asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next proposes to meet the Chairmen of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now technically possible to superimpose instantaneous and verbatim captions on live television programmes, and that these can be beamed specifically on to the sets of deaf people without being beamed on to all television sets? That has great significance for deaf people, because it means that television is now available to them for the first time. It is a British breakthrough and could have significance to deaf people throughout the world. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the BBC and the IBA to consider the possibility of financial support?

Research is taking place at Southampton and Leicester for the BBC and the IBA, and the programmes which the BBC is already showing, and which the IBA proposes to show, indicate that both organisations are considering the matter. I have no responsibility, because it should not be for me to tell the IBA and the BBC what to do. However, I shall talk about the matter. I know that the organisations are seized of it and of the great technical changes that are now opening up before them.

Before the right hon. Gentleman meets the two gentlemen concerned, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is widespread public concern about the amount of sex, violence and swearing on these television channels? Unless the institutions deal with that themselves, some form of censorship will become inevitable.

First, it is a man and a woman, not two men, but that is by the way. There are problems. When I publish the White Paper on the Annan Report, the question of censorship, or at least control, and how it should be imposed, is clearly a matter to which the House will have to give its attention. However, it would be wrong for the House to censor programmes transmitted by the BBC, the IBA, or any other organisation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most worrying problems of the BBC and ITV companies at present is that there is between £3 million and £5 million worth of brand new high technology equipment lying around unused and untouched because the unions refuse to handle it? Does he realise that it is partly due to the sharp edges of the Government's pay policy that the unions are using quasi-Luddite tactics, the employers being quite powerless to strike a productivity deal with the television unions even if they wish to do so?

Whatever the differences may be on the precise matter, pay policy is a matter which it has been right for the Government to pursue in the fashion that they have. It is not my responsibility—I do not believe that it should be the responsibility of the Home Secretary —to get involved in negotiations between the trade unions and the organisations concerned. I know that in all spheres of life, whenever people feel that new techniques will put them out of jobs and when they are not in the kind of professions where they can pick up jobs easily, problems arise. However, I know that the organisations are concerned about this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has now received about the regulations on television licences for pensioners.

During the 12 months to 15th May about 300 representations have been received.

Is it not time that my hon. Friend and the Home Office considered concessionary television licences for pensioners, as many pensioners who live in sheltered warden accommodation receive concessionary television rates? Is it not necessary that some form of system be worked out so that all pensioners qualify for concessionary television licences?

My hon. Friend will know that this matter will form part of the consideration of the Annan Committee's recommendations. Annan recommended not only that no further concessions be introduced but that those in existence should be phased out. It is the Government's task to bring before the House a White Paper on this matter, and they will do that in the near future.

Will the Minister take on board the minority view that it is extremely dangerous to move from concessionary fares to concessionary television licences and that the real solution to the problem posed by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) is for a substantial increase in the pension, thereby leaving the individual pensioner to do with it as he or she would? Does the Minister accept that not all pensioners wish to travel and not all pensioners necessarily wish to watch television?

I accept that there is always an argument whether cash benefits rather than benefits in kind are preferable for pensioners, but for the hon. Gentleman to put it as he did was ridiculous. This Government have done more for pensioners than any other Government, and certainly more than the Conservative Government of 1970–74.

Is my hon. Friend aware that already a wrong interpretation has been put on my right hon. Friend's memorandum on concessionary television licences? Is he aware that, for instance, in Hemsworth some of my constituents who live within a warden scheme are being denied the concessionary television licence because they live in houses, rather than in purpose-built dwellings? Is that not wrong, and should not the postmasters responsible be told so?

My right hon. Friend will certainly look at that matter. As my hon. Friend will know, a concession which involved a further 100,000 pensioners was announced in the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 6th April.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the White Paper on the Annan Report on broadcasting to be published.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish his plans for the future of television broadcasting.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to announce future policy on local radio.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now announce the date for the publication of his White Paper on broadcasting.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the section in the Annan Report on television licensing was totally unsatisfactory, and virtually glossed over the subject? Is he further aware that there is a strong feeling that television licences should be abolished and that they should be paid for out of taxation?

Hear, hear.

Will my right hon. Friend take account of this matter in his White Paper, together with the fact that many people feel strongly on this issue?

