asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now set up an inquiry into broadcasting.

I hope to make a statement shortly about the Government's policy on the future of broadcasting.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that it is now over four years since the last Labour Government asked Lord Annan to undertake an inquiry into broadcasting and that in the intervening period concern about the future development of broadcasting has increased and ought now to be diminished by the setting up of an inquiry?

It is now nearly four years since Ministers have been in a position to ask people officially to undertake inquiries, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to a report that a Mr. Lucas is to be the £7,000-a-year managing director of the future Radio Forth, that he has been in the position of investigating applications for local radio franchises in the department of the IBA which appointed the contractors, and that he is now to join the winning contractor? Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that this is a subject for a broadcasting inquiry to pursue, particularly with regard to the conduct of the IBA as this is a matter which is seemingly improper, if not worse?

My attention was drawn to the matter literally two minutes ago as I walked into the House. I will study the hon. Gentleman's question, and if he wishes to write further to me on this subject I shall certainly have it investigated and write to him.

The Home Secretary just mentioned that his attention was drawn to the case a few moments ago. Was his attention drawn to the details of the case which I reported to his private secretary about an hour ago, of the LBC at noon today having a self-confessed safebreaker on the radio, extolling the virtues of his profession and explaining how anyone can mix up nitro-glycerine to blow up safes? Does he not think it deplorable that people like this should speak on the radio, allowing vandals and others to hear such information, and will he take action to prevent it?

My attention was drawn to a different point which my hon. Friend had raised by telephone this morning. It did not relate to LBC at all. I shall, however, look into the matter which my hon. Friend has raised, just as I shall look into the one raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in setting up an inquiry, take into account the desire of the people of Scotland to have their own broadcasting corporation responsive to Scottish needs?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to make any changes in the regulations concerning the admission of immigrants.

I propose to make such limited changes as from time to time seem to be desirable.

Will the purpose of those limited changes be to increase or decrease the number of Commonwealth immigrants coming to this country?

The purpose will be neither to increase nor to decrease the numbers but to try to operate what is generally agreed to be necessary immigration controls in a way compatible with both justice and humanity.

Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible and take every care to seek to bring families together, particularly in cases where the male has been working over here and making a contribution for several years?

Yes, I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I am aware of his experience of these problems in his constituency.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny a report in The Guardian yesterday about illegal immigrants? If he is thinking of replacing the last Government's case-by-case approach by a general amnesty for an uncertain number of illegal immigrants, will he bear in mind that this would also have the effect of giving a right of entry to a much larger number, possibly several thousands, of their dependants?

There is a later Question on this issue.

Will the Home Secretary give an assurance that before making any relaxation of the regulations he will have the fullest consultation with local authorities and other responsible bodies in cities such as Leicester, which will feel the main impact of any such changes?

I shall bear that consideration in mind in making any major change affecting numbers, but, as I indicated in my reply to the original Question, I referred to limited changes, and I do not regard the decision which I took last week relating to the reuniting of split families amongst Ugandan Asians as being other than limited and highly desirable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps designed to prevent the increase in shoplifting from supermarkets.

The Home Office Stand- ing Committee on Crime Prevention is to consider the hon. Member's suggestion for an experiment in ways of reducing the incidence of shoplifting in food supermarkets.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that most helpful reply. I will leave it at that. I express my gratitude to her.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been received requesting the transfer of the Price sisters to a prison in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Representations have been received from a number of organisations and individuals. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) on 20th March.—[Vol. 870, c. 123.]

I have that reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread understanding in this House of the real difficulties that surround any decisions concerning the imprisonment of the Price sisters. None the less, will he say what consultations he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on this matter and what opinions have been expressed to him either by Mr. Brian Faulkner or by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)?

I have not myself had direct consultations, although I have naturally been in touch—as I would with any matters of this sort—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Brixton was never intended to accommodate women prisoners, that their presence imposes a heavy additional responsibility on the prison authorities, and that the frequent demonstrations taking place outside the prison inconvenience the families of prison officers and other local residents as well as adding to the burden of already overstrained police in Brixton?

