asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will invite a member of the Devon county council emergency staff to join the working party considering the standardisation of training of civil defence volunteers.

Devon county council is already represented on the working party through the chief fire officer.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the county of Devon probably has the largest and most efficient of all the emergency, volunteer and civil defence services, and that, with the experience that it has acquired during the years from the Lynmouth floods, the Torrey Canyon and the fact that almost all transatlantic aircraft home in on the beacon at Combe Martin, it should have full representation, as being both efficient and on the spot?

I am indeed aware that Devon county council has a volunteer strength of about 1,800 souls, including my hon. Friend, and that it is a fine and distinguished body. As my hon. Friend knows, there are 13,000 volunteers nationally. I am convinced that the representation of the chief fire officer, who also has rescue services in hand, is highly appropriate to the working of the committee.

In considering the matter, will my hon. Friend also investigate the training and provision of civil defence in the Tyne and Wear county area, where the latest reports show——

Order. There are later questions about that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are currently employed in drug enforcement duties; and if he will make a statement.

On 1 January there were 630 police officers in England and Wales assigned full time to force drug squads, and in many forces increases have been made since then. Regional crime squads also devote much of their time to drugs investigations. My right hon. and learned Friend, the then Home Secretary, announced on 18 July substantial new measures, including provision for some 200 additional officers, to strengthen the drugs wings of regional crime squads.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I welcome the Government's initiatives in recent months to step up the war against drug pedlars, but does he agree that the drugs problem is far more serious than many people realise? Can he assure me that an appropriate number of police officers will be put on to drug enforcement duties, whatever the cost, and that they will not be taken from other pressing areas of police work?

The announcements that my predecessor made, and what I said about the Metropolitan police on Monday, show that that is being given priority. That also applies to Scotland.

Given the prominence of the question of drug abuse at the Tory party conference, why are there 1,000 fewer Customs officials now than some years ago? Does the Home Secretary agree with the views of the vice chairman of the Coventry, South-East Tory party, Mr. Jon Farmer, who said:

"Drug addiction is a self-inflicted wound, so why should we worry if they die or not? After all, the cost of a coffin is less than the cost of putting these characters right."?

No, Sir. On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is introducing into his figures people who have nothing to do with drugs. Within the Customs and Excise there has been an increasing concentration of experts dealing specifically with drugs. My hon. Friend the Minister this month announced a further increase of 150 preventive staff.

During the course of their drug enforcement duties, police officers frequently visit public houses. Has my right hon. Friend seen the brief prepared jointly by the Brewers' Society, the National Union of Licensed Victuallers and the National Association of Licensed House Managers on the subject of drug abuse, which shows the responsible way in which the licensed trade is responding to the problems of drug abuse and helping the police with their duties?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen the initiative, and I welcome it because—as they say in their message to all licensees—pubs, bars and similar premises can easily become vulnerable targets for this evil trade.

Is the Home Secretary wholly satisfied with the efforts being made by Customs and Excise to assist the police in the detection of the importation of drugs? If not, what further steps will he take?

On the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, one can never be wholly satisfied about these matters. On 18 July my predecessor announced that Mr. Hewitt had been appointed as national drugs intelligence co-ordinator to pull together the efforts being made. He has already started work.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the principle of community policing does not mean that in areas such as Handsworth the police can turn a blind eye to the possession of soft drugs?

If my hon. Friend had had the advantage of listening to me last night—and had he been able to hear what I was saying—he would have heard me deal with the subject. I agree with him that community policing is not a synonym for the absence of law enforcement.

To alleviate the pressure on the police, will the Home Secretary give a clear guarantee to the House that the mobile task forces in Customs and Excise that deal with drug smuggling will not be stood down because of the cash restrictions that are likely to be placed upon them?

I am sure that they will not be, but, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter, he should do so with the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the numbers that he has quoted today, the task of handling the problem falls on the whole of the police force? Does he accept that that increased responsibility must be seen in the context of other growing tasks for the police under, for example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Transport Acts? Will he bear that in mind when reviews on the manning of police forces come to his attention in the coming months?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Unfortunately, there is a link between drug trafficking and other sorts of crime, for reasons which we all know. That is one reason why the police are giving the matter such priority, and why we give it priority when we allocate resources.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors were refused admission in the last 12 months; and how many of these came from the New Commonwealth or Pakistan.