I certainly will take that matter into account. It is one of about 174 matters which have to be brought before the House of Commons. We might as well face this matter before the discussion takes place. The BBC feels very strongly that if it were financed directly from the Treasury, it would inhibit its freedom and the kind of development which has taken place over the years. When we bring forward the response to the Annan Report, it will be an admirable subject to discuss in November, December, January, February, March and April.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that although we wish to maintain the independence of the BBC, a growing number of people feel that there should be a method of raising finance other than the licence? Will he look closely at this matter? It would be a most attractive proposal to put to the country—another method of raising revenue for the BBC, rather than the licence—as most households now have television. Will he also tell us, prior to the announcement of the complete proposals, what proposals are contemplated for the fourth channel?

There is a problem about the fourth channel, and a channel for Wales. We shall give our views on Annan in the White Paper. I tried to indicate earlier that the merit of a White Paper following the report was that there would be room for further discussion, because practically every issue that comes up in Annan is capable of being discussed and divided upon. In my view, the legislation will make devolution look very simple.

Dealing directly with the matter of local radio, is the Home Secretary aware that, while we await the Government's reactions to the Annan Report, there are vast areas of this country, particularly in East Anglia, which have no local radio station, either BBC or independent? Will the Home Secretary turn his attention to the possibility of dealing with this matter, possibly on an interim basis?

I think that in whatever form we answer the proposals in the Annan Report, which will be relatively soon, we can make a move well in advance of the major proposals on local broadcasting.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Home Department's gestation period for this matter has been rather longer than that of an elephant? It has been hard on those of us who were trying to impregnate the beast in the first place. Will he give an undertaking that there will be time for a debate on the White Paper before the recess and that there will be proposals, either in the manifesto or the Queen's Speech, as the case may be, particularly in view of the cynical attitude of the Opposition in embracing the commercial lobby which wishes to extend the present duopoly?

I cannot give a commitment about the manifesto; that is a long way ahead and we need not put our minds to that. Whether there will be a debate is not a matter for me, either. I am keen to publish the White Paper. We certainly need an extensive discussion before I bring forward legislation next year.

On the question of licence fees, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), does the Home Secretary appreciate that it would be abominably unfair to make those who watch television have their licences paid out of taxation, as if taxation were paid by God and licences by man? Will he also look again at the more important unfairness that those in rural areas, such as Kinross and West Perthshire, who do not get reception even on one channel, neverthless pay the full licence?

On the first point, which is not easy to resolve, there will be great discussion.

As regards reception in different areas, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been on to the Department. If there is any particular point, perhaps he will let me know. There are difficulties in this respect, but some of the technical changes and reallocations of frequencies this year should deal with many of them.

Is it not correct that there has to be a decision about an increase in the BBC licence revenue before January, February, March and April of next year? In those circumstances is it not right that we should consider whether the licence fee should continue or should be paid out of taxation or the revenue from the levy on ITV?

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for braying my "Hear, hear." I apologise also to the new Cromwell of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Price). This seemed to be a perfectly proper way of assenting to the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—a proposition which carries a much larger measure of approval than the Home Secretary seems to think.

Whether it is donkeys or elephants, I do not follow the analogy completely. My hon. Friend is wrong about the time scale of licences. Certainly I could not leave the BBC, dependent as it is on licence money, deficient in funds, without passing new legislation.

The White Paper will be out soon. We shall have a discussion and we shall have to take the matter from there. It would be wrong to believe that there are clear views between both sides of the House about the licence fee and whether it should be paid for by taxation.

Do not this afternoon's Questions make it clear to the Home Secretary that the Government's prolonged delay in producing the report and their White Paper on Annan is damaging to the future of the television industry? Is it not extremely important that they produce the White Paper as early as possible?

In view of the remarks of the Home Secretary the other day, in which he said that he was against creating further bureaucracies, may we be assured that when the report is published it will not propose another bureaucracy for the Open Broadcasting Authority?

The right hon. Gentleman can be sure that I shall not make the mistake that his Administration made when it introduced local government reform and built the biggest bureaucracy of all. The right hon. Gentleman knows that bureaucracies are not created by Labour Governments. We seem to inherit them. I shall watch the situation.

The Annan Report contains 500 pages and 174 recommendations. We shall publish a White Paper on them. We shall do better than the Opposition. They leak a document every weekend to solve the major problems of the day in two or three pages.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people detained as illegal immigrants have been released pending investigation into their cases in 1976, 1977 and 1978.