I am aware of that point. Indeed, in a published letter which I wrote to my noble Friend Lord Brockway—which was, I think, fairly widely reported in the Press—I dealt with this matter at somewhat greater length than is possible in reply to a Parliamentary Question. I said that Brixton is not a suitable prison for them to be kept in over a long period.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, bearing in mind the seriousness of the offences committed and the possible prison security risk involved, the prime concern must be that these prisoners remain under maximum security conditions? If he agrees with that, will he say what maximum security facilities are available for women prisoners in Northern Ireland?

The latter question is hypothetical. I agree—indeed, I stressed in replies which I have given—that regard has to be had to security considerations. I have some regard to other considerations, but I shall certainly have regard to security considerations as well.

In considering this whole matter will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it would be a severe affront to many people in this country were the Price sisters to be returned to Ireland?

I shall bear in mind that it would be a severe affront to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to introduce measures to deal with the rehabilitation of offenders.

My right hon. Friend is considering the desirability of legislation on this subject, but he is not yet in a position to make a statement.

I appreciate that it is early days, but does not the Minister agree that this is one of the most important aspects of the reform of the penal code and that the sooner something can be proposed formally the better? There is widespread public sympathy with the idea that offenders who have served their sentences should not afterwards suffer, year in, year out, for penalties and crimes of a historical nature.

As the hon. Gentleman will know from the debate we had on this subject on the Private Member's Bill, I sympathise with the principle and hope that we shall be able to do something about it. We are investigating the matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill, a Private Member's Bill, had reached Committee when the General Election was called? A similar Bill had been through all stages in another place. Will my hon. Friend hasten Government consideration of this urgent problem?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that the Home Office grants payable to those charitable organisations which provide accommodation for offenders after they are released are in urgent need of review if such organisations are to continue to make provision for offenders?

As that goes outside the terms of the Question, I should prefer the hon. Gentleman to write to me about it. I shall certainly see that it is considered.

As the Government are short of legislation and the Bill is in a form in which it could immediately be introduced into the House, why do they not get on with it?

The answer is that the Government are not short of legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide that no elector shall be registered at one time in more than one constituency in respect of parliamentary elections.

My right hon. Friend is considering this in the context of the recommendations made by Mr. Speaker's Conference in the last Parliament.

In considering this matter, will the hon. Lady bear in mind not only the difficulties caused to electoral registration officers by the law as it stands but the fact that many people who have weekend cottages have the opportunity to switch their votes between constituencies on the basis of whichever is the more marginal of the two in which they are registered? Will she bear in mind also the need for adequate safeguards against double voting in one General Election?

I am aware of those facts. Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended unanimously that multiple registration should be prohibited. But it seems likely that major representation of the people legislation will have to await a later Session.

Is my hon. Friend aware that under present legislation it is possible for a person who is registered in two constituencies to vote at all by-elections in those constituencies even if, by chance, the by-elections occur on the same day? Does this not infringe the democratic principle of one man, one vote?

I am aware that dual or multiple registration increases the risk of plural voting, and this was borne in mind by Mr. Speaker's Conference.

As the hon. Lady has replied that the recommendation was unanimous, why need there be delay? Why should not legislation be be brought in this Session?

It is a precedent followed by all Governments, including the last Labour Government and the last Conservative Government, that legislation concerning representation of the people should not be introduced in a piecemeal manner. We are awaiting the final recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that the absence of the presiding officer's mark on a ballot paper should automatically invalidate it; and whether he will seek powers to leave this matter to the discretion of individual returning officers.

My right hon. Friend believes that this is a valuable safeguard which it would be wrong to abandon, and that to leave a discretion to the returning officers would be undesirable.

