that there are political prisoners there who should be brought out, surely it is right for Labour Members to call for an amnesty for those miners who are in prison. Would the Minister not be better disposed rounding up the crooks at Johnson Matthey who have been giving out backhanders in order to get £75 million in rescue deals?

The logical powers of the hon. Gentleman make those of Lewis Carroll and Edward Lear appear positively prosaic by comparison.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people tried on indictment for shoplifting in 1983, 1984, and 1985, respectively, were acquitted.

In England and Wales in 1983, 1,133 persons were acquitted in the Crown court of theft from shops, and 3,362 were found guilty. Corresponding information for 1984 and 1985 is not yet available.

As I am sure the Minister will agree, the situation in this area of law and practice is totally unsatisfactory. Will he confirm that when the new independent prosecution service comes into operation the prosecution of accused shoplifters will no longer be left to shopkeepers, and that meanwhile he will give instructions to the police to follow the same sort of procedures when deciding whom to prosecute—where they do—as are now followed successfully and well in areas such as Essex and Leicester?

I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's interest, which I share, in this matter. I am happy to confirm that one of the many beneficial consequences of the new independent prosecution system will be that in the one area of the country where prosecutions for these offences are habitually undertaken by the stores—that is, in Greater London—prosecutions will be taken over for the most part by the independent prosecution service. The hon. and learned Gentleman will welcome the fact that in the circular sent out by the Home Office in February about cautioning, particular attention was drawn to the importance of cautioning in relation to vulnerable elderly offenders. He will also be interested to know that of the number of offenders over 60 cautioned and found guilty, the proportion cautioned increased from 48 per cent. in 1980 to 61 per cent. in 1983. The circular will probably lead to an increase in those figures.

Is my hon. Friend aware that as long ago as 1972 I had my first Adjournment debate on this subject, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) accepted that there was a direct link between the increasing number of self-service stores and the increase in shoplifting? Does the Home Office accept that where trading methods cause crime, that cause and effect should not be ignored by society?

The issue of prevention is crucial and we continue to have well in mind the point that my hon. Friend makes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the instructions to entry certificate officers regarding the primary purpose rule.

Hughes asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to abolish the primary purpose rule for financés and husbands wishing to join partners in the United Kingdom.

I will, with permission, answer this question and question No. 6 together.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can these two questions be answered by the Home Secretary rather than by an Under-Secretary?

Sit down.

Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order for me. Who answers questions is a matter for the Department concerned.

Instructions to immigration staff are being reviewed, in the course of which the extent to which they can be published will be considered. The issue of guidance to entry clearance officers is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Government do not intend to abolish the primary purpose test.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this rule causes more difficulties than most other aspects of immigration policy? In view of the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights, may we have an assurance that, when changes are made, men coming into the country will be treated on the same basis as women coming here? Is the Minister further aware that that does not mean any change being made adversely? We want change in the right direction, so that the position as it now applies to women is extended to men.

It would be absurd if, having tightened up the work permit system to prevent young men coming here and going on to the labour market, we were to allow those same young men to come here by using marriage as a device. The judgment to which the hon. Gentleman refers does not directly concern the primary purpose rule, but obviously we are now considering the whole position in the light of the judgment and will announce our conclusions in due course.

Perhaps one day the Home Secretary will take some responsibility for these matters. In the meantime, will the Government respond — as the Government, whom they assert they are, of law and order —by obeying the 12th finding against this country by the European Court of Human Rights? As the Government, as they assert they are, of the family, will they allow husbands and fiances to come to this country with their families? As the Government, as they assert they are, of equal opportunity, will they ensure that we have a new set of immigration laws before the House rises for the summer? May we also be assured that nobody who is at present in breach of the rules which have been found to be contrary to human rights is penalised, and that that will apply from the date of the Strasbourg ruling?

It seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that we first accepted the right of individual petition to the court back in 1966. Only in 1981 did France accept that right. In those circumstances, and as many other countries still do not accept the right of individual petition to the court, it is not surprising that more judgments have been made against the British Government than against other Governments.

The country would be immensely surprised if, having willed a firm and fair immigration control, we now took the view that anybody who enters into a marriage, irrespective of whether that marriage is entered into for immigration purposes, should be able to come here.

On the question of the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, are the Government content that a group of unelected foreigners should legislate for this country on matters of political and social importance?

We adhere to the convention and we shall abide by it. We shall make rule changes, but my hon. Friend will have to be patient, because we shall have to study the judgment carefully.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the primary purpose rule is an essential safeguard for many brides, such as those in my constituency, about whom I have written to my hon. Friend, who were abandoned by their husbands when the two-year period necessary for their husbands to have an unlimited right to remain here expired?