The information requested on illegal entrants who have been detained is not readily available on an annual basis. On 22nd May, 35 illegal entrants liable to detention solely under the authority of an immigration officer had been released temporarily while arrangements were being made for their removal or while the Home Office looked into representations made on their behalf.

Does my hon. Friend agree that most of these people are citizens who have been here since before 1st January 1973 and who have jobs and homes? They are respectable people who have never been in trouble with the law, so that there is no difficulty or danger involved in releasing them. Does my hon. Friend agree that many of them are being treated worse than prisoners who have received sentences? Is she aware that many of them are being detained in their cells for 20 hours a day and are not able to take the one-hour exercise which should be available to them each day?

I can assure my hon. Friend that temporary admission is granted when there are substantial and compassionate considerations or when it is considered that an illegal entrant is unlikely to disappear. But prison offers the only secure accommodation available.

Is the Minister aware that security is not a problem in most of these cases? Does she not agree that it should be easy to find alternative ways of ensuring that such people do not evade the law?

The hon. Member must bear in mind that these people are illegal entrants and that they therefore have a powerful incentive to disappear if they are released.

Is not my hon. Friend concerned about the length of time that some of those who are charged with offences under the Immigration Act are detained in prison, particularly since a significant proportion of them are subsequently allowed to stay? Can she take urgent steps to speed up the procedures?

We are taking steps to speed up the procedures. The reason why people are detained for some length of time is that in many cases representations are made by the individual or his representative. That is right, but it prolongs the detention. In many cases there is also delay in securing valid travel documents, particularly when inquiries have to be made abroad about citizenship or nationality.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable on measures taken to prevent violent crime in Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

We are aware of the chief constable's concern at the level of violent crime. Arrangements already exist for my right hon. Friend to be kept fully informed on the problems facing the police and the measures being taken to deal with them, both in the West Midlands and elsewhere. I must stress, however, that responsibility for operational matters rests with individual chief officers of police.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that in Birmingham many innocent, law-abiding people dare not walk the streets at night for fear of being mugged? Is it not time that this disgraceful state of affairs was changed and that the Minister took action? Is she aware that we are 750 police officers short in the West Midlands? Surely the most important deterrent is detection, but there are not enough police officers to detect violent criminals.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the chief constable recently. I am assured that the chief constable is taking every possible step that he can to deal with the rise in violent crime in that area. He has mobilised additional support for his area and there are a special patrol group and a robbery squad.

The strength of the force in the West Midlands has increased by 527 since it was formed in April 1974. I agree that every effort must be made to recruit more policemen.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recently, following representations to the chief constable by local Labour councillors in the Soho area of Birmingham and by the Member of Parliament for that area, the situation has improved to such an extent that, with the additional police officers who have been drafted into the area, the crime rate has been substantially reduced? In the light of that, will my hon. Friend accept the view of most people that whatever can be done must be done, in addition to the existing measures, particularly about the recruitment of police?

I am pleased that my lion. Friend appreciates that efforts have been made by the chief constable of the area and generally to counteract the rise in violent crime. Still more must be done. The real answer lies in increasing the strength of the police force in the area.

Would not one way to help the fight against crime in Birmingham and elsewhere be to release more police to fight crime and to spend less police time on administrative burdens and chores? Has the Minister noted the remarks of senior police officers that a torrent of Acts and regulations is making the administrative burden on the police intolerable? What steps is the Home Office taking to review the legislation and to see what can be done to reduce the administrative burden on the police?

I agree that it is essential to release more police officers to fight violent crime. Recently the number of civilians in the force has been increased to deal with the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Police Federation.

I met Mr. Jardine at the Association of Chief Police Officers' joint conference yesterday. I have no plans to meet him again at present.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the Police Federation, will he discuss the continuing trend of experienced policemen and policewomen retiring and resigning prematurely and the remedies to the problem? When is the Edmund-Davies Committee likely to report? Will it be before the Summer Recess?

I hope to receive the report shortly. Premature retirement from the police is a major problem. But, as I said at the ACPO conference yesterday, we have 7,500 more police today than we had four years ago. Recruitment is high. Wastage is a problem, but resignations normally happen during the probation period. We shall have to look at that problem. I hope that when there is a substantial increase in pay shortly we shall not believe that that will necessarily solve the problem. Pay is a major part of the problem, but it might well prove that there are other factors to explain why young men do not stay in the police force.