Is the hon. Lady aware that in my constituency in the recent election no fewer than 86 persons were disfranchised for this reason? While it is true that, had they been included, my majority would have been more than doubled—from 9 to 19—is it not still a matter of concern that in certain circumstances the declared will of the electorate could be flouted by a mistake in the electoral system?

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's predicament, but the object of the requirement is to safeguard against the introduction of stolen or fabricated ballot papers into the ballot boxes or at the count. It would place the returning officers in an extremely invidious position if it were left to their discretion to decide what was valid and what was not.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make recommendations to electoral registration officers for improving the accuracy of registers.

My right hon. Friend does not think that any general guidance is called for. Electoral registration officers are aware of the need for the register to be as acurate as it is humanly possible to make it.

In view of the large number of people who found at the recent General Election that they had been omitted from the electoral register, will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to impress on electoral registration officers the need for the fullest possible canvass when compiling the register, including the delivery each year of registration forms to all places of residence, and a personal visit to those homes from which no form is returned?

Yes, we are bearing those points in mind. We are encouraging the public to take the opportunity of checking the lists, which are available before the register is finally compiled. The present law prevents the correction of the register having effect at an election if it is made after notice of that election is given. I propose to arrange for further consideration to be given to that provision.

Is the hon. Lady aware that, after all the canvassing and other arrangements have been carried through, mistakes still occur? Should not there be a facility for some subsequent amendment to be carried out? In one particularly unfortunate case, a vicar in my constituency urged everybody that it was his Christian duty to vote in the election and then found that he was himself disqualified from doing so.

I think that cases such as that described by the hon. Gentleman are covered by my final remarks, when I said that I hope to make it possible to alter or correct the register after an election is announced.

Will the Minister consider the position of areas containing a large immigrant population, where landlords who are illegally charging too much rent and illegally failing to report those rents to the income tax authorities deliberately burn the forms when they arrive because they do not want the names to be put on the register? Is my hon. Friend aware that there may be 20 or 30 people living in the same house, for which landlords are drawing 20 or 30 rents of £10 each per week? Will the Minister consider this aspect, of which details have been sent to her?

Clearly, what my hon. Friend has described would be a criminal offence. If my hon. Friend knows any of the names and addresses concerned, I suggest that he tells the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in research into the possible ill effects of fumes arising from burning polyurethane foam and other plastic materials; and when recommendations in regard to the safety of families in the home, industrial employees and firemen affected by such hazards may be expected.

Good progress is being made with this research. An interim report on one of the projects has been published and the Home Office has issued advice to furniture manufacturers. Guidance has been, and will continue to be, given to the public, to industry and to the fire service whenever necessary.

Bearing in mind that accumulating evidence shows that the increasing use of this material represents a serious fire hazard because of the toxicity of the fumes produced, and that research has been going on for the last three years, is it not time that the public were told the results? If it is not possible to render this material safe, should it not be banned?

The public were given an interim report in February of this year on the three-year programme of research that is being carried out. As a result of that report, furniture manufacturers have been asked not to use certain fabrics in association with plastic foam, and guidance has been given to the public and to industry.

Is any consideration being given in the Home Department and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection about switching those aspects of consumer protection which deal with health and safety from the Home Department to the consumer Minister?

Consideration is being given to that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he proposes in the laws relating to nationality.

My right hon. Friend has this subject very much in mind, but it is a complex one and he cannot make any pronouncement on it at present.

While accepting that reply by the hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether, until such times as it is possible to introduce a comprehensive review of the law on nationality, the Government have plans to introduce any interim measures to try to clear up some of the anomalies between the regulations applying to EEC citizens and those applying to others? That would enable the law to be understood by many more people than I suspect understand it now.

One of the difficulties is that there has been a piecemeal approach over the years. We want to try to get a comprehensive review which takes into account all these factors. I should therefore be against an interim piece of legislation, and I am looking forward to a much more comprehensive review.