In the 12 months ending August 1985, 17,624 people were refused leave to enter, of whom 9,533 were citizens of New Commonwealth countries or Pakistan. Statistics on those refused entry do not identify would-be visitors. To put these figures in context, 8 million passengers were granted leave to enter in the 12 months up to April, of whom 1 million were from the New Commonwealth or Pakistan.

Does the Minister accept that the existing arrangements for family visits from the Indian subcontinent are not acceptable? Is he aware that at least 20 times each week in my constituency I am telephoned because people are being held at the airport for eight or 12 hours? They are often refused entry simply because they come from a poor background. They are allowed in only through the cumbersome procedure that involves my writing to the Minister. Those people always return home at the end of their visit. Does he understand that my constituents feel that they are put through a humiliating process simply to visit their families? It is not good enough.

The arrangements are not working as well as they might, partly because some hon. Members are abusing their right to make representations in cases. Recently, cases have come to my attention where hon. Members have actually invited people to come to this country, knowing that they had no claim to enter, telling them that they need only mention the name of the hon. Member and temporary admission would be obtained for them. That is highly unsatisfactory, and I hope that hon. Members will not make our task in the immigration service impossible. In 1980, representations were made by hon. Members in 1,000 cases. We estimate that in 1985 representations will have been made in 4,500 cases. The same standards are being applied by immigration officers, as the percentage of refusals have hardly deviated over the years.

Really!

In view of what I have said, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his hon. Friends can draw their own conclusions.

Is it not a fact that the number of people granted temporary admission this year will be twice the number granted temporary admission in the last year of the Labour Government? Does that not give the lie to the suggestion that there is something draconian about the way in which our immigration policy is being applied?

My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. In fact, we have been employing a more relaxed policy in respect of temporary admission. I must hammer home the point that our system of representations being made in these cases by hon. Members will not work if some hon. Members continue to behave in a manner that was never envisaged when the system was set up in the first place.

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members would have more confidence in the system if they thought that on many occasions the reasons given for refusal were acceptable? How many of those granted temporary admission are granted a visa at the end of that time? How many of them abscond or disappear? If the temporary admission system is designed to prevent the fraudulent use of the appeal system, overstaying, and so on, the fact that, I understand, few people disappear or otherwise abuse the system shows that too many innocent people are refused admission at the ports.

The hon. Gentleman should table specific questions to obtain the answers that he requires. Any fair-minded hon. Member looking at the letters that I write explaining why people have been refused entry will recognise at once that our immigration officers are carrying out their job in a perfectly respectable and proper fashion. As I said, some hon. Members are making our task extremely difficult.

Without mincing words, is it not a fact that many hon. Members, sometimes innocently, aid and abet the illegal entry of visitors into the United Kingdom? Is there not a strong case for the whole procedure of hon. Members raising the cases of visitors to this country with the Home Secretary being seriously reviewed and a new system introduced?

I shall not adopt the words used by my hon. Friend, but the vast majority of people in Britain would be amazed to learn that 4,500 people will get into this country this year, having been refused admission by skilled immigration officers who believed that they were not qualified to enter. The vast majority of British people must be amazed to learn that the system is being used by hon. Members in such a way as to allow vast numbers of people to enter who clearly are not qualified to enter.

Is the Minister aware that he cannot shelter an unacceptable policy by attacking hon. Members? People are perfectly aware of what he is doing. Has the policy on visitors from Bangladesh altered recently? Is he aware that many of us are getting representations from increasing numbers of visitors from Bangladesh who have been refused admission? Moreover, so many of them are being detained that Harmondsworth is full and people are being held in Ashford remand centre? Has there been a change in policy, and, if so, why?

