asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees from Zimbabwe were granted permission to reside in the United Kingdom in 1977 and 1978 to date.

I regret that the information is not available in the form requested.

Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that Zimbabwean students who complete their courses in this country, and who would be in physical danger if required to return to Zimbabwe, may be given reasonable opportunity to seek employment whilst still in the United Kingdom so that they are not left in legal and social limbo?

We are urgently considering that point and hope to be able to give an answer in the very near future.

Will the Minister bear in mind that no student returning to Rhodesia after his studies here could possibly be in any danger other than from nationalist terrorists?

May I press my hon. Friend a little further on that matter? Already there are many Africans over here—some are students and some are here in other capacities—who find it extremely difficult to live and it is essential that if he takes a decision—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a statement. He must ask a question.

I thought that I began, Mr. Speaker, by asking whether I might press the Minister further.

That question was addressed to me.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I know that all questions are addressed to you. May I ask whether the Minister will make a public statement so that the anxieties of these people can be alleviated?

Yes, Sir, certainly. I hope to make this a public statement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that an increasing number of refugees from Zimbabwe come here because they are in fear for their lives at the hands of the thugs of both the Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole and Bishop Abel Muzorewa? Will the Minister undertake to treat these applications for refugee status very favourably?

What I can tell my hon. Friend is that no one in that category will be sent away without ministerial authority. I think that that guarantees a sympathetic consideration of each case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision allows a prisoner or his legal representative to ensure that any material relating to that prisoner presented to the Parole Board does not contain any factual errors.

There is no such provision. Much of the material comprises reports prepared on a confidential basis by, for example, members of the prison staff and probation officers. The basic facts are usually set out in a number of these reports as well as in the prison records and can be cross-checked. This is one of the functions of the parole unit in the Home Office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many prisoners whose parole is turned down are, first, very disappointed that it has been turned down, but are also concerned that they do not know the reason? Such prisoners fear that inaccurate information may well have been entered on their records and have swung the decision as to whether parole should be refused or granted.

Over the years I have checked on the matter of inaccuracy and only a handful of cases have come to light. I accept that they are only the ones that have come to light. We are conducting an experiment, the results of which are now being collated, to see whether we could give reasons for not granting parole. When the facts have been collated I shall report to the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision whether or not to give parole can be almost as important to a prisoner as the original sentencing decision? Therefore, similar standards of evidence and natural justice should apply, the very least of these being that the prisoner should know the reasons for the decision.

I have just said that that is why we have been conducting an experiment. One factor which should be the least worry, is the paperwork that would arise from what is suggested. I am looking at all aspects of the matter and I shall report to the House.

Does the Home Secretary agree that these matters would be more significant if any rational basis could be detected in a number of cases when the Parole Board comes to a decision? Does he agree that much of the feeling about unfairness among prisoners is caused by the extraordinary cases that the board seems to prefer over cases which prisoners themselves regard as being much more favourable?

I invite the hon. Gentleman to see how the scheme is worked. I shall willingly show him. I think that what he says is misconceived.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cases he has considered must have included one concerning one of my constituents? When such errors occur, they create a great, deep and abiding sense of injustice not only for the prisoner but for his relatives and friends, if they feel that in one way or another evidence presented before the Parole Board is not accurate and in some cases is absolutely misleading.

My hon. Friend has given one of the reasons why we are conducting the experiment of which I have spoken.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present laws relating to the display of pornographic material.

The law in this field is under study as part of the wider review being undertaken by the committee on obscenity and film censorship under the chairmanship of Professor Bernard Williams, and the forthcoming debate on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will also provide an opportunity to consider the matter in depth.

Is the Minister aware that there is such public concern about the increase in the display of indecent material in public that many hon. Members are now receiving considerable representations about it from their electors through the post? Secondly, is he aware that many of us have grave doubts about the composition of the Williams committee and particularly the balance of that committee?

I am certainly aware that hon. Members are receiving letters on the subject. There is legislation—admittedly of nineteenth century vintage—against indecent advertisements. If electors or others feel that a breach of the law has been committed, they can report it to the police.