Is it not the case that the proportion of women officers in police forces has never been higher and that the chairman of the Police Federation yesterday publicly disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman and expressed the view that in many cases this factor was preventing the police from dealing effectively with violent crime? What is the Home Secretary proposing to do about that?

I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman supports the chairman of the Police Federation on this matter, although there are other views on it. Women represent 7 per cent. of the police force. I do not regard that figure as too high. I believe that the problem is not concerned with the recruitment of women but that we ought to recruit more men. The Government have set about that problem with a deep-seated inquiry to examine the major factors and to replace the inquiry of 1961. That is a better approach than having given 10 per cent. plus a little bit more last year, which would not have solved the problem. Our inquiry will handle the matter in the proper way, and I shall bring the Edmund-Davies Report before the House very shortly.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Police Federation, will he discuss with him the problem of co-operation between the police and the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedures on the experiments that the Royal Commission wants to carry out, particularly into tape recording? Such an experiment could be as helpful to the police as it could be to the courts in the saving of time. Is my right hon. Friend sure that sufficient co-operation exists so that these experiments will be properly concluded and the Royal Commission will be able to take cognisance of their results?

I hope that the Police Federation gives its views on this matter to the Royal Commission. However, it is most important that those who run the police force should give their views. The Police Federation does not run the police force. I am sure that both the federation and the chief officers will give their views to the Commission, and I want to do all I can from the Home Office to speed up the experiment.

Does the Home Secretary agree that it is not only the question of pay that is causing frustration in the police? Will he look at the complaints procedures? I support them, but the bureaucracy in the right hon. Gentleman's Department is causing concern to the police. It is taking chief officers and others way out of their own areas for long periods of time. Surely this could be simplified, and this would lead to fewer policemen leaving the service over complaints which turn out to be trivial.

I object to trivial complaints, and I agree that they present a problem. But it is right that, for example, I should ask a senior officer from well away from Lancashire to look at the serious matters that are under investigation there. In such circumstanstances, it is important to get senior officers from elsewhere. I accept the hon. Member's comment about frivolous complaints, but it is important to the police for serious complaints to be investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he remains satisfied with electoral law, in view of the fact that during the Lambeth, Central by-election, at a public election meeting for the National Front candidate the meeting was held up until National Front members arrived in coaches and only selected members of the general public indicated by Mr. Martyn Webster to the police, were allowed in, as a distinct minority; and if he will make a statement.

I am reviewing the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1949 relating to election meetings.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that throughout the country it is believed that at election time public meetings are open to the general public? Is he further aware that nothing is more conducive to disorder than the sort of events that occurred at Lambeth, Central on that occasion? Will my right hon. Friend expedite his inquiries so that when the elections take place we can be sure that if such situations occur again people generally can go into the meetings to assess candidates and, in the case of the National Front, vote solidly to keep them out?

That is not an easy matter to resolve. Legislation on it goes back to the Local Government Act 1894. That and the 1918 legislation referred to schools. The Representation of the People Act 1949 extended the law to other buildings. I know, having spent all my life in the Labour Party—I make a narrowly political point here—that one of the advantages of this legislation is that any candidate can get a hall. In my early days local authorities did not allow Labour Party people access to such accommodation.

And the British Legion.

Perhaps it was the British Legion, too, but that is not my responsibility, I am glad to say. In these matters it is important, when we have the legislation, not to deal only with one aspect and then limit the freedom of other people to cherish that freedom, which took so long to secure.

Does the Home Secretary accept, and with the possible exception of all-ticket meetings, that election meetings held in public premises during campaigns should be open to those who wish to hear the candidates speak?

I agree with that. I have been considering carefully just what is a public meeting. That definition has not been tested in law, and it is not an easy question to decide. There is the point that under criminal legislation—and we are talking so far about civil offences—the chairman at a public meeting has the right to call the police, via the stewards, to eject people. The question arises whether, if that happens, the meeting ceases to be a public meeting. This is a complicated matter at a time when tensions are high, and I cannot promise that there is an easy solution to it. I am concerned, however, that the National Front people tarnish school buildings when they use them and that when they retire from them the people know that the National Front has been there.