Does my hon. Friend not think it odd, even by British standards, that 900 million people—that is, a quarter of the world's population—are entitled to vote in British elections so long as they are resident in this country on 10th October each year? Would not the restriction of the vote to citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies be a valuable interim measure to introduce before the law is changed?

As my hon. Friend said, they are entitled to vote so long as they are allowed to reside here. Difficulties arise from the fact that they are not always allowed to reside here, and we have to consider these difficulties in the comprehensive review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on granting permission to reside in the United Kingdom to the alien husband of a British wife, in a case where the United Kingdom is the wife's normal domicile.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose amending the Nationality Act to ensure that British women have the same rights as British men in regard to the residence of their foreign spouses in this country; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to a Question by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) on 21st March.—[Vol. 870, c. 136.]

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, it does not convey much to me because I do not carry all these answers in my head. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no obstacle whatever is placed in the way of the wife of a British husband coming to live in this country with him, whether she is an alien or not? Is he aware that considerable bitterness is caused to women by having to choose between living with their lawful wedded husbands and living in the countries of their birth?

This is a real problem, and there are cases of considerable hardship, which I shall try to ease as far as I can by sympathetic administrative decisions. I believe that there is, too, an element of sex discrimination which is difficult to defend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time as considering this matter, look into the situation regarding the nationality of the children born to British wives married to alien husbands? In later years, this situation causes extreme grief. Such cases are pouring in daily. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the two matters together.

I give the hon. Lady that assurance.

Can the Home Secretary amplify in any way the more liberal use of the criteria that he will apply in exercising his discretion on compassionate grounds in these cases? It is intolerable that this inhumane sex discrimination against women should continue while there is a means of ending it by administrative action.

I do not think that the degree of discrimination can be wholly ended by administrative action. What is possible under administrative action is to determine the degree of hardship which is caused when a woman has to live abroad with her husband, and I shall look at the matter very carefully; but I have to balance the desirability of avoiding sex discrimination, accompanied by the determination not to have racial discrimination, against the fact that there must be a limit to the amount of immigration that this country can take.

In view of the great pressure, which undoubtedly will be brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, will he make public the detail of the thinking which he has summarised to the House about the consequences for increased immigration to which he referred?

I have endeavoured to put before the House some of the considerations which I am bound to have in my mind in dealing with this problem, which I regard as one of the most difficult problems that a Home Secretary has to face. If, as I imagine is the case, there is further discussion upon this issue in the House as well as elsewhere, I shall be most happy to aid that discussion by giving as much information as possible. However, in these spheres, the information cannot, by its nature, be wholly precise.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that no mention whatsoever is made in the Green Paper of the particular difficulty that women experience in obtaining hire-purchase or rental agreements? This is a staggering omission. Indeed, only two weeks ago I was asked to produce a husband to sign a form so that I might rent a television set, and that is the type of discrimination—

Order. This is Question Time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that women feel, and will he quickly establish the equal opportunities campaign in order to ensure that all forms of discrimination are abolished as soon as possible?

I fully understand the point raised by my hon. Friend. With respect, it is a little wide of the Question but it is not wide of the responsibilities of the Home Office, and I shall take fully into account what she has said.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House welcomes the caution as well as the sympathy with which he is aproaching this extremely delicate and difficult problem, remembering that it was his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when Home Secretary, who had to restrict the rights of wives because those rights were being abused as a way of getting round the immigration control several years ago? Will he keep carefully in mind the immigration aspects of this matter, so long as the system is under the intense pressure that it has been recently?

I am, of course, aware of the history of this matter and, as I have already indicated to the House, I shall take into account all the relevant factors.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to repeal the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875.

I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the provisions relating to picketing. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment indicated in the House on 22nd March, the Government have the law on picketing under review, in the context of the projected legislation to repeal the Industrial Relations Act.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he also consider the possibility of freeing from prison the recent victims of this Act?