The policy on the representations of Members of Parliament is reasonable, provided hon. Members are prepared to operate it in a sensible and responsible fashion. Unfortunately, some hon. Members are not. Recently, a large number of young men have been arriving at Heathrow from Bangladesh in most suspicious circumstances, which have resulted in our detention facilities being very strained. Something fishy is going on. So far we have not identified the species, but I hope that the message goes back to the operators in Bangladesh that they have been rumbled.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to seek additional powers to confiscate assets obtained as a result of drug-related offences.

Yes, Sir. We intend to introduce legislation very shortly to provide new powers for tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of drug trafficking.

I am sure that my hon. Friend's proposals will have widespread support from both sides of the House. Is he aware that the flood of drug addiction, abuse and peddling now affects not only inner-city areas but rural areas, such as Dorset? Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues support the setting up of drug rehabilitation centres in areas such as Dorset?

I know that my hon. Friend will have heard my announcement earlier this month that further funds from the DHSS by way of direct intervention to improve treatment facilities are being provided. I know that my hon. Friend will want to pursue that matter with his district and regional health authorities, most of which are funded for growth and should make a fair proportion of that funding available to improve facilities in this important sector.

However strong and justified the public reprobation of drug offences, will the Government hesitate long before reintroducing the long disused penalty of confiscation in circumstances that bear no relationship to the confiscation of gear and other material that has been used in the commission of an offence?

The House will want to consider these matters with care when the Bill is introduced. However, the reality of drug trafficking is that so vast are the profits to be made by the people at the Lop of the trade that merely sending them to prison is not a sufficient deterrent if, as is the position in a number of celebrated cases, they have millions of pounds stashed away in bank accounts around the world on which to live a life of ease and luxury when they are released from prison. None of us wants to reach for draconian measures, but the scale of the international problem posed by major drug traffickers merits this. That is the case that I shall put before the House in due course.

Will not additional powers for confiscation be rendered less effective in the absence of additional powers for tracing, including the requisition of records of financial institutions, domestically and by agreement with other countries?

My hon. Friend, as always on this subject, is absolutely right. New powers will be brought forward in the context of the Bill.

Will the Minister confirm that the main reason for his consideration of these measures is that there is no proper Customs cover at the ports of entry? Is he aware that four newly-appointed Customs officers at Dover, whose duties specifically related to drugs, have been snatched back for static duties, and that a recent review of training in Customs has reported that training is inadequate at all levels?

There is something rather discreditable about the the way in which the Customs officers' union has put forward a completely false picture of Customs efficiency. It knows only too well that the reduction of 1,000 in the number of staff dealing with Customs is completely inaccurate. The overall reduction in uniformed and preventive staff will be about 350 by the end of the year. That will be matched by more than a doubling of the number of men involved in intelligence work. Customs wish to move away from one readily predictable check in the green and red channels, for which every drug smuggler is prepared, to better ways of getting to the men behind the trade rather than to those who are just running the drugs. They want also to be better able to intercept the drugs at an unpredictable point. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the amount of drugs seized, the number of conspiracies broken up and the number of people who have been brought to book, he will see that Customs and the police, working together, are getting a great deal better. This "knocking" by their union is not in the interests of the men themselves.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to join me in congratulating the BBC on its Radio 1 drug alert initiative, during which 3,500 young people and parents contacted Radio 1. Does that not show that there is a great need for more information at local level about how addicts and their parents can obtain advice and help?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad that the Government were able to make money available for the production of some literature that was associated with the Radio 1 campaign. The reasonable view taken by the media of the campaign against drugs has been of great help in putting drugs high on the agenda in discussions among families throughout the length and breadth of the land. The Government have made 4 million leaflets available for parents. We intend to pursue our campaign of warning people, on the basis that, unless the whole community is mobilised in the campaign against drugs, we cannot succeed.

Will the Under-Secretary of State, with his specialised knowledge of the drugs problem, be a little more forthcoming than the Home Secretary and tell us what the Government propose to do about the problem of the burden of proof, which he knows causes severe difficulty in relation to the confiscation of assets in drugs cases?