However great the need for electoral reform undoubtedly is, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the recent drubbing of the National Front in the local elections gave a clear indication that, whatever its behaviour may have been at the sort of meeting we are discussing, and whatever violence it might produce or provoke, the British public now recognises the Fascist and violent nature of the organisation and its leadership?

The best way to deal with any organisation of this nature, whether of the extreme Left or the extreme Right, is at the polls. That is when we hear the message of what the people want. Some time in the next 18 months the people will decide.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with chief constables about steps to reduce the level of vandalism.

This is not a problem which can be solved by the police alone; the public must also play its part. From his discussions with chief officers of police my right hon. Friend knows that they are aware of the concern about vandalism, and give as much priority as they can to tackling it in conjunction with the other individuals and organisations involved.

If the Minister says that this is a matter for the public, what are the Government doing about launching a massive anti-vandalism campaign to warn the public and perhaps the local authorities about the problem and to give some guidance on security measures that they could introduce?

That has already been done by the Home Office in advice to the police and the public. The police themselves are organising public support locally. They are holding meetings with local authorities, with schools and with parent-teacher associations, and are impressing upon the public the need to report acts of vandalism. This is a joint matter between the police and the public.

Does my hon. Friend agree that television scenes depicting gross vandalism and violence encourage such behaviour among the population, particularly among the young? Does she also agree that the media ought to be told that their attitude in glorifying violence and lionising its perpetrators does not help solve the problem of vandalism and violence which daily they condemn in their columns?

I am sure that most hon. Members will agree with my hon. Friend. No doubt the media will note his comments this afternoon.

Is the Minister aware that the public would be more co-operative with the police in stopping vandalism if it could be more confident that the Government were taking every measure to try to strengthen the forms of punishment available for dealing with the vandals once they have been caught?

Further provisions of the Criminal Law Act which come into force next month increase the maximum fine for offences of this type, on summary conviction, to £1,000 for an adult, £200 for a young person aged 14 to 16, and £50 for a child under 14.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the representatives of the National Front about violence at public meetings.

None, Sir.

Bearing in mind that the National Front is an extreme Left-wing party, sharing many of the aspirations of right hon. and hon. Members below the Gangway on the Labour side, and bearing in mind that the vast majority of political violence in this country is perpetrated by the National Front and other Left-wing organisations such as the Socialist Workers' Party, does not the Home Secretary now believe that the time has come to tell the National Front, the Socialist Workers' Party and the rest of that ragbag of the Left that if they cause political violence they will have to pay for it and pay for the time of the police forces involved in controlling their meetings?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misconception. It would be just as well for me to say that the Socialist Workers' Party is an extreme party of the Right. They are both parties with which I disagree. They are both parties which cause trouble in their different ways. The Question asked whether I had met them. No, I am very careful about whom I meet.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the creed of the National Front is a violent one? Will he, therefore, give consideration to amending electoral law to ensure that at the next General Election, the National Front is not allowed radio or television time to air its poisonous views to the British people?

I am glad to say that that is not a matter for me. But I say to my hon. Friend that already what has been shown is that the best way to beat organisations of this kind is by argument. They are being beaten by argument. The more they are seen to be what they are, the more they will lose votes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the failure to implement the 42-hour week for firemen; and if he will make a statement.

The National Executive Council of the Fire Brigades Union came to see my right hon. Friend at its request on 9th May when it expressed its continuing and increasing concern about the lack of progress towards the 42-hour week. I understand that at the meeting of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades on 2nd June the Employers' Side tabled detailed proposals which were discussed by the two Sides, who are to meet again on 9th June.

Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that the Tory-dominated local authorities which are dealing with this settlement are to some extent trying to wreck it? Is she aware, for instance, that some of the proposals are for reduced fire cover and for introducing more part-time personnel, as distinct from recruiting the 6,000 or so who are needed in order to get the 42-hour week implemented? Will she and her right hon. Friend give a guarantee that every dot and comma of the firemen's settlement of last winter, which was supposed to be honoured by the Government, will be implemented?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government remain committed to their desire to see put into effect the agreement concerning the 42-hour week, which ended the recent dis- pute. My right hon. Friend has seen both sides in the negotiations and is ready at all times to help in any way that he can, and he is keeping in close touch with developments.