May I ask the Minister about the Indecent Displays (Control) Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) is introducing as a Private Member's Bill tomorrow? As the Bill has the limited and admirable objective of, to use the words of the Explanatory Memorandum, safeguarding.

"the public against being unwillingly exposed to indecent material",

I do not consider Question Time the proper time to rehearse a debate that will take place tomrrow.

When does the Minister expect Professor Williams's committee to report?

The taking of evidence is almost complete and the report has been promised for later this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we should be concerned with protecting children in particular from seeing indecent displays, we should be far more concerned about the affects of violence on children? Is it not something of a statement of the hypocrisy of our society that, judging by the mailbag, there seems to be far more concern about ensuring that children do not see pornographic displays than there is about trying to prevent handicapped children in particular from being beaten in special schools and community homes?

I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's depth of feeling at having Second Reading of his Bill on that subject objected to last Friday afternoon. The Government are certainly opposed to the foisting of indecent displays upon the unwilling public. The problem which affects us, and which affected the last Conservative Government, is whether the measure propounded gets to the root of the evil.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that self-service stores take adequate steps to discourage shoplifting; and what steps he intends to take to persuade them to implement his Department's recommendations in this regard.

I am sure that many self-service and other stores can improve their arrangements for preventing shoplifting. Together with the police we continue to encourage retailers to implement the relevant recommendations of the report "Shoplifting and Thefts by Shop Staff" which was first published in 1973.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but is she aware that pilferage by staff is now far higher than theft by customers, and that that will continue in line with the number of self-service stores that open? Is it not about time we in the House recognised that stores which invite the public to help themselves, and thereafter call on society to pay the cost of court and police time, should be encouraged at the very least to bring in the preventive measures about which the hon. Lady has spoken?

Everything possible is being done by the Home Office, and, I know, by the hon. Gentleman, to encourage retailers to take preventive measures. I am sure that they are aware that many recommendations have been made, which they could carry out.

Will the Minister accept that there is no evidence to show that staff pilferage is more widespread than customer pilferage? Does she agree that the regrettable incidence of staff pilferage is by no means confined to self-service stores, and occurs in all forms of retail outlet?

Whether it is staff or customer pilferage, it is still very serious and should be stopped.

Will my hon. Friend also agree that shoplifting occurs right across all social classes? Will she draw up a list of the ratios and percentages of shoplifting in the various socio-economic groups, so that we can be absolutely sure where the greatest number come from?

I think that the investigation suggested by my hon. Friend would be of no purpose, except perhaps to give him some satisfaction. I do not think that crime knows any class barriers or boundaries.

Is my hon Friend satisfied that the laws, such as they are, that apply to price control at self-service shops have been sufficiently implemented during recent shortages?

That appears to be another question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the complaints procedure in relation to broadcasting.

The White Paper on broadcasting makes it clear that we have proposed the establishment of a single independent broadcasting complaints commission.

As neither the BBC's nor the IBA's present complaints machinery appears to have the confidence of the public, will the hon. Lady confirm that any proposed complaints commission would be entitled to look into claims of unfairness or misrepresentation during a radio or television programme, and that it would be the intention, as with Press Council, to require the BBC or the IBA to publish the findings of that commission?

The Annan committee recommended, and the Government agree, that the commission should be able to receive, consider and adjudicate on, complaints of unfairness, misrepresentation and invasion of privacy. I can give no positive undertaking on the hon. Gentleman's second point, but it is being considered.

Will my hon. Friend seek an interview with the Director-General of the BBC, Mr. Ian Trethowan, about the letter from the British Field Sports Society, and make a complaint to him about what it says—that they guaranteed media time to someone on the matter of blood sports? Surely, to guarantee sectional interest time is not the right way to run the BBC?

I think that I am right in saying that that has been denied by Mr. Trethowan, but if my hon. Friend will write to me—

I shall.

and specify his exact complaint. I shall certainly have it considered by my noble Friend the Minister of State or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Has the hon. Lady read the recent article in The Daily Telegraph by her former ministerial colleague Lord Harris, condemning the unfair aspersions on the police in many television programmes? Does she intend to take any action on that?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to bring the issue to my notice or to the notice of the brodacasting authority, in writing, it will be taken up. The whole point of the new complaints commission is to give more strength and teeth to the type of complaint that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Will the new complaints procedure allow for complaints about bad television and broadcasting reception? Despite all the matters that have been raised in the House, we do not seem to be able to overcome the problem. It is a legitimate complaint in many places, especially in my constituency.