The justification for the primary purpose rule is that it is a necessary part of our immigration control, but we should be stupid not to recognise that social problems are involved. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to hint at them today. We all know of cases where the primary purpose rule has been a safeguard for young women here.

Is the Minister aware that he made an astonishing blunder in answering an earlier question this afternoon? Is he further aware—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask that. We have passed that question.

Is the Minister aware that he made an astonishing blunder in answering a question just a moment ago? Is he further aware that he said that he was considering what to do about the European Court decision, yet earlier he said that the Government did not intend to abolish the primary purpose test? As the primary purpose test was the subject of the condemnation of our immigration practices by the European Court, because it is a key element in sex discrimination, how can the Minister say that he is open-minded and considering the result? He has already said that he has made up his mind.

The judgment does not directly concern the primary purpose rule. I repeat that we shall study the judgment with care. and do that which is necessary.

rose—

Order. I apologise to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), but I got the meaning of his question wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the implications for safety and security at other sports facilities in the light of the disaster at Bradford City association football club.

While those will in the longer term be matters upon which the Government will look to Mr. Justice Popplewell's inquiry for advice, I have taken the following immediate steps as a result of my statement on 13 May. First, chief fire officers were asked on 16 May as a matter of urgency to visit all uncertificated sports stadia within the definition of the 1975 Act and to advise management on any necessary safety measures.

Secondly, on 23 May, consultation letters were sent to the football authorities and other interested parties on the timetable for designation of the third and fourth division Football League grounds, which I had promised would be put in hand immediately.

Thirdly, on the same day, I announced to the Rugby League my intention also to extend designation, although not necessarily on the same time scale, to the grounds of clubs in divisions 1 and 2 of the Rugby League.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply. How long will he give the clubs before they are expected to implement the Prime Minister's recommendations on personal security cards, the security of grounds and segregation? Will he be entering into talks, even if informal, with the organisers of sports in other grounds? What response—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is not in order.

Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) must keep in order.

I am in order, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary question is in order.

What response will the Home Secretary. give to those clubs which have asked for funds to carry out much needed improvements to their grounds?

I think that the question of cards and other such matters go beyond the question, but those matters are being actively discussed with the football authorities. On the question of funds, the hon. Gentleman will recall what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday.

While it appears certain that association football clubs can do something to make their grounds safer through funds available from the Football Grounds Improvement Trust, will my right hon. and learned Friend consult his right hon. and hon. Friends about the particular problems of Rugby League clubs, many of which have old wooden stands, but, unfortunately, no similar recourse to funds?

My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport will be considering with the Rugby League the implications of the proposed extension of designation to the grounds of clubs in divisions 1 and 2 of the Rugby League. My hon. Friend will recall my reference to the difference in the time scales for football and rugby.

I stress that clubs have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the public, in the same way as the operators of any place of entertainment have that responsibility.

Will the Home Secretary explain to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that there is a great difference between someone unfortunately dropping a matchstick and setting a stand on fire in Bradford, and football hooliganism? Will he also explain to him that it is about time he stopped using the House of Commons for his abusive activities, as he does in relation to all subjects, rather than dealing with the issue?

I do not think that I should use the opportunity of such a serious question to intervene in an intra-Liverpool dispute. Although broadly I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, there is a relationship between security and safety. It is for exactly that reason that I asked Mr. Justice Popplewell to look at both aspects of the matter. It does not take long for the House to consider the locking of exits, for example, to realise the connection.

While very much welcoming what my right hon. and learned Friend has said—that it is the responsibility of football clubs to ensure the safety and security of those who go to their grounds—may I ask him to pay particular regard to the implications for police manpower of any of the changes that may be proposed? Will he also offer to the House his view on the point that football clubs might spend a little less money on the transfer of players and a little more on safety at their grounds?

I shall draw my hon. Friend's second point to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. I hope that any changes that are introduced following the examination of these tragic matters will take full account of police manpower and will ease rather than add to the burdens on the police.

Will the Home Secretary further consider the suggestion that I made in my speech immediately after the Bradford city football ground fire, that sprinkler systems should be installed in all football grounds and in all other places of a similar nature and that orders should be given that doors must not be locked while large numbers of people are inside? Does he agree that if sprinklers had been in place inside Bradford city football ground the death toll and the number of injuries would have been much lower?

I ought not to speculate upon the hon. Gentleman's last point. However, I agree that both of the points to which he has referred will need to be considered in the light of the findings of Mr. Justice Popplewell in his interim report.

While the designation of third and fourth division football grounds is to be welcomed, can the Home Secretary tell the House whether his colleagues are discussing the possibility of making loans available to league clubs to carry out the necessary safety improvements? If not, designation will result in the closing of a number of third and fourth division grounds.