That is a much wider question, and one of which I should need to have notice. We take the view that there should be an amendment of the law to allow peaceful picketing, which permits vehicles to stop but does not include intimidation or violence. What was alleged—and proved to the satisfaction of the jury—in the Shrewsbury case was that intimidation and violence did occur. The matters are now under appeal, and therefore I cannot comment further upon them.

We shall want to look carefully at any changes made to the law of picketing, but will the hon Gentleman confirm that the Home Office will remain responsible for the law on picketing, particularly as it has specific responsibilities for the rights and freedoms of individual citizens?

The Bill is in the general domain of the Secretary of State for Employment, but the picketing provisions are within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and we are being consulted about these provisions.

Will it remain the responsibility of the Home Department?

I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that it will remain the responsibility of the Home Office to deal with this kind of criminal legislation, but it is part of the general remit for the amendment of the law relating to industrial relations and is therefore being considered by the Secretary of State for Employment.

Will my hon. Friend, at the same time, look at the Blemish of the Peace Act 1346, which was invoked recently in the course of an industrial dispute at St. Thomas Hospital?

I shall certainly look at it with some interest.

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to see that in amending the law of picketing there is no breach in the principle that people may not be stopped or detained against their will for the communication of information? Will he, as a Home Office Minister, and his right hon. Friend bear in mind that Ministers owe a duty to the whole community in this matter?

Of course, we are aware of that responsibility. We have to try to strike the right balance. In their proposals the Government agree with the TUC in saying that the wrong balance is struck in the present law as interpreted in the recent House of Lords case of Broome. The Government want to find a balance which is fair to all citizens affected by picketing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that the arrangements for procuring animals for experimental purposes in laboratories exclude the possibility of using stolen animals.

Receiving stolen animals is a criminal offence, and I have no reason to suppose that laboratory authorities are unaware of that fact, if they buy animals for experimental use.

May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the representations made to me by the RSPCA? That society thinks that there is considerable cause for concern. May I send her the evidence on the subject?

Certainly, I should like the evidence. I remind anybody involved in the stealing of these animals that the theft of domestic animals is an offence under the Theft Act 1968, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports have reached him of armed and uniformed bodies undertaking paramilitary training in England or Wales; and what action has been taken.

The Chief Constable of Lancashire tells me that nine men have been charged with criminal offences and have been committed for trial.

Would not it have helped if the hon. Gentleman had paid a tribute to the Lancashire police for the efficient way in which they dealt with this matter once it came to light? In view of what has happened in Lancashire, is not it right that police forces throughout the country should be alerted to what happened in Lancashire and see that it does not happen anywhere else? Can it not be made impossible for us to have private armies training with live ammunition in this country, whether they call themselves "Loyalists", "UDA", "IRA", or whatever?

I think that the police did the job which they always do, and they did it efficiently and well. If the hon. Gentleman had waited a little before expressing concern about the matter, he would have seen that the police do carry out their job in cases of this kind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for tackling urban deprivation.

My right hon. Friend is now considering how he can most usefully develop the work of the urban deprivation unit, in conjunction with the urban programme and the community development projects.

We are glad that the Government have decided to leave this coordinating responsibility with the Home Secretary. Will the Government do their utmost, on the basis of the studies already made by that unit, to get new action projects under way in some of our inner city areas within the next few months?

We are anxious to make progress in this area as quickly as resources and the time necessary for careful preparation allow.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now completed his consultation on the Maxwell Stamp Report on the taxi trade; and if he will make a statement.

During the last three years consultations have been proceeding at official level. My right hon. Friend intends now to review the progress made and to consider how best to bring matters to a conclusion.

Does the hon. Lady accept that that is as unsatisfactory an answer as I had from her predecessor, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane)? Does she not believe that three years' official consultation while the growing scandal of mini-cabs goes on is far too long? Will the hon. Lady please try to produce a White Paper during the time that she may occupy her office over the next 12 months?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Maxwell Stamp Report was with the Conservative Government for three years. We have had the report for just over three weeks, and we shall act on it urgently.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the last Labour administration the Government did something in the matter of the London taxi cabs? Is she aware that the Maxwell Stamp Committee was set up, but in the interim of three and a half years nothing has been done?