If this agreement is to be implemented in full, can the hon. Lady give a guarantee that the Government, through the Treasury, will deal with the local authorities financially, to make sure that they have the money in order to implement the agreement?

It is understood by both sides that the Government, through the rate support grant, are willing to meet their share of the cost of introducing the 42-hour week.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Edmund-Davies Committee will report.

I hope to receive the reports on negotiating machinery and on pay by the end of this month.

Does the Home Secretary appreciate that this is a matter of some urgency? The crime figures in Reading are up 12 per cent. in the last quarter, and a number of police officers are awaiting this report, holding their resignations back to see what the Government do. Will the Home Secretary now categorically say that the Government will implement the Edmund-Davies Report when it is received?

I think that the hon. Gentleman does an ill service in talking in that way. Last year the Police Federation was told very clearly. It wanted this deep-seated investigation. We have said that we shall accept it, and that the phasing is a matter for discussion. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that if he does what the Tory Party did on defence—bring law and order into the market place in the way in which he is doing—he will do no good service to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the capacity of prisons without overcrowding in England and Wales; and what is the present prison population.

On 30th April 1978 the certified normal accommodation of Prison Department establishments was 37,764 and the prison population was 41,929.

In view of the serious overcrowding in prisons, does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government's plans to produce fewer than 5,000 additional prison places in the next five years are adequate? Does he not think that a bigger provision than this is necessary if rehabilitation is to be a meaningful reality?

To the 5,000 places must be added a new prison which will be started in the 1981–82 period. Certainly we are concerned about overcrowding. The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to talk to his hon. Friends and spokesmen for his party who are calling for harsher treatment for people in prison.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the prisons which is not overcrowded at present is Parkhurst, and that the time is long past when the dispute there with the officers was resolved? It is also causing great problems for the civilian workers in that prison, and people who wish to visit inmates. Will he do what he can to settle this dispute?

I shall certainly bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the nature of the dispute.

In view of the excessive amount of overcrowding, is it not now time to take steps to remove from our prisons those, such as alcoholics and mentally abnormal offenders, who have no place in prison in the first instance, and to take steps to clear our prisons of the petty and trivial offenders who have no access to parole? We can do this by introducing a system of remission, as, indeed, was the case in Northern Ireland.

As to the last part of my hon. Friend's remarks, he will know that we are looking at the matter. We have some sympathy with what he says. Concerning the question of alcoholics, as my hon. Friend will know, the Criminal Law Act removed the penalty of imprisonment for simple dunkenness. As for mentally disturbed prisoners, we are doing what we can with the Department of Health and Social Security to see that what my hon. Friend suggests is brought about.

asked the Prime Minister, if he will pay an official visit to Cornwall.

I have at present no plans to visit Cornwall.

I am sorry to hear that. If, at some time during the months remaining between now and the General Election, the Prime Minister is able to visit Cornwall, he will find that Cornwall's economy and the public services generally are suffering greatly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—from lack of public expenditure. Will he, therefore, listen to the cries of Conservative politicians in Cornwall for more money for roads, for water and sewerage services, for private industry and for hospitals? Will he explain to the Cornish people how this fits in with the cries from the Leader of the Conservative Party for cuts in public expenditure?

Yes, Sir. I think that I could find it a very interesting hour to go through all the proposals for increased public expenditure from the Conservative Party—which, by coincidence, I have in front of me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Surprise."] It is a surprise. I did not know that the hon. Member was going to say that. But it is quite clear that the Conservative Party cannot at one and the same time call for reduction in taxation against the increases in public expenditure that they are proposing.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in Manchester on 11th May 1978 concerning the Budget.

I did so on 19th May.

Does the Prime Minister recall that in that speech he said that the Government had an inescapable responsibility for the nation's finances? In view of the fact that the measures announced by the Government today are an attempt to restore some confidence in the Government's management of the nation's finances—measures which, I calculate, involve the equivalent of an increase in the basic rate of taxation of 4p—does he not agree that the truth of the situation is that the Government have got their Budget strategy wrong again for the fourteenth time?