I have already explained that the financing of such safety measures as have been taken or are to be taken to improve spectator safety is being considered by the working group under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. The surveyors of the Football Grounds Improvement Trust are assessing the likely cost. Until that process has been completed it would not be sensible to make any judgments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to repeal the Immigration Act 1971.

No, Sir.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his succinct answer. Does he agree that to repeal the Immigration Act 1971 would be disastrous both in terms of employment and community relations, not least for the members of the immigrant community? Is it not completely irresponsible of the Labour party to make such a proposal?

I agree with every single word of my hon. Friend. The continuation of firm but fair immigration control is crucial for race relations, as for many other aspects of our national life.

Is the Home Secretary aware that serious abuses of the Immigration Act 1971 are taking place and that the procedures he has announced during the last two weeks concerning the treatment of Tamil refugees seeking asylum in this country have met with enormous opposition from Members of Parliament and from all of the immigration advisory agencies and refugee agencies? Is he further aware that the 24-hour rule for Members of Parliament, concerning the time in which they can make representations, is completely inadequate, and that until Tuesday of this week the immigration officers at Gatwick airport were unaware that they had to inform the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service of any refugee-seekers arriving in this country? Furthermore, is the Home Secretary aware that on Tuesday of this week a Tamil asylum seeker was removed extra-judicially from this country to Colombo, that his whereabouts are unknown and that it is incumbent upon the Home Secretary to tell the House what has happened to that man, why he was removed and what steps are being taken to ensure that he is returned safely to this country? An inquiry ought to be mounted into the whole affair.

The only point that has not been widely canvassed in the statement that I made last Monday to the House is the hon. Gentleman's last point. The particular case to which he referred was considered in great detail. We concluded that it did not meet the requirements of the United Nations' convention and that the test of severe hardship had not been met.

Where is he?

In accordance with the administrative practice whereby the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service has been informed of cases where asylum is refused—

Is he still alive?

—it was given the opportunity to interview the person in question and it did so, but before the results of that interview and any representations were received he was removed to Colombo. This action was the result of a serious failure in communication. I have ordered an urgent and thorough investigation both into the organisational failure and into the actions of the individual members of staff involved.

The high commission in Colombo has been asked to contact the person in question, whose brother lives in Colombo. However, it is important to stress that I have no reason to doubt at present that the decision arrived at in his case was correct and in accordance with the policy that I announced. Nevertheless, the representations from UKIAS will be fully considered. If the judgment made in the light of that consideration is that the person in question meets the severe hardship test, contrary to the judgment that was previously formed, he will be granted a visa and returned to this country at public expense.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a basic right of every country to define who its citizens are and then to enforce the appropriate immigration rules? Is he aware that many of the countries which criticise Britain have much more restrictive citizenship and immigration rules?

My hon Friend is absolutely right on both points

With regard to the extraordinary admission that the Home Secretary has just made in response to a question from my hon Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr Corbyn), can the right hon and learned Gentleman now tell the House what action is being taken to ensure that such a thing does not happen again? [Interruption ] It happened once, although the Government said that there was no danger of it happening, because the Home Secretary does not care about these matters He does not care that people may be sent back to imprisonment, torture and death, after which it is too late to put things right That is why we want an assurance that the Government will ensure that nothing like this will happen again, and that a further statement will be made to the House about it That is what we seek

The hon Member for Islington, North (Mr Corbyn) raised a serious point about a particular case He has been in no way assisted by the right hon Gentleman's note of hysteria I attempted to deal with that question in a serious way The position is exactly as I said it was last Monday, and I assure the right hon Gentleman and the House that the administrative practice followed since 1983, whereby UKIAS is informed of cases where asylum is refused, and is given the opportunity to make representations before anyone is returned, will be followed I have taken the strongest steps to ensure that it will be followed in all cases I should have thought that the right hon Gentleman might at least have the grace to accept that I gave a very frank and full statement to the House about what happened

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the setting up of a study commission for the purpose of assessing the possibility of transferring control of the Metropolitan police to an elected body

No, Sir

Why does the Home Secretary so tenaciously resist the demands of Londoners to democratise the accountability of the Metropolitan police9 He has authorised the expenditure of about £760 million He is now setting up consultative committees which, he says, have no right to intervene in the non-operative affairs of the London police or to interfere in policy matters so they can say nothing about that expenditure—justified or not—of £760 million

I do not agree with the hon Gentleman's suggestion, because nothing could be more dangerous to the liberties of this country than to hand over the police of London to political control

Will my right hon and learned Friend continue to uphold the constitutional independence of chief officers of police, not only in London but throughout the country?

Certainly The principle applies throughout the country

If the Home Secretary is not willing to consider handing the police in London over to an elected authority, will he consider handing them over to at least a partly elected authority, in line with the discussions going on about other powers in the context of the GLC abolition Bill being considered in the other place between Ministers and Conservative peers?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, but I do not propose any changes in the arrangements for the policing of London.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the visit by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the United States of America to study techniques for the prevention of drug abuse.