Reception complaints are not specifically included in the plans for the commission. I realise that there is a good deal of feeling about reception. That is being considered by the Home Office in a completely different context and not under the complaints commission.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving the use of firearms were committed within the Metropolitan Police area in 1958, 1968 and 1978.

In 1969, the earliest year for which comparable figures are available, 483 indictable offences in which firearms were reported to have been used were recorded in the Metropolitan Police district. In 1977, the corresponding figure was 1,526. The figure for 1978 is not yet available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago, hardly any professional criminals carried firearms, but that last year firearms were carried in 80 per cent. of the attacks on banks, betting shops and security guards? Does he think that the total abolition of the death penalty has been a major cause of that regrettable occurrence?

No, I do not think that that is so. There are many causes of that in our society. I do not think that the abolition of the death penalty is the reason.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the shotgun is now the preferred weapon of the serious criminal in many of the metropolises? Will he confirm also that current firearms control legislation is totally inadequate, and that, if it had not been for the Lib-Lab pact, the Government would have already taken steps?

Shotguns are an important element. Heavy penalties up to life imprisonment are available on the statute book for armed crime.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in recent years the classification of offences has changed, which has resulted in offences not formerly regarded as serious matters now being regarded as serious, and that the figures that he has given should be interpreted in that light?

Whatever the interpretation of figures, the Commissioner tells me that there is a growth of armed crime in the metropolis and throughout the country as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in reducing delays in dealing with applications for private mobile radio licences.

In recent weeks there has been a speeding up in the frequency assignment procedure, which is an essential part of the processing of applications for private mobile radio licences. Previously, a series of technical difficulties with the computer which performs frequency assignments had resulted in a backlog. Some applications remain to be cleared, but every effort is being made to deal with them as quickly as possible.

May I tell the hon. Lady that we sympathise with her difficulties over a computer? Since the tabling of the question before Christmas my constituent who was involved has told me, too, that there has been some improvement. May I ask the hon. Lady to do everything possible to ensure that pressure for the improvement is maintained?

I thank the hon, Gentleman. I can assure him that everything is being done.

How quickly does my hon. Friend now expect licences to be processed?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that there is sufficient legislation to protect properly the lives of police officers while in execution of their duties.

Yes, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that shortly before Christmas there were two especially ugly incidents when police officers were confronted with sawn-off shotguns? Is it not apparent that heavy fines and sentences up to and including life imprisonment are not sufficient? Is there not a case for the reintroduction of capital punishment for such offences as a deterrent? What representations is he receiving from the police force on the subject?

I cannot recall receiving any such representations recently, but I have no doubt that it is the view of the force that the penalty of capital punishment should be brought back. I shall not call in aid the figures. If one policeman were killed, that would be one too many. Under controlled circumstances police are now armed. I offer that as a fact. That is happening under very controlled circumstances and it is a factor.

Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the fact that he is having to mount guards in a number of places around central London—police officers wearing flak jackets and being armed—to cope with the possibility of problems arising of an international nature? Surely there is something wrong when we have to have police around the capital wearing flak jackets and being armed. That is the type of action that we have never had in the United Kingdom. We want to protect the police, but we do not want the type of action to which I have referred.

I am not sure on what basis the hon. Gentleman makes that statement. There are people in the metropolis who are protected by armed guards. There are occasions when selected policemen, who are trained properly and wear flak jackets, are put in certain areas. Given the international situation, it is right that that should be so. We cannot opt out, and I support what the commissioner does.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

I met him earlier this week and I expect to meet him again soon.

During the meetings with the Commissioner, has the right hon. Gentleman discussed the Commissioner's proposed changes in the powers of the police? Will he tell the House his views on the subject?