I shall happily repeat what I said earlier this month in Blackpool. After conviction, either for drug trafficking or for the new offence of handling the proceeds of drug trafficking, on the normal burden of proof — namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty—we propose that all of the property of that individual shall be deemed to be the proceeds of drug trafficking, unless the contrary can be proved. That is quite different from reversing the burden of proof on the principal issue of guilt or innocence. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that it is difficult for the prosecution to demonstrate where the house in Hampstead and the Rolls-Royce came from, but if the trafficker can afford them from the sale of brushes, presumably he can demonstrate it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and women are in prison at present.

On 18 October 1985 there were 45,404 males and 1,583 females held in prison department custody in England and Wales.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these figures are much too high? Does he believe that it is either necessary or desirable to lock up so many people in prison?

The figures have increased because of a surge in the first part of this year. The increase is the result of separate decisions in separate courts, but I agree that it is a disturbing surge. Since then there has been some relief, or some pause, but we cannot be in the least bit complacent about it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents, Mr. Tony Mycock, has just served two years of a five-year sentence for an alleged burglary? Is he further aware that the BBC programme "Rough Justice" has evidence to prove that no such crime was ever committed and that the lady who made the allegations in the first place, a Miss Fitzpatrick, who is now living in America, has said that the whole affair was a figment of her imagination? Does he agree with Lord Devlin and the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E Gardner) that Tony Mycock is completely innocent of any crime? Can he tell the House exactly what he will do to ensure that Mr. Mycock, an innocent man, is released immediately—I repeat "immediately"—from gaol?

I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The lady in question has said various things at various times. I am looking urgently at the matter in the hope of finding a way to resolve it which will commend itself to all strands of opinion in the House.

The figures given by my right hon. Friend disclose a substantial degree of overcrowding in prisons. Rather than believing that the answer is in further fettering the discretion of the courts in regard to penalties, may I ask my hon. Friend what is happening about the prison building programme?

We are maintaining the prison building programme—it is on course. The current estimated cost is £360 million. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, it consists of 16 projects, of which three have been completed, five are under construction and four are at detailed design stage. The 16 new prison establishments that I have mentioned will provide a total of about 7,700 new places. This is work that has been neglected over many years, but we now have it in hand.

Does the Minister agree that one way in which prison overcrowding could be tackled in part would be by the Government bringing forward legislation in line with the suggestion of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in a recent report to the effect that bail needs to be reconsidered both in its terms of reference and in regard to decisions in the Reading justices case and the Nottingham justices case, which might be overturned by legislation. The courts could then from time to time during a period of remand reconsider bail. In this way, some people would get out on bail and reduce the pressure on prison accommodation.

I would need to consider that, but it did not sound appetising or encouraging from the description that the hon. Gentleman gave. Those who deserve prison sentences should get effective sentences, both as a means of punishment and for the protection of the public. For minor offences, the courts need to have in front of them a range of penalties, including alternatives to custody. It is important that the alternatives should be properly presented to them.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the excellent work being done at Morton Hall in my constituency, where low risk category C prisoners are kept in relaxed conditions? Does he agree that many prisoners in secure establishments could he kept properly in less secure establishments?

Let me consider that.

Returning to the matter raised with the Home Secretary by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), may I ask him to be much more precise about when he can make a statement? He has said that he has been considering the case. It is a matter that has aroused widespread concern. That being so, if it were to turn out that the person is serving a sentence for a crime he did not commit, there would be great public anger if that man were not released as quickly as possible.

I understand that. The right hon. Gentleman has put it fairly. It is important. It is not as straightforward as it seemed in the television programme. There is nothing unusual about that. It means that we need a bit of time, though not too much, to work out a sensible solution.

Whatever the position about those who have been convicted, is not the Home Secretary disturbed by the growing number of those held in custody on remand? What does he propose to do about that?

I am aware of the problem. We are trying to reduce the long periods that people have to wait for trial. Next month we are beginning field trials in Birmingham, Bristol, Maidstone and Southwark to apply time limits to the waiting period before trial, a principle well known to the hon. Gentleman because it originated in his country of origin.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has made of the downwind lethal range of the effects of detonation of bombs containing nerve agents; and what, in each case, were the sizes of the bombs, the assumptions about wind and weather conditions and the extent of the effects.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that training in protection against chemical weapons is given in special courses at the Civil Defence college, Easingwold.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department's scientific research branch is working on protective measures against chemical weapons.