I visited the United States from 7 to 14 April. I had very useful discussions with, among others, representatives of several Federal Departments and agencies. These ranged over many issues, including the forefeiture of drug traffickers' assets, American experience of the cocaine problem and international aspects.

Did my hon. Friend's visit convince him that the drugs problem, particularly with cocaine, can become considerably worse here, and shows signs of doing so, and that the various radical actions that he proposes should be taken now and not delayed until it is too late?

Since returning from the United States, I have tried to play a full part in alerting the public to the problem of the glut of cocaine available in South America and likely to be diverted from the American to the British market. Already, a considerable response has been evident, notably in the formation of two customs teams specifically to deal with cocaine. Cocaine seizures this year are much higher than they were last year. That is a measure of success, but we intend to be diligent on this vital topic.

Did the Minister examine what is happening in Florida with the treatment of misusers of drugs—cocaine in particular—who need rehabilitation? Will he discuss with the Secretary of State for Social Services the present cut in the provision of clinics for the treatment of those who, unfortunately, become addicts?

Far from there being a cut, there has been an increase in such facilities, brought about by the allocation of £11.5 million from the DHSS and the encouragement that my right hon. Friend has been giving to regional and district health authorities to develop these facilities. He is requiring them to send details of their proposals to the Department, and their responses will be published shortly so that the public can judge the adequacy of the response of each individual health district to this important problem.

I urge on my hon. Friend the importance of hitting drug traffickers where it hurts—in the pocket. To that end, can we have the hope of early legislation for forfeiture of assets and for dealing with money laundering?

These are matters of first importance, not just to my hon. Friend, but to the Government. I assure her that we are actively considering, and reaching final conclusions on, legislation to do what she requires.

How does the Minister explain the more than 400 per cent. increase in drug addiction since the Government came into office?

By the fact that more people are taking drugs. The problem is well known throughout the Western world. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is trying to reduce the quality of what is otherwise a non-partisan debate to make spurious political points. The increase in drug-taking straddled two Governments and will not be resolved by the petty points that the hon. Gentleman delights in making.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an independent inquiry into the operation of detention centres.

We have no plans to do so.

Do not the growing number of complaints from parents, probation officers, teachers, solicitors and other people who have any connection with the inmates of detention centres, and the growing numbers of allegations of bullying and brutal treatment within those centres, mean that it is time the Government took such complaints seriously and established an inquiry to ascertain whether the short, sharp shock treatment is nothing more than a prescription for public bullying?

All allegations of ill-treatment are fully and properly investigated. If the allegation is of a criminal offence, it is referred to the police for investigation, and there is no need for a more wide-ranging inquiry. I gather that the hon. Gentleman made an allegation to a newspaper about Usk, but no complaints have been received there from any inmates. Therefore, it is up to the hon. Gentleman, if he has evidence—

I have.

—of improper conduct to bring it forward.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I will be attending a dinner given by Premier Zhao Ziyang of the People's Republic of China.

When my right hon. Friend goes to Milan on 28–29 June for the European Council meeting, she will find that the agenda includes the Dooge report, which recommends a conference of representatives of member states to negotiate a European union treaty. Since the Dooge report says that such a conference in itself would be the initial stage of such a treaty, will my right hon.

Friend decline to send a representative, on the ground that there is no support in this House or in the country for further European union?

I have often spoken about European union. The phrase is understood in this country in a totally different context from that in Europe. I wish that people would not use it. In this country it raises fear of federation. It is not used in that way in Europe. I would be absolutely against a federal Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend about a special intergovernmental conference. I think that it would be superfluous. I know that some of my colleagues in Europe would like to have it, but if we consider the European Council itself, it is an intergovernmental conference and we do not need an extra one.

On Tuesday the Prime Minister told us that she wanted to be factual about the implications of the social security review. Will she now act upon that and tell us how many million householders will lose as a consequence of the changes proposed in housing benefit and, of those, how many are likely to be people with small occupational pensions who are to be penalised for a lifetime of thrift?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the reply that I gave. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services pointed out that the cost of housing benefit had gone up from £1.2 billion in 1979-80 to £4.2 billion this year, he indicated that we were hoping to save some £500 million from housing benefit. We cannot be more specific until the many rates are set much later.

Why will the Prime Minister not answer the question? We know that she has the information. We know that the DHSS and the Cabinet have the information. The housing benefit review team said in its own paper that it was satisfied that despite all the complexities it had "a reliable indication of the major effects" of the changes being proposed. That is what we have asked for—a reliable indication. That is what the millions of people who will be affected want. Why will the Prime Minister not come clean?