No, Sir; the very reverse is the case. I would have preferred a situation in which the Opposition had not pressed their amendments in order to reduce taxation. Then we would not have to introduce the proposed clause that we shall table in due course to recover it by means of the national insurance surcharge. In other words, the Budget was balanced but the Opposition unbalanced it, and now we are putting it back again.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that those people who believe that the City of London has now taken over the government of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is now widespread belief that many money brokers, who are enjoying the greatest bonanza in their history, are demanding from the Government that the minimum lending rate be at least 10 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."]—and that they believe that the Treasury will concede their demands for 10 per cent. Has not the time now come for the Government to stand up to these people and for us to pursue the policies in which we believed during the 1974 General Election campaign, which were based upon a cheap money policy sand the reflation of our economy?

My hon. Friend should place the responsibility where it belongs, as I did in my speech on 11th May, to which this Question refers. I said then

"I call on the electors"

—of Hamilton—

"to show that they disown both the Tory Party and their allies in the Scottish National Party who yesterday combined together in cupidity and irresponsibility."

I also said that

"whatever happens in the Division Lobby of the House of Commons, the Government has an inescapable responsibility for the national finances, and if it proves necessary to take action to offset whatever has beau done we shall not hesitate to act".

That is what we have done today. The manifesto on which my hon. Friend and I fought the election said that the conquering of inflation was the first and major task that we had. It is in pursuance of the success that we have had so far on that matter that I intend that measures shall continue to be taken in order to ensure that our success is maintained

The Prime Minister may convince himself by his own complacency, but he will convince no one else. May I put a few points to him? First, this is the fourteenth Budget during a Labour Administration, but the first one to be announced outside the House of Commons. Can he name any other occasion on which a proposed increase of taxation of £1,500 million—the equivalent of 4p on the standard rate of tax—has been announced to the Press but not to the House of Commons? Second, is he not aware that this latest economic crisis—[HON. MEMBERS "Which one?"] The one which has given rise to these measures—began when his Government announced an increase in public expenditure this year of £4,000 million over last year, as a result of which he had to announce an increase in the standard bank rate on Budget day? That was followed by a further increase in bank rate of 1¼ per cent., heralded by a total loss of control of the money supply—all before the reduction in the standard rate of tax of 1p. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for his actions?

The new clause which will be tabled on Report in due course will be debated on the Floor of the House, and the House will then be able to come to a conclusion on it—as, indeed, was forecast by my right hon. Friend when he advised the Opposition—they rejected his advice—not to press their amendment on income tax some weeks ago. We then informed the House that we would table any necessary clauses to recover the situation. That is what we are doing. As for the amount involved, it is about £500 million this year, which is a measure of the degree of irresponsibility of the Opposition, reflected in the votes which they forced on that day. The right hon. Lady is quite correct that if it were carried through to next year the amount involved would be £1,500 million, but I must remind her that we are discussing this year and not next year.

Will there be another Budget in July?

There will be another Budget next April, I can promise the right hon. Lady.

As for the borrowing requirement, it is true that both last year and this year it was estimated at £8·5 billion. Last year, it turned out to be about £5 billion, or perhaps a little lower. Because of the difficulties of estimating these borrowing requirements, no one can say to what extent it will be accurate this year, but £8·5 billion is a reasonable figure to take and to work on. No one can say at this stage that it is likely to be over the top —certainly not by comparison with the past two years.

As for what the right hon. Lady calls the bank rate, the minimum lending rate is, of course. 10 per cent. now. I would only like to remind her that when she left office it was running at somewhere between 12 per cent. and 13 per cent.

Is it not now perfectly clear that the Opposition amendments to the Finance Bill were wildly irresponsible and highly damaging to the country?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has put it succinctly. We said this to the House at the time. We regret very much the necessity now to introduce the national insurance surcharge on employers. It would not have been necessary if the Opposition had not voted to reduce taxation in the way they did.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that with the 1 per cent. increase in minimum lending rate announced today, we have now seen 11 alterations of MLR in under six months? This makes our long-term financial security massively unstable. Will he therefore try to take some action to rectify that situation and perhaps to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of his actions, to be put out to grass?

With respect to the hon. Member, who I think is trying to put a helpful question, this is the way in which the market works. It is the market which has ben fixing these rates during the last two or three years. These short-term rates do not necessarily, of themselves, affect the level of investment or the degree to which people go for investment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in theory—I should like to see more stability in rates—but as long as the market has been operating them we must rely on the market so to do. Last year, there were 19 such changes. I do not welcome that, but that is the inevitable consequence of the policy which the Opposition support.