No. There is a Royal Commission sitting and everybody concerned may give evidence on what he thinks should be the changes. I shall wait until the Royal Commission reports. I hoped to meet the members of the commission last week, but I was busier in another context. I had hoped to meet them on Saturday, but I could not go. I shall wait until the Commission reports and all the evidence is collated.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the Commissioner, will he discuss with him the serious matter of assaults on London taxi drivers and the growing incidence of bilking? Does he think that there is sufficient publicity of the provisions of the Theft Act? Why should not the penalties be displayed in the cabs?

I shall certainly do what the hon. Gentleman asks. I shall discuss the matter with the Commissioner.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Commissioner, will he thank him and commend him for the appointment of public relations officers, especially in areas such as mine that have large ethnic minorities? These officers are able to save a considerable amount of complaint procedure that would involve considerable time and effort by hard-pressed police officers.

I shall do that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Commissioner to the great concern in many London riverside boroughs about the cutting back of the Metropolitan Police River Division? Does he appreciate that in many respects river traffic has increased in recent years?

River traffic may have increased, but the nature and the use of the river has changed greatly. The Commissioner must make his own operational judgment and I support him in what he is doing.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Commissioner, will he first express the appreciation of the House for the way in which the Metropolitan Police handled the large demonstrations that took place on Monday? At the same time will he express the understanding the House of the many extra duties places on the police at a time of industrial difficulty such as at present?

I shall do that. When I first heard the discussions in the House I thought that hon. Members were complaining about what the police were doing. I explained to the police that parliamentary procedure is sometimes peculiar and that we meant that we were praising them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with current recruitment to the police force.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the net increase to the latest available date in the strength of the Metropolitan Police since he announced the implementation of half the wage increases recommended by the Edmund-Davies committee.

I am pleased to say that provisional figures show that for the period 1 July to 31 December 1978 the total strength of the police service in England and Wales increased by 1,267 to 109,066. This includes a net increase of 330 by the Metropolitan Police, bringing the force strength to 21,961.

That is a modest but to be welcomed improvement. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what thought he has given to asking police authorities generally to reassess their establishment strengths to reach figures that would meet the increased rise in crime?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives a modest word of thanks. One cannot win in this place. If recruitment is falling it is bad, and when it is increasing it is "modest". I leave establishments entirely to the Inspectorate, which is composed of professional policemen working in the Home Office. They go around the country and discuss with the local police authority, or the chief constable, what the establishment should be. I think that I ought to leave it to them.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures conceal the fact that a large number of experienced officers are being lost to the force and are being replaced by new recruits? Does not he think that, had he accepted the recommendation of the Edmund-Davies report completely, and implemented them in full, this drain would not have occurred?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because my information is that wastage has dropped by over 30 per cent. in the second half of 1978. A full analysis is not available, but it is quite clear that a substantial drop is caused by a deferment of retirement. Because there is a deferment of retirement, where people are waiting for their enhanced pensions which will take effect next September, because pensions were treated on the full rate, I must warn the House that there will be a problem in September since retirements will then take place.

Will not my right hon. Friend encourage the police to look at their management techniques? Giving the police decent pay is very imimportant, but if they continue to use management techniques, particularly in relation to graduates, which are not acceptable to modern industrial relations, there will be considerable difficulty irrespective of the amount of money.

There are two aspects to my hon. Friend's question. The question whether one uses graduates is a separate issue. What the police have tended to do is to send to university policemen who, in the main, come back. The police are giving a lot of thought to management. As a result of the greatly enhanced salaries, the police are now paid very well indeed. Therefore, police authorities—certainly I as police authority in the Metropolitan district—tend to use men in a better way because they cost more money.

Does the Home Secretary recall that the Edmund-Davies settlement was based on giving the police a substantial, immediate increase and an inflation-indexed review machinery to see that they did not fall behind again? Does he also recognise that that was based on two things—first, that the police are a vital service and, secondly, that they do not have the right to strike? Does not he think that the time has come to apply those same principles to other vital life-support services, for example, in the hospitals, in the fire service and—

Order. That goes far beyond the question on the Order Paper.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a Press Gallery luncheon yesterday the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis expressed some satisfaction with the increase in police recruitment? Does he not agree that it would be a bad thing for the police to have the return of a Tory Government and a far lower level in police numbers? Is it not a matter of great satisfaction to the police that, taking into account his free allowances and London weighting, a police sergeant in London now has a salary substantially more than Members of Parliament?