Until a comprehensive and verifiable ban on chemical weapons is achieved, the Government judge it prudent to conduct such studies as part of their examination of ways of warning and protecting the population against chemical attack. The work is not yet complete. When it is, my right hon. Friend will consider what information and training it would be appropriate to make available.

In thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether the United Kingdom, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. has arm obligation to protect the civilian population from the effects of chemical warfare?

My hon. Friend will be aware that NATO has a civil defence committee, which is developing guidelines on a wide range of civil defence measures and long-term measures for the protection of the civilian population against the effects of chemical weapons.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that courses currently held at the Civil Defence college are inadequate to deal with defence against chemical weapons? Will he acknowledge that there should be specific courses designed for all emergency planning officers?

I accept that. At the moment the courses are less full than they should be, but my hon. Friend will recognise that some of the recommendations of the working party will no doubt be directed at the design of proper training.

Does my hon. Friend intend than the Government will provide protection for the general public along the lines already adopted by Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, for example, against the effects of chemical weapons?

I am aware that several countries, including the Scandinavian countries, have a mask system to deal with these matters, and no doubt that will be one of the things considered by the working party.

Is it not irresponsible of the Minister to pretend that people can be protected against chemical weapon attack? Would not he and his colleagues be better employed trying to convince President Reagan to forget about his plans to escalate the number of chemical weapons? The Government should come clean with the public and spend time getting an agreement with the Soviet Union to get rid of all chemical weapon stocks.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Soviet Union has 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons in stock. He might also take comfort from the fact that next year the United Kingdom will chair the chemical weapons working party at the Geneva talks. I trust that at that time progress will be made.

Will the Minister tell the House what animals are used in chemical weapons experiments?

No, Sir, because we are presently considering the abolition of chemical weapons.

My hon. Friend has already referred to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Defence on Tuesday, when he expressed concern about the 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons held by the Soviet bloc. If he shares my concern about this, not only for the Service men but for their families, will he try to persuade the Home Secretary to join the Secretary of State for Defence in ensuring that adequate resources are made available for dealing with this hazard?

My hon. Friend can rest assured that my right hon. Friend will certainly lose no time in dealing with this issue when it is properly analysed and recommendations are placed before him. I can assure my hon. Friend that civil defence training and preparation is one of the topics with which we deem it prudent to deal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on changes he has introduced regarding representations by hon. Members on immigration cases.

Since my letter to hon. Members in 1983, no major changes have been introduced into the system of dealing with such representations, although in the summer of this year, when we were faced with a very large influx of Tamils, my right hon. and learned Friend the then Home Secretary asked hon. Members to help by making their representations within 24 hours or by agreement as soon as possible thereafter.

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members with large numbers of Asians in their constituencies have no need at all to look for cases or to invite cases? Their surgeries are always packed to overflowing and their telephones never stop ringing with calls from Asian people who have been caused considerable hardship by his Department. Is he further aware that there has been some change in allowing Asian women into the country to marry Asian men who are legally here? Why is that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman says that there have been no changes? I have written to him about cases in this category and I am waiting for them to be dealt with. They are cases brought to me by the citizens of Bradford. I did not search for them.

If the hon. Gentleman is referring specifically to wives and financees, presumably he is referring to the change in the rules that took place in July. His question is about the system of representations, and that system has not changed at all. The hon. Gentleman is living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he believes that there is no abuse. I repeat that we never refuse entry to anybody unless there is the clearest evidence that he is not qualified to enter. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read carefully the letters that I sent to him when entry was refused in a particular case by an immigration officer and I upheld that decision.

When visitors from the New Commonwealth are allowed in for a limited time, how good is my hon. and learned Friend's monitoring system, and what steps does he take to make sure that those people are sent back and are not allowed to go to ground in some of our inner cities?