I can only deplore the limited progress which has been made in the last three years and assure hon. Members that we are making every possible speed with preparing conclusions on the report.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency arrangements he is making for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom.

No elaborate preparations would be required. The arrangements could be made only in the light of the actual circumstances.

It is of significance that the Home Secretary has not answered this Question. As the Prime Minister has indicated that it is almost certain that there will be a referendum on the Common Market, perhaps the hon. Lady will find out from her right hon. Friend whether it is equally almost certain that the Home Secretary will resign again on this issue.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, in our election manifesto we are committed, following renegotiation of the terms of entry into the Common Market, to consult the British people, by either a General Election or a referendum.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that if there should be a referendum on this matter she will consult me as to the terms of the questions to be put?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to protect prison officers and civilians employed in the prison service from the growing practice of being used as hostages by the more violent inmates of prisons.

I am not sure what specific measures the hon. Member has in mind beyond the security arrangements applied in all establishments for the protection of staff against possible assault from prisoners. My right hon. Friend believes that existing powers under the prison rules are adequate to deal with such hostage incidents as are not made the subject of criminal proceedings.

Does the hon. Lady accept that this is a matter of considerable concern in my constituency, where there are no fewer than three prisons and increasing incidents of this type and there is urgent need to amend the existing rule book to ensure, among other things, that prisoners taking such action are dealt with by outside courts?

The two main disciplinary offences for which a prisoner who takes a member of staff hostage would be most likely to be charged are committing an assault and offending against good order and discipline.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers to prohibit the publication of all public opinion polls from the date of Parliament's dissolution until after polling day in all General Elections.

This matter was considered in 1967 by Mr. Speaker's Conference, which recommended by a majority that the results of public opinion polls should not be published for a period of 72 hours before the close of the poll. This recommendation was not endorsed by Parliament, and I am not at present persuaded that any further action is necessary or desirable.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this kind of political fortune telling, which is about as accurate as the palmist on the pier, tends to distract people's attention from the really important issues of an election? Is it asking too much that for just three blissful weeks we and the country should be spared the peddling of these pointless predictions?

That was not the view that the House took on previous occasions before both the 1970 and the 1974 elections. I would judge, on the whole, that if the results of those elections had any effect it would have been to make the public rather more sceptical about public opinion polls. But I think that scepticism is a quality that individuals can exercise for themselves, and I doubt whether any prohibition that might lead to a black market passage of information if some people heard of what was in a suppressed poll would really be beneficial.

asked the Prime Minister to which Minister he has assigned responsibility for population policy.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 21st March to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short).—[Vol. 870, c. 152.]

Will the Prime Minister indicate whether the noble Lord to whom he referred in that reply has sufficient time and sufficient staff at his disposal to carry out the work required, particularly now that the assumptions about economic growth, on which the Population Panel based its report, are seen to be in question?

Yes, I think that the noble Lord has sufficient time and sufficient staff to do his job.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Government, like their predecessors, accept the recommendations of the Ross Panel?

Yes, Sir, but I think that the attitude of the House on all these matters will be that the greatest happiness will be realised if those families who want to have children are able to have them and those who do not want to are able not to have them.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to meet the Heads of Government of the present members of the European Free Trade Area as soon as possible.

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the European Free Trade Area provided for Britain a most valuable association of sovereign States, and that if he were able to establish similar arrangements for the whole of Western Europe, with strong overseas links, that policy would be likely to have the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people?

When EFTA was set up it had the full support of all parties in the House and it did a valuable job in that situation. What I think the hon. Member is suggesting is something that has been tried by successive Governments, going back to Plan G, proposed by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). Although this has raised hopes that something on those lines could be worked out, it has never materialised.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the agreements made with the EFTA countries gave advantages to those countries at least comparable with those extracted from us on membership of the EEC? Will he look at the replies which his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave yesterday on the question of renegotiation? If renegotiation does not come to the point that the Government want, will we look at the question of withdrawal?