What I am prepared to do is to take all the praise for putting up police pay.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will examine the jury review arrangements which were set out by the then Secretary of State in 1975.

No, Sir. We are satisfied with the present arrangements for the checking of potential jurors. These were agreed by my right hon. Friend's predecessor in 1975, and have since been set out in the statement of 10 October 1978 issued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the guidelines in that statement, which was wrung out of an unwilling Establishment during the A, B, C trial, represent a diminution in the right of trial by jury and an interference by the secret police with the juries, which is not equally available to both prosecution and defence? Does he not accept that removal of the guidelines and this interference would be a far better option for the Home Office and the Secretary of State to take up? At least it would improve the reputation of the Home Office and its concern for justice, which is what we are all concerned about.

The Home Office is not solely responsible for this whole problem. Guidelines have existed for a number of years. So far as I can trace, they have existed since 1948. They were not introduced for the A, B, C trial. The check is to see whether a juror may be susceptible to improper pressure, or is unduly biased against either the prosecution or the defence. When the prosecution believes that a juror is unduly biased, it may use its power to stand down that juror. But when it believes that he is unduly biased against the defence, it is its duty to communicate that fact to the defence so that the defence may use its right of peremptory challenge.

If the principles which my hon. Friend has just enunciated are logical, they ought to apply to all kinds of jury cases. If they do not, they ought not to apply to the group outlined in the Attorney-General's statement. Is not it right that we either go over to the American system or keep random selection and should not mess about with it?

There are some very serious crimes where the stakes are so high that it is right to select those outside the normal run.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is in precisely those cases where the stakes are so very high that justice must be seen to be done? If we are to interfere with the principle of random selection of jurors, we must have a clear and direct code. This must not be left to the discretion of the prosecution, as it is in these cases, or as sometimes happens, to the discretion of the judge trying the case. Does not my hon. Friend agree that this must be clear, obvious and straightforward? But basically, we should go back to random selection.

The actual inquiries are left to the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or his deputy, and notification of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General. But the point that I am making is that, when facts are revealed which suggest that a juror may be biased against the defence, those facts must be communicated to the defence so that it may exercise its right of random challenge.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the White Paper on the reform of the Official Secrets Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the White Paper on the reform of the Official Secrets Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received in response to the White Paper on the Official Secrets Act.

I have received 23 representations, including 15 letters, explicitly in response to the White Paper. Eleven were from hon. Members, four from private individuals, and eight from organisations, including three local Labour Party bodies. I have also received other representations on the matters covered by the White Paper, but it is not clear that they were in direct response to it.

I am grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House last Friday demonstrated that there is a wide measure of agreement that the Official Secrets Act must be reformed radically and soon? Will he give the House some assurance that in Committee his Department will not play ducks and drakes with the Bill of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) in defence of an existing law which has now been brought into disrepute?

My hon. Friend referred specifically to a reform of the Official Secrets Act. I should like to reform that very quickly. I have no intention of playing ducks and drakes with it. Indeed, with regard to a Private Member's Bill, perhaps I should ask those hon. Members of the Committee not to play ducks and drakes with us.

Can I encourage my right hon. Friend to be a little more generous as to the assistance which he can give to this Private Member's Bill? Will he say that he will welcome some legislation, however narrow, with regard to the right to information?

I think that we must look at the question of access. We shall be discussing this in Committee. There are undoubtedly things to which the general public could have access without any problem at all. But what was quite clear from last week's debate was that there are things which are subject to the current Official Secrets Act, this applies to the American and Swedish legislation, too— about which there can be no question of giving access.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present powers of juvenile courts.

Yes. These powers were strengthened by the Criminal Law Act 1977, and we are satisfied that they are adequate.