The figures that I gave earlier were for those refused entry and later returned abroad. That gives some indication of those returned. I should like our system to be more efficient. At present, those who are refused entry or granted entry for a limited period go on our computer, and if the system works perfectly we should be able to match those who go on to the computer at the beginning with those who leave. We are working to get a more efficient system, but I do not pretend that it is ideal yet.

Would not life be made much easier and pleasanter for certain hon. Members, for the Minister and his staff and for the poor people affected in these cases if he ensured that more appointments were made in his Department to handle such cases, and if more appointments were made in the Foreign Office abroad to handle applications in the countries of origin? Surely the Minister must be aware that the bottlenecks and delays that happen in these cases are entirely due, not to ministerial obfuscation, but to the shortage of staff, abroad and in Britain, to handle these cases?

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the figures that I gave earlier. I want him and other hon. Members to contemplate the enormous burden that has been placed on the immigration and nationality department simply as a result of 4,500 cases—the estimate for 1985 — where hon. Members have intervened or will intervene before the end of the year. That means that 4,500 letters must be written from the Department to hon. Members explaining what has happened in those cases. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members to say that there ought to be more staff, unless they are prepared to address themselves to the fact that something is going wrong with the system because some hon. Members are abusing—I am not afraid to use that word—that system.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with sporting organisations about the implementation of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act.

We are in continuing touch with the police and football organisations about the Act. We are awaiting information from the Football League about the effect on clubs' revenue.

Are the exemptions being granted by magistrates on a greater or lesser scale than Ministers envisaged when they brought forward the legislation? Has the Home Secretary been able to give assurances to other, well-regulated sports that he has no present intentions to extend the Act to them?

I certainly have no present intention to extend the rules to other sports. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I think that the number of local exemptions that magistrates are giving is broadly in line with what we expected. It was a deliberate act of the Government and Parliament to provide for local decision-taking by magistrates when exemption applications are made.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the implementation of the Act is having a disastrous effect on the finances of many football clubs? Will he give an undertaking to the House that, as the season progresses, he will look at the Act again, with a view to amending it at the end of the season so that responsible clubs can be exempted?

Yes, I gladly give that assurance. We need evidence, and so far we do not have adequate evidence.

Is the Home Secretary aware that it would be easy to eradicate football violence, simply by stopping football matches? That would be the effect of these measures and some safety measures which will have an impact on vulnerable clubs. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put together a rescue package for vulnerable clubs which could otherwise go out of business because of the Act and other measures?

I could have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am not sure that I would find it a very fruitful business. He might point out to me, with some justice, that the football industry, here and there, has considerable sums of money available for its own purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding Sunday trading; and what replies he has sent.

Since the debate on the report of the Auld committee report in the House of Commons on 20 May we have received representations on all sides of the argument about Sunday trading. We have replied, setting out the reasons for our proposals to abolish statutory restrictions on Sunday trading.

Has my hon. and learned Friend noticed that the Church of England General Synod, hardly a nest of bolsheviksvoted by 367 to one against the Government's proposals? Will he, therefore, hoist on board the storm cones going up behind him and drop these divisive and provocative proposals?

I do not believe that there will be any radical change in the character of Sunday as a result of this legislation. In this day and age we are all entitled to spend our Sundays in the way in which we think proper. Some of us may go to church in the morning and then wish thereafter to go to a garden centre or a do-it-yourself store and buy paint to paint the bathroom in the evening. Others may wish to go to church and then stay at home. I hope, incidentally, that they do not turn on the television or the radio or the electricity and thereby cause work for others; but they are entitled to spend their day in that way. This is a matter of fundamental freedom of choice and that is why we are right to legislate.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday, 24 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1984 20,000 young children went missing in this country, including 1,047 from Leicestershire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Including the hon. Member."] — While some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches may find a statistic like that rather amusing, as a member of the Conservative party, the family party, I find this particularly disturbing. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that a central register should be established in conjunction with the Home Office so that parents who are frightened and worred that their children may not be found can have help in locating them? Would he also reconsider Sunday trading because so many children will be left at home on Sunday and may be tempted to disappear when there is no one at home to look after them?