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in the debate on foreign affairs on Tuesday of last week, when he set out once again the position of the Labour Party and the Government.

Will the Prime Minister also agree that unless Britain had become a member of the European Community, the other EFTA countries which did not become full members would never have been able to get the arrangements that they obtained? If Denmark, Ireland and Britain had not become full members, Norway would never have been able to get the arrangements she has.

I think that Norway, and to some extent Sweden, un- doubtedly benefited from some of the consequential provisions arising out of the fact that EFTA had virtually disappeared as a result of the accession of other members to the EEC. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the difference between the two Front Benches on this matter relates to the terms on which entry was secured.

asked the Prime Minister what are his plans for the future of the Central Policy Review Staff.

The Central Policy Review Staff will continue to carry out the same functions for Ministers as under the previous administration and Lord Rothschild will remain as the head of the unit.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is to be the precise division of responsibility between the "Think Tank", on the one hand, and Dr. Donoughue and the new political Mafia on the other? Will he also reassure the House that the "Think Tank", for its part, will be encouraged under this administration, as it was under the last, from time to time to point out to the Government where they have not diverged from their election manifesto but would be well advised to do so?

I join the hon. Gentleman in his implied tribute to the "Think Tank". I am satisfied that it clearly did a remarkably successful job for the previous Government. [Laughter.] Quite seriously, I think that its work is of a high order and of equal value to the present Government.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for future discussions with the Confederation of British Industry on the subjects of the economy and industrial relations.

I shall be seeing it later this afternoon, Sir.

May I press a point on the right hon. Gentleman that I pressed from the other side of the House in the last Parliament? With all respect to the CBI, how can it be representative of the whole of British industry, particularly of small firms, the majority of which are not members? Would not the right hon. Gentleman get a much better picture of the small firms, the grass roots of industry, particularly in the regions, by consulting the chambers of commerce? If he were to talk to the chambers of commerce now, would he not learn how the small firms have been clobbered by the Budget and how they are worried about their cash flow?

I do not entirely agree that the CBI is incapable of representing small firms. At its quarterly meetings a large number of small firms appear and are very vocal. But I agree that there are special problems for small businesses. They were clobbered worst of all by the three-day week, as I happened to mention in the debate on the Gracious Speech. We are all aware of the serious liquidity problems that they are facing as a result not only of the three-day week, but of the need now to build up stocks and components.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the CBI's lukewarm attitude to the Government's proposals, in stark contrast to its attitude towards the previous administration, will not discourage the Government from carrying those proposals through?

I have said that I shall be meeting the CBI this afternoon and we shall then be able to hear directly its views on these matters.

The Prime Minister has mentioned the question of liquidity. How will he explain to the CBI the need for the measure in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget which will further reduce the liquidity of British industry by between £1,000 million and £1,200 million in the year?

I shall be very interested to study the figures just given by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, and I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends who will be taking part in the debate will be happy to base their replies on the information that he has just given the House.

I strongly repudiate what the Prime Minister has said. When the National Union of Mineworkers introduces an overtime ban and then challenges the country with a strike, the loss is its responsibility.

May I, in the friendliest way, advise the right hon. Gentleman not to keep on fighting the General Election and repeating the arguments he used on that occasion? In an earlier question he referred to my right hon. Friends having concealed figures from the House. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the central features of the Budget Statement was the very large increases required in the prices of public industries, which followed the policy enunciated by the then Chancellor last December and the figures that the right hon. Gentleman the then Prime Minister systematically concealed from the electorate throughout the General Election.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to meet the Prime Minister of Israel.