Is the Minister sufficiently aware of the simple fact that there are no courts in this country which inspire less apprehension among their customers and potential customers than the juvenile courts? Is he aware also that this situation will not be remedied until there is some power of custodial sentencing? In addition to custodial sentencing, there must be the power to set some sort of custodial alternatives to fines. At the moment juvenile courts are quite impotent in that simple area.

I believe that at that age it is not right to inspire fear. This does not necessarily give adequate results. I believe that the ability to deal flexibly, sensibly and adequately with people who appear before the court is a much better weapon.

Is the Minister aware that, if the juvenile court wants to send a child to a junior detention centre, and if that court carries out the wishes of the Home Office, it must make inquiries about availability? Quite often it finds that no places are available. Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient accommodation available?

Yes.

Will the Minister bear in mind the firm views of magistrates who have to deal with juvenile offenders? They feel that they need, and should be given as a matter of urgency, new powers to deal with persistent juvenile offenders. Is he aware that without these powers magistrates feel that they cannot possibly be expected to meet the rising tide of juvenile crime?

Over recent years there have been decreasing numbers of juvenile crimes. The hon. and learned Gentleman's primary error is that he is thinking of magistrates as having to deal only with juveniles. Under any system, the local authorities have a very great part to play in the disposition of juvenile offenders. They and the magistrates together have to work on a code of conduct which, while it does not wholly satisfy the Magistrates Association, does go a long way to resolving these positions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman paid more attention to encouraging these positive contributions instead of constantly carping about the rising tide of crime and the inadequacy of society to deal with it he would be doing the House a greater service.

Is it not pointless to ask for extra flowers for the juvenile courts when there is virtually no accommodation in which to put juveniles? Surely these questions are meaningless? They approach the problem from the wrong angle.

Under the Children and Young Persons Act, those who have to deal with the future of young offenders so that they will not offend again should have the say in where the disposition occurs. If the magistrates were to be given a concurrent power with the local authorities it would divide responsibility and add to confusion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals for introducing internal checks in order to prevent illegal immigration and illegal overstaying in this country.

A variety of measures are already taken to prevent and detect illegal entry and overstaying, which are continually reviewed and improved in the light of experience and the available resources. However, for the reasons set out in my right hon. Friend's statement of 6 April 1978, the Government are opposed to a system of internal control of immigration.

Will the Minister of State now confirm that the Government have decided to reject each of the four specific recommendations made nearly a year ago by the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, in order to control illegal immigration and overstaying?

Since the Home Secretary has made a statement and we have subsequently published a White Paper, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should be seeking confirmation. If he had read his parliamentary papers he would already know the Government's attitude.

Will my hon. Friend make it quite clear to the EEC that he finds the undertakings in its new directive unacceptable, because the evidence given by immigration organisations to this House makes it clear that they would not accept internal checks?

I attended the EEC Council meeting last November. The proposal is now that the Commission should hold separate discussions with the United Kingdom about the difficulties that the draft holds for us. I have made it clear that the draft directive does hold considerable problems for this country.

What action does the Home Office take when it is brought to its notice that someone is making money out of illegal immigration? What is the success rate?

The success rate is considerable and such people are liable to criminal prosecution.

Has my hon. Friend followed the questioning of the Select Committee in its present inquiry in which time after time it has said that it denies ever making the recommendation which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has suggested?

I understand that. Our difficulty at the time when the Home Secretary made the statement was in understanding what the Select Committee did mean.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

I meet representatives of the TUC from time to time at NEDC and on other occasions. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Will the Prime Minister confirm with the TUC and the CBI that there is no evidence that secret ballots result in fewer decisions to strike? Is it not a fact that the reverse is often the case? Does he agree with the Donovan Commission report of 1968 that the better way to proceed is to extend individual involvement and responsibility for industrial democracy at the work place?

It is the case that some unions already have ballots for strike action. I suppose the most prominent example is the National Union of Mineworkers. It can be argued that a ballot may lead to a more accurate result of the feelings of those concerned, but it does not necessarily lead, as the miner's ballots show, to greater industrial peace, which is what the House is particularly concerned about at present. Certainly we would be ready to discuss these matters with the TUC and the CBI and to facilitate them if it seems likely to help.