My hon. Friend highlights a serious social phenomenon. I am certain that he is right, that this is a matter that gives rise to growing concern. As I understand it, the police national computer facilities are available for the compilation of records, but I understand that my hon. Friend would wish the scope to be much wider than at present. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office would be happy to see him to discuss the matter further.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the BREL workshops in Springburn are in serious difficulties? The local authority has asked to be allowed to do a feasibility study, which is common practice among many local authorities when redundancies are declared, but the BREL management has refused to allow representatives of the local authority on to the premises. Will the Leader of the House ask his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport to look into this very serious matter and try to do something to help alleviate the serious situation in Springburn?

The hon. Gentleman raises a relatively narrow point, but undoubtedly one of great substance in Springburn. I shall comply with his request that I inform my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport of this development to see what can be done.

Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the report of Association of British Chambers of Commerce today, which shows a disastrous decline in the business confidence of manufacturing industry and in its orders? Does he agree that high interest rates, a high exchange rate and high pay settlements are completely undermining the competitiveness of British industry? Will this not lead to even higher unemployment, more bankruptcies and lower growth? What will the Government do about it?

I should take that liturgy of gloom more seriously if we were not now in our sixth trade surplus year. After real problems for manufacturing industry as it came to terms with the reality denied it over many years, manufacturing exports are rising at a rate of about 7 per cent. per annum.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to scan the newspapers for reports on the statesmanlike speech made last night by Chief Buthelezi, the leader of Inkartha, the biggest black political movement in South Africa? If he does he will be disappointed, because not a word appears about his remarks, which are both statesmanlike and constructive, and which totally reject mandatory economic sanctions against that country as a way of achieving political change.

Chief Buthelezi does speak for a substantial section of opinion in South Africa. I am certain that his advocacy of a policy that avoids sanctions will strike a chord with many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Not least, it will reinforce the remarks of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who said:

"Total or even selective trade sanctions will not succeed. The history of sanction-breaking in Africa tells us that."

Does the Leader of the House recall that it is exactly one year since the extent of famine in Ethiopia was revealed to the British people by the BBC? That famine is now endemic to all sub-Saharan Africa. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the Government reducing overseas aid in the same period?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government's aid programme has risen faster than prices over the last three years. I admit that that is in the context of an aid budget which is not that much more than £1,000 million, but it is roughly in line with the OECD percentage of gross domestic product. Before easy promises are struck in Central Hall or anywhere else about doubling the aid programme in the lifetime of a Parliament, I am sure that those who have as their bedside reading the book by Lord Barnett will recollect that the aid budget was cut in two successive years under a Labour Government.

Since the right hon. Gentleman chooses to make such comparisons, does he remember that between 1974 and 1979 the aid budget was increased by 15 per cent.? What is the increase likely to be — or, more accurately, what will the decrease be—between when the Conservative party came to office and when it loses office in 1987? The right hon. Gentleman chooses to preach to us about priorities. Does he understand that we all accept that Government spending programmes must involve priorities? It is Government priorities that we reject and resent. Why is it right to cut the tax on unearned income instead of increasing overseas aid?

The right hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong in saying that I adopt the stance of preaching on this or any other subject. The moral megaphone used by some politicians is wholly deafening and distasteful. We try to budget as we believe to be appropriate to our total public spending responsibilities. As the IMF episode under the last Labour Government demonstrated, whatever one's early intentions, one has in the end to deal with reality.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Leader of the House aware that GEC has recently declared 900 redundancies, 600 in the city of Coventry and 300 in Fife? Does he agree that as the company last year made £725 million profit, increased dividends to its shareholders by £12 million to £107 million, and now has a cash mountain of £1,400 million liquid assets it is disgraceful that workers in Coventry and Scotland, who made those profits and that cash mountain, should now be condemned to long-term unemployment?