I have indicated to the right hon. Gentleman that savings of £500 million are hoped for. That is only one sixth of the increase that has occurred in housing benefit between 1979 and 1984. That seems to me eminently reasonable. The precise effect on the many people will be known when the specific rates are set, and particularly when the decisions with regard to rates are made.

Does the Prime Minister know whether the number affected will be 6 million, 6·5 million, 7 million or more? Can the Prime Minister give us a figure even to the nearest half million?

No, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated—perhaps I should reiterate it to the right hon. Gentleman — that taxpayers' expenditure — [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman always forgets that all the money he would give away comes from the pockets of his constituents. Taxpayers' expenditure on housing benefit has risen from £1.2 billion in 1979 to £4.2 billion—[Interruption. ]

Order. The Prime Minister is answering a very serious question.

No, she is not.

I take it that it is a serious question.

Taxpayers' expenditure on housing benefit has risen from £1·2 billion in 1979 to £4·2 billion this year. That is an enormous increase. We hope to save something like £500 million, which is only one sixth of the increase that has occurred in our time. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the taxpayers of this country could not afford his programmes.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever decision is made by the United States Congress on disinvestment with South Africa, this Government will continue to encourage investment and trade with that country, not only for the 150,000 or so jobs that it generates over here, but for the sake of the underprivileged blacks in South Africa itself, for whom disinvestment would cause great harm and distress?

I am aware of the moves in Congress. Several different Bills are under consideration. We cannot speculate on the outcome. It remains our view that sanctions and disinvestment will not bring about the changes that we all wish to see in South Africa.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the decision today by FIFA to ban all English clubs from all international football matches? Does she agree that that is a wholly justified decision, which gives us a proper opportunity to put our own house in order?

That is the decision that FIFA has made. I think that we fully understand why it has made it. I hope that we shall be able to take steps that will restore our good name both at home and in international football.

Will the Prime Minister spare a moment this afternoon—I am sure that she will—to convey to her Chief Whip an expression of the delight which today's news has caused in all parts of the House?

Hear, hear.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman most warmly, and I am grateful for the response that his question has evoked from all parts of the House.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

Was the Prime Minister consulted about the disgraceful decision to announce the Government's decision on nurses' pay by means of a written answer? Does she really think that a written answer is more appropriate than a statement in the House on a matter of such interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Since 1979 the decisions on review body reports have normally been announced by written answer. Under Labour, it was the normal practice for decisions to be announced by written answer.

Does not the scale of starvation in Sudan and sub-Saharan Africa demonstrate the need for a continuing, co-ordinated international response to solving the problem of starvation in Africa? As both the Uniied States and Russia have been somewhat partisan in wanting to establish spheres of influence in north Africa, does not that give Britain a marvellous opportunity to take a positive lead in the United Nations to try to ensure that we can eliminate starvation from the world by the year 2000?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we have announced that we are sending an extra Hercules to the Sudan. We have provided some money for a light aircraft. We are also taking part in European action to try to get more of the food well distributed in the Sudan. I take my hon. Friend's point about taking the lead in the United Nations. The United States has also been generous in the food that it is planning to send to the Sudan.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time today to read the report by the independent firm of City accountants, Coopers and Lybrand, which shows that the transitional cost for the abolition of the Greater London council ranges between £122 million and £167 million? In view of that enormous cost and the defeats that her Government's Bill is now experiencing in the House of Lords, will she take this opportunity to drop her personal and vindictive campaign against the GLC, sack her Secretary of State for the Environment at the next reshuffle and accompany me across Westminster bridge to make her peace with Ken Livingstone and the GLC?

I understand that the report estimates the transitional costs of change that arise from redundancy payments, which would occur in any event if the GLC chose to run its affairs efficiently. The report to which the hon. Gentleman has kindly drawn attention also shows that annual savings will flow from the abolition of the GLC and that the GLC is grossly overmanned at present.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is so concerned about the cost of the GLC, why does he not offer to abandon his chauffeur-driven limousine?

Because it is too comfortable.

I am not responsible for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Will the Prime Minister be in the House to vote against the outrageous motion that will be before the House tomorrow? If not, would she care to tell the House whether she supports her right hon. Friend and colleague the Leader of the House in that matter?

Of course I support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I shall be around, but whether I shall be around when the vote occurs I cannot tell, because I have two or three overseas visitors to see.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that anyone who knows anything about the social security system—a category of people which unfortunately does not include the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) — knows that the overwhelming requirement is for a system which is simpler and more understandable to those who use it and which directs more of the expenditure to those in real need? Is she aware that, accordingly, the proposals announced by the Government on Monday have been very warmly welcomed?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the proposals have been warmly welcomed. They are also very realistic. I agree that we should have benefits which we are satisfied a future Government can deliver, and not the empty promises that we get from the Opposition.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that Sir John Hermon, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, has not met his opposite number, Laurence Wren, Chief of the Garda, in the past two years? Does she agree that public recriminations between the two men does not assist the fight against terrorism?