As it is now a fortnight since the Prime Minister returned from the Caribbean, no one could accuse him of taking precipitate action. Therefore, how much more damage must be done to industry, how many more jobs must be in jeopardy, and how many more hospital patients must suffer before the Prime Minister decides to act?

As the right hon. Lady knows, action is being taken on a great many fronts in trying to settle some of these disputes. However, in the case of the road hauliers' dispute the Government have no standing as this is an example of free collective bargaining between employers and workers which the right hon. Lady has now espoused. We have seen the consequences of this in the dislocation caused in the country. On the maintenance of essential supplies, the regular reports that are being given by Ministers to this House every day have shown that the Government, through various means, but not necessarily through declaring a statse of emergency, are ensuring the flow of those supplies. Although there are difficulties in a number of areas, basically supplies are being maintained.

Is the Prime Minister aware that what he says is very complacent? Many raw materials are not getting through to the factories and many exports are not getting away. Is he not aware that the Government have a duty to enable supplies to be kept coming and going to and from the factories and they have full parliamentary authority to do that? Why have the Government not made use of that authority? Is it a fact that the Prime Minister no longer has the courage to act and, if that is so, will he not at least have the courage to resign?

I somehow thought that was behind the right hon. Lady's real desires. She just cannot wait. There are plenty of statutory powers, but I do not know that any Government have sufficient power when the road haulage industry goes on strike to replace it. That is the simple truth of the matter. That is why the Government are using good sense to try to ensure that essential supplies are kept going. The right hon. Lady, of course, has a solution. If the claim is conceded in full, there is no doubt that the men will go back to work and, equally, there is no doubt that we would be in for another round of inflation. That is the dilemma which the right hon. Lady will never face.

When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he ask if it now realises that it would be in the interests of the greater number of its members, especially those who are the lowest paid and those who settle within the 5 per cent. guidelines, to accept that the Government should themselves intervene directly on the pay front?

The Government do intervene directly on the pay front in relation to all public sector and public service workers, who account for about 30 per cent. of the total. One of the problems at the moment is that settlements in the private sector, under present free collective bargaining, are feeding through into the public sector. If carried through, they would have very serious consequences for our total revenue and budgetary expenditure. These are long-term problems. I believe that the present dispute, if it focuses the attention of the TUC, as well as the Government and others, on these matters, will show that it is usually out of a crisis that we begin to get some solution in this country. I hope we shall do so on this occasion.

When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he tell it that increased levels of import penetration are due to the fact that some sections of British industry are highly uncompetitive and that wage increases above and beyond what industry can bear will make the system more uncompetitive with a further loss of jobs?

Yes, Sir. The TUC is aware of this, as is the CBI. It is important that both should operate on this matter. Hence the importance of the industrial strategy under which we are able to communicate at plant level and sector level with all those concerned to point out the importance of additional investment, up-to-date design, good quality and proper deliveries. Both sides of industry have a full part to play in all these matters.

As the Prime Minister has advised people to cross picket lines, why does he not take his own advice and go through the picket line at one of the ports or factories that are being blockaded and get the country moving again?

I do not think that gestures are the best way in which to handle these matters. I have stated the law as I understand it, and the Attorney-General will be making a further statement on the law, in response to the request by the Opposition, after questions. There is no reason to alter the view that I have expressed.

asked the Prime Minister, when he last met the TUC.

I refer my hon. Friend to the repely which I have just given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett).

Will my right hon. Friend meet the General Council of the TUC as a matter of urgency and try to come to an agreement with it about future policy and the way in which we can overcome the present industrial situation? Will he make clear to the general council that the Labour Government are the only ones who can overcome the present problem by agreement with the trade unions? Will he make clear to the trade unions that due to the way in which they have co-operated with us over the last three years, and mainly due to their efforts, we have been able to keep down the rate of inflation? Will he also make clear that the policy of confrontation coming from the Opposition makes it impossible for the Conservative Party to work with the trade union movement at all?