Of course, I regret any factors that give rise to unemployment. As I once sought parliamentary representation in Coventry, admittedly without success—I am now happy to stick with Shropshire, which has proved much more congenial—I know that GEC as a company has brought great advantages and prosperity to Coventry over the decades. I suspect that many people would join me in feeling that if many other companies were as effective as GEC British industry generally would be far more competitive.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take time today to speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the statements made recently in a speech in the United States by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Is he aware that the Chief Constable said that there was not the necessary co-operation from the Garda in the Republic in the fight against the IRA? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his right hon. Friend is not prepared to allow the people of Northern Ireland, who are being bombed and murdered by the IRA, to have the full context of that speech, so that they can decide where the truth lies?

I am not sure that the full context of the speech exists. I do not wish to tangle with the hon. Gentleman on that, but I join him in saying that Sir John Hermon is a most distinguished public servant and that he deserves the support that he has indeed received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

When the Leader of the House next sees the Prime Minister, will he ask how she can support a Government who have destroyed our industrial base throughout the country, especially in my area of Sheffield, and presided over 4 million unemployed, yet can suddenly find a conscience about the unemployed and use that as an excuse not to impose further sanctions on South Africa?

I shall, of course, refer the question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as that was the request, but I should not like it to be thought that I was unable to make any comment of my own upon it. The hon. Gentleman seems to overlook the fact that our gross domestic product is rising by more than 2½ per cent. per annum, manufacturing investment is rising at 14½ per cent., there are clear signs of a growth in the employment base and fixed investment is at an all-time high. I know that Labour Members have a vested interest in gloom, but all those factors will come to fruition and make the next election extremely profitable.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 October.

I have been asked to reply.

If my right hon. Friend were to become leader of a party that sought to win the next general election, and if he had potentially among his more influential colleagues someone with the totally unpleasant characteristics of Mr. Bernard Grant, when asked in the House what he intended to do about Mr. Grant or somebody like him, would he demean himself by ducking the issue, as was done yesterday?

My hon. Friend asks a very interesting question of a somewhat hypothetical nature. The whole hypothesis contained in the expectation that I should be leader of the Conservative party is as improbable as it is entertaining. We are then asked to expect that a Conservative association would have the political misperception to choose a mirror image of Mr. Bernie Grant, which is also wholly improbable. All the tic-tac signs on the Opposition Benches demonstrate acute nervousness. In the House we have come to know and respect the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), distinguished in his service to the House, to the trade union movement and to the Labour party generally. It is his radicalism and his commitment to the Left which is now being turned aside for a very dubious replacement.

Is it true that the Prime Minister would uphold the suppression of a Government report on defects in council housing on the ground that it would unnecessarily worry millions of tenants to know that £20 billion must be spent on defects in estates such as the Broadwater Farm estate but there is not the slightest hope of the Treasury allowing local authorities to spend such money?

The charming and convinced way in which that question is proposed conceals the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not believe a word of it. He knows perfectly well that the Government have committed themselves to publish the report, and published it will be.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise out of questions?

Yes, Sir. I should like your guidance. Question No. 1 to the Prime Minister was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and concerned child protection, which is a serious subject. Because my hon. Friend is short in stature, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) felt obliged to cast an aside to the effect that my hon. Friend is one of the missing children, which reduced the House to uproar. To put the record straight, may I have your assurance. Mr. Speaker, that the House intends to treat the protection of children seriously? May I thank you for allowing me to raise this issue on a bogus point of order?

I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak on this important matter before. I am afraid that I have no responsibility for this issue, but I have a responsibility to protect the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). Had I heard the remark in question—I am glad to say that I do not hear everything—he would have received that protection today.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and the presence in Britain of Chief Buthelezi. Right hon. and hon. Members will have been worried to read in this morning's newspapers that Mr. Oliver Tambo——

Order. This sounds very like a continuation of Question Time.

I hope that the relevance of my point of order will become clear to you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Oliver Tambo, the revolutionary leader of the African National Congress, has been invited to give evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Why, as he is also in London, was Chief Buthelezi not asked to give evidence to the Select Committee——

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not responsible for who is or is not asked to give evidence to a Select Committee. That is entirely a matter for the Select Committee concerned.