Consultations between the Garda and the RUC do not necessarily have to be conducted at the top level. The consultations are conducted very well and co-operation is close, for which we are very grateful.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to deny press reports suggesting that the Government may be going cool on the introduction of legislation relating to the Green Paper on compulsory tendering for local authorities?

The Government are very anxious that more competition should be introduced into local authority contracts. That is our policy and it will continue to be so.

If the Prime Minister is in the House tomorrow, will she be able, as I hope, to vote with me against the proposed abuse of procedures?

Many invitations have been thrust upon me from all parts of the House. I hope that I shall be around to respond to one of them.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

In the light of the tragic events in Brussels last week, does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the notable exception of the Cambridge case, the punishments meted out by the courts have been woefully inadequate and no deterrent whatever to football hooliganism?

I believe that the Cambridge case heralded a new era. I should also point out that the Court of Appeal had previously made it abundantly clear that, in serious cases of violence at football grounds, the right sentence should be a prison sentence. I hope that that will be observed in all other courts.

Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 10 JUNE—Opposition Day (8th Allotted day, second part). A debate on the 15th anniversary of the Royal Assent to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Food and Environment Protection Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY 11 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th Allotted Day). A debate titled "The need for urgent new measures to deal with famine and remedy the debt crisis in developing countries", followed by a debate titled "Government responsibility for the desperate plight of young people". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Remaining stages of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Bill [Lords].

Motion on Historic Churches (Northern Ireland) Order.

WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE AND THURSDAY 13 JUNE — Debate on a motion to approve the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985, Cmnd. 9430.

FRIDAY 14 JUNE—A debate on the Government's policy for science which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

MONDAY 17 JUNE—A debate on a Government motion to approve the White Paper on airports policy, Cmnd. 9542.

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the dissatisfaction with the fact that the nurses' pay award was announced in a written answer. Will he ensure that we have a statement at the earliest opportunity so that the Secretary of State for Social Services can be properly questioned on a matter that is important to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to the general public?

Secondly, has a date been fixed for a two-day debate in Government time on the so-called Fowler review? The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the reports in The Times and elsewhere that Whitehall sources have made it clear that it is part of the Government's tactics to keep the Opposition, the public and, presumably, Conservative Back-Bench Members in the dark about the impact of the changes. May we have his co-operation in initiating a debate so that we can lighten the darkness?

Thirdly, when may we have a statement on last week's decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that the Government have been unlawfully discriminating against husbands and male finances who wish to come to Britain? As he will recall, the Home Secretary dodged making a statement this week. Will he ensure that we get a statement next week so that the 3,350 men involved may have some idea of their future?

Fourthly, the Leader of the House will recall that we have been asking repeatedly for a debate in Government time on the proposed closure of 29 skillcentres. This week, we heard the announcement that all but two of those skillcentres will close — the two being in relatively marginal Conservative-held seats. Does the right hon.

Gentleman accept that the issue is now even more urgent and will he ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are given an early opportunity to debate the matter?

Fifthly, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the reports today of the Foreign Secretary's warning to the United States Government not to breach the 1979 strategic arms limitation treaty and so undermine the Geneva arms talks? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure an early statement to the House on this subject, and will he remember that the Opposition have asked several times for a debate on the straegic defence initiative which is clearly of interest to the House and to the country?

Finally, will he convey, through the usual channels, of course, my best wishes and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Government Chief Whip and his finance for their future happiness?

I wholeheartedly reverse the order of the right hon. Gentleman's questions—I shall of course pass on those good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. I know, as does the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that, in doing that, I shall have the endorsement of the entire House.

As for the strategic arms limitation treaty, I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman's points. It raises all of the issues that are central to a discussion of the defence Estimates.

I suggest that we might consider the request for a debate about skillcentres through the usual channels. I shall refer my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement on the recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights as it affects the access to Britain of certain classes of immigrant.

I note the right hon. Gentleman's request for a two-day debate on the social security review. Perhaps the timing and length of that debate can be considered further through the usual channels, I was a little distressed to find that the right hon. Gentleman had to pray in aid evidence from The Times to sustain his case, but as he then asked for enlightenment I understood why he needed such remedy. Questions about nurses' pay can be examined through the usual channels, but I must observe that what has been done today is precisely what happened under the preceding Labour Government.

If the worse comes to the worst tomorrow and we find ourselves sitting through the weekend, how can I then return in happy plight that am debarred the benefit of rest? When life's—day's —oppression is not eased by night, and day by day— day by night—and night by day oppressed?

If my hon. Friend rerehearses a little more that speech which he intends to give tomorrow, he may find by then that it is so effective that he need have no fear.