I hope to meet the general council of the TUC on Monday. I shall point out the dislocation that is occurring in the country as a result of the present position on ay claims and pay settlements in which negotiations seem to be preceded, on occasions, by strikes and in which, contrary to the view often expressed by certain hon. Members in this House, trade unions do not seem to have sufficient control over their own members. It is a salutary reminder to hon. Members in this House that it is not the leaders of the unions who are failing in their attempt to try to co-operate. It is groups of independent minded subjects of this country who are acting on their own. I would have thought that the Opposition at least might have some lessons to learn from that.

Looking ahead of the present dispute to what might be coming, will the Prime Minister give the House an indication of how damaging could be a strike by Government computer operators?

I could not do so in reply to that supplementary question. But there is no doubt, as I have said at this Dispatch Box on many occasions, that our society is now so complex that an increasing number of relatively small groups of people can say to the country "We are going to hold up your operation." That is why we should examine all proposals, such as those for taking particular groups out of the strike area, if that is possible. None of us should be dogmatic, although when they were removed originally it was because it was thought that this had no particular value. We should examine all these matters, but, basically, the question is what kind of society we want in this country. This is a totally acquisitive society, and some people are now practising what the Opposition preaches.

Is not the Prime Minister's problem over the road hauliers' strike made more difficult by the fact that the Transport and General Workers' Union holds 2 million votes at his party conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "One million."] All right, a million. The union is a prime contributor to his party's funds. It controls the nomination of more than a score of his party's Members in this House. Does he find that this inhibits him in saying whether he wants the Transport and General Workers' Union to be defeated in this strike and for the employers to get their men back at the present offer?

The hon. Gentlemen's question was well up to his usual standard. As was rather noisily pointed out to him, he is only 100 per cent. wrong on the number of votes—not that that, if I may say so, is significant, because the Government of this country will carry out their responsibilities—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—irrespective of their affiliations to any particular group. I believe that would be true of the Conservative Party in relation to the many contributors to its party funds, just as it is true in relation to ours.

Again and again, the Leader of the Opposition claims that simple Government intervention is a panacea and would solve all these problems. Many people outside this House believe that. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, while the Government are prepared to intervene when they think that it is absolutely necessary, the most dangerous and terrifying result of Government intervention is that the position would get worse?

There are insufficient vehicles at the disposal of the Government and, indeed, people to drive them, especially because of the complicated loads that exist today. Those hon. Members who shout loudly should examine this problem a little more and see what the difficulties are.

Does the Prime Minister accept that if this is an acquisitive society we are making a pretty poor job of it? Even East Germany and Czechoslovakia have now overtaken us in terms of income per head.

I take the hon. Member's point. We have been through these proposals on many occasions before. We have been through wage freezes and the rest. I cannot say that they ever form a universal panacea. I hope that Opposition Members below and above the Gangway, if they should ever come to power, will take into account that they will find it essential to work closely with the trade unions and the TUC. I beg of them, if they hope for a chance of doing that, to restrain some of their more absurd criticisms.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I call attention to the fact that unfortunately you were unable to call any hon. Member for the North-West. Many of us wished to raise with the Prime Minister the serious state of the water supply in the North-West which is becoming worse every day.

The hon. Lady cannot ask a question now. I am sorry that I did not call an hon. Member from the North-West. Almost every part of the country has its own problems.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I ask you, with due respect, having regard to the enormous number of hon. Members who wish to be called from all districts and for a variety of reasons, whether it is entirely reasonable for you to call two members of the Liberal Party?

One of the prime duties of the Speaker is to try to the best of his ability to guard minority rights while bearing in mind majority rights. I try to achieve a balance.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the end of Questions to the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) sought to raise a point of order and implied that water supplies in her constituency were in jeopardy. I understand that the hon. Lady has been given the same information as I have by the chairman of the water authority, which is that the water supply situation in Lancaster is perfectly normal.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I sought to raise the overall position of the North-West water authority. I was in touch with the chairman of the authority shortly after one o'clock. The point that I wished to raise with the Prime Minister was that the Pennine division went back on Monday after 10 days, but that it will be a week before it gets into order, that the Ribble—

Order. We cannot go into this matter now. The hon. Lady has made her position quite clear. She has been in touch with the water authority this morning. I think that clears that matter.