I have no plans to meet Mrs. Meir at present, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend nevertheless seek at the earliest possible opportunity to impress upon the Prime Minister of Israel that an essential concomitant of a permanent peace in the Middle East is what was described in last week's debate by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary as a personality for the Palestinian people?

The House well knows the position that the Labour Opposition and I took on the Middle East. But in every speech I have made in this country and in Israel I have stressed the very great importance and urgency of the solution of the Palestinian problem.

When the Prime Minister sees Mrs. Meir, will he tell her how deeply a large number of people in this country, both Jewish and non-Jewish, resent his Government's decision to approve the appointment of the new Egyptian ambassador, in view of his known past Fascist connections?

I know the strong feeling in different parts of the House and the country. Agreement was given some time ago, before the present Government came to office. This is a matter that we have considered, but after the exchanges we have had, I believe that we cannot go back on the decision taken by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of Lord Balogh as Minister of State, Department of Energy, within the Government.

The Minister of State in the Department of Energy will act as the Secretary of State's deputy and deal with all matters concerning the Department in the House of Lords. He will also take a particular interest in that part of the Department of Energy which is concerned with the development of a strategic approach to energy problems.

Is Lord Balogh there primarily in an advisory capacity, or has he any executive powers? What steps does my right hon. Friend think are desirable to transfer a much greater part of the decision-making to Scotland than has hitherto been acceptable?

My noble Friend is serving as a Minister of State and not in an advisory capacity. I think it is fair to say that he was very critical of previous Governments, of both parties, on the matter of North Sea gas and oil. My own view is that he was right when he criticised both those Governments—our own and the Conservative Government which followed. So far as Scottish responsibility is concerned, I gave a pledge during the election that there would be an elected Minister from a Scottish constituency in charge of these things, and two elected Members from Scotland are in the Energy Department.

Would it not remove a lot of uncertainty about energy and oil if the Prime Minister could arrange for Lord Balogh—or any other energy Minister—to say clearly whether the Government have dropped their plans to nationalise North Sea oil?

I set out the position clearly and at some length during the debate on the Gracious Speech—some hon. Members thought I went on for too long on that subject—and we are now formulating our policy. The proposals that I made in Edinburgh and Glasgow on these matters are forming part of it.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that there is adequate co-ordination between the Department of Industry and the Department of the Environment in arranging for the recycling of products.

There is already close co-operation between Departments, but discussions are taking place to ensure the fullest co-ordination in this increasingly important field.

Is the Prime Minister aware that I am glad that he calls it "increasingly important", but does he know that people who return bottles or empties, even when an appeal is made for their return, are often rebuffed? Is there not a case for a coordinated campaign between central and local government and private enterprise?

I shall consider that. Certainly, there has been a great problem. Even before the difficulties of the last few months, there was a growing shortage of milk bottles and other containers. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is strong concern about this subject in the country generally, and that many large companies—for instance, Cadbury-Schweppes—are refusing to accept returned containers? Would it not be an excellent idea to put pressure on the CBI to ensure its co-operation in getting these companies to do their duty in this respect?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his suggestion. I shall see that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friends concerned. But both my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) will be aware of the great improvements in recycling techniques and methods over the past few years. None is greater, I think, than the saving of newsprint, brought about as a result of the de-inking process developed by a public corporation—the National Research Development Corporation.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that it is regrettable that many local authorities will not collect waste paper separately, even when householders bother to separate it? Surely this is a matter about which he himself could do something.

I shall ensure that the point raised by the hon. Gentle- man is also brought to the attention of my right hon. Friends. Certainly the activity by local authorities in the collection of waste paper varies greatly from area to area, but with the shortage of paper, not only for newsprint but for packaging and other purposes, this matter is very urgent.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We reached No. 21 in Oral Questions to the Home Secretary. Question No. 22, standing in my name, concerns complaints against the police. Since the publication of a Government report on this subject is imminent—indeed, may take place today—may I ask whether the Home Secretary has made application to answer Question No. 22 orally?

The answer is, "No".