Will the Leader of the House find time for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement on the encouragement which I hope he is giving the Office of Fair Trading to block the takeover of Eurolex, the computer database of English, Scottish and European law, by Butterworths, which has closed it down and dismissed all the staff to create a world monopoly for the United States-owned Lexis service for which Butterworths acts merely as the British agent? Is that not an outrageous demonstration of the Government's lack of any serious information technology policy?

I cannot accept the strictures implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question, but I shall refer his request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the heavy demand of right hon. and hon. Members to speak in last January's debate on airports policy and therefore consider extending the debate on Monday week at least until midnight so that many more of us can congratulate the Government on yesterday's excellent statement?

My hon. Friend advances a persuasive argument for the innovation that he seeks. The timing will be considered.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the change in immigration rules which requires visas from citizens of Sri Lanka who have come to Britain as refugees raises an important principle which is quite distinct from that raised by the other immigration matter that has been raised? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore find time for the prayer relating to the change that I have described which has been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends?

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps the matter could be considered through the usual channels.

For the third week running, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health an offer that we hope he cannot refuse—to make a statement to the House on an appeal system regarding the limited list of drugs? The matter is now getting very urgent.

My hon. Friend has made his point courteously and persistently, and I shall most certainly take it up again.

Will the Leader of the House impress upon the Prime Minister the need for a statement next week, after her meeting with King Hussein of Jordan and the Foreign Secretary of Israel, on their views on peace in the middle east and the role that the PLO will play as the representative of the Palestinians?

I shall certainly pass on that request to my right hon. Friend.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), in case he has not noticed, that the idea behind moving the sludge works at Perry Oaks is not to plant daisies? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the motion on Monday week is lost, progress at Stansted could not be made? Will my right hon. Friend make that clear?

My hon. Friend's point obviously has a great deal of force. I should have thought that it would be much better deployed in the context of the debate rather than in trying to persuade me to put a shadow over the debate by giving an answer.

Given that those of us who have recently been in Sri Lanka have first hand and substantial evidence of brutality and the atrocities committed against the Tamil community and that many thousands of that minority community live in deep and serious fear of their physical safety and lives, may we have an early debate on the Government's inhumane and callous policy of refusing admission to refugees from that country, with all the horrendous consequences for their personal safety that flow from that policy?

I realise that this subject gives rise to deep and sincere feelings. I shall report them to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but I cannot be optimistic and suggest that there will be an early debate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lack of religious and moral teaching, discipline and, above all, parental responsibility are the main causes of so much of the violence in our society? Cannot we discuss these important and vital matters?

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, but Government time will not be available for such a debate —certainly not in the near future. Hon. Members have other opportunities, and I suggest that they pursue them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give sympathetic consideration to our request for a one-hour extension of the debate on Tuesday on the Northern Ireland order?

Most certainly. Perhaps that matter could be considered through the usual channels.

The House gave an overwhelming Second Reading to the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), but, despite that, many of us who voted in support of the Bill have distinct reservations about the tactics that will, apparently, be employed tomorrow. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his previous position on this matter and, even at this late hour, give an undertaking that Government time will be made available so that this important measure is given the proper consideration that it deserves?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which certainly was not planted. I want to make it quite clear— I want there to be no ambiguity about this — that there is no prospect of Government time being made available.

. What contingency plans has the right hon. Gentleman made for the House sitting on Saturday and Sunday? If this happens, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to ensure that those responsible will be surcharged?

In order to give the most appropriate answer to that question, I would need more time for reflection than is available to me at the Dispatch Box.

As my right hon. Friend is a master not only of repartee but of parliamentary procedure, will he make it plain that what is contemplated and proposed by some of our colleagues for tomorrow is entirely proper and is not an abuse of the procedures of the House?

It is far better if these arguments are adduced within the more relaxed circumstances of the debate than in question and answer at this time. I can confirm that there seems to be clear evidence that the proposed action has been ruled to be in order.

In view of the announcement at about lunch time today by Imperial Tobacco plc that it intends to close its factory in east Newcastle with a loss of 600 jobs and that, in addition it intends to sack 1,100 people during the next two years, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a discussion on the employment problems faced by constituencies that rely upon the tobacco industry for employment?

I shall, of course, draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but the hon. Gentleman may recall that employment questions will be dealt with next Tuesday.

Reverting to the debate on airports policy on Monday week, may we know the basis upon which it is to take place? If it is simply to take note of the White Paper and the House refuses so to do, will that mean that the Secretary of State for Transport will have to re-think the policy that he announced in the House yesterday?

I have already indicated that the motion on Monday 17 June will be a Government motion to approve the White Paper.

Has the Leader of the House noticed that on several occasions recently the Secretary of State for the appropriate Department has not appeared at the Dispatch Box at Question Time? The latest example was on Tuesday of this week, when the Secretary of State for Defence was unable to be present because apparently he was on an official visit to Denmark.

Bearing in mind that Secretaries of State are required to be here for questions on only one day in a month, is it not possible for them to arrange their official visits so that they are not prevented from being here to answer questions?

Obviously I would be the first to acquiesce in the proposition that it is important that Secretaries of State should, whenever possible, be here at the Dispatch Box to take their questions. I believe that that view is shared throughout the Administration. But there are occasions when it is not possible, and I think we have to understand that.

Does my right hon. Friend intend to speak tomorrow in the capacity that he recently described as "the boss's nark", or does he agree that Back Benchers are just as much entitled to use rules of order and procedure, without accusations of abuse, as are the Government who they are supposed to control?

I shall speak as Leader of the House, and I shall try to tread as delicately as I can.

If tomorrow's business ran through not only Saturday and Sunday but into Monday, will the Leader of the House confirm that, under the Standing Orders of the House, business could be adjourned after Monday till the following Monday? In those circumstances, does he intend to table a motion to avoid that eventuality?

I do not think that we have quite got to the point where I have to take that decision.

Will my right hon. Friend take pity on Mr. Speaker and help him in relation to the debate on airports policy? There has not been adequate time, at any Question Time when the matter could be raised, for all of us to be heard. In particular, those who represent the area most affected by the decision, east Hertfordshire and Essex, have not had adequate time because, quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, has had to give time to hon. Members from other parts of the country with an interest in the matter.

My constituents are feeling very aggrieved that we have not had adequate time to point out to the House and to the country the very serious difficulties in which the decision places us. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend at least consider extending the debate by two hours?

The request for an extension has already been made to me, and it will be sympathetically considered.

In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), the Leader of the House was his usual model of courtesy, but has he really understood the enormity of what has happened in relation to Butterworths and Eurolex? The computer data are going to the United States. Should not he, directly or through the Department of Trade, contact the Office of Fair Trading? Although only 53 jobs are involved at present, there is a huge potential job loss. Incidentally, Parliament is a major customer, and it looks as though Parliament's expenses in regard to Eurolex will be greatly increased by what has happened.

May I offer the Leader of the House a constructive suggestion? May I suggest that he should get the Minister for Trade to make a statement at 11 am tomorrow on the vital matter that my hon. Friend has raised?

There is just a suspicion that having such a statement at 11 am tomorrow would be seen as trivialising the matter. There would be a possibility of its being misinterpreted. I shall, of course, convey to my right hon. Friend the anxieties of the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Has my right hon. Friend taken note of early-day motion 714 concerning a Yorkshire Post investigation into drug abuse?

[That this House is concerned at the new evidence in Yorkshire of illegal drug trafficking and the involvement of young people in hard drug abuse; congratulates the Yorkshire Post on its detailed investigation into this urgent and serious problem; notes that the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Social Services are undertaking enquiries into drug abuse; and calls for an early Parliamentary debate on their proposals further to inhibit supply and to rehabilitate addicts.]

In view of the serious facts revealed by that investigation and the fact that this is one of the most significant issues of our time, will he arrange an early and full-length debate on the interim report of the Home Office Select Committee on the subject?

I join my hon. Friend in acknowledging the importance of the topic. He will note, however, that no Government time has been made available for a debate on the issue in the business that has been announced, and I do not see there being time available in the near future now that we are in that part of the parliamentary year just ahead of the summer recess. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that he can pursue these matters through private Members' time.

In view of the decision by the House of Representatives in the United States in relation to South Africa and the exchanges today during Prime Minister's Question Time, does the Leader of the House agree that we should have an early opportunity to debate this issue?

I have no doubt that it would be a good debate, but there is no Government time available in the near future.

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 708, which stands in my name and the names of 20 other hon. Members, giving all-party support for the establishment of a missing child unit within the Home Office?

[That this House welcomes the designation of Saturday 25th May as International Day of the Missing Child; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to establish a missing child unit within the Home Office with a central computer detailing all missing children throughout the United Kingdom, and not just within the Metropolitan Police area.]

Is he aware that great concern is felt about the fact that last year more than 20,000 children went missing, yet inadequate, if any, statistics are kept about these cases? On the subject of children, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not take it personally when tomorrow more than 100 hon. Members in all parts of the House express their concern for the unborn child and do not support his objection to our motion. May I respectfully remind him that most hon. Members feel that tomorrow is a private Members' day and regret that any form of Government interference, even if indirectly, should occur?

I note my hon. Friend's remarks in relation to tomorrow's debate. I also appreciate the significance of the first part of his question and hope that he will use his well known skill and initiative as a private Member in getting the issue debated. There simply is not Government time to cover all these issues.