asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mentally abnormal people are currently detained in prisons.

On 31 December, the lastest date for which figures are available, there were 519 persons held in prison department establishments who were considered by prison medical officers to be suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree warranting their detention in hospital for medical treatment under the Mental Health Act 1959. Of these, 389 were serving a sentence.

Does the Minister accept that many people believe that that figure is too low and the the real figure is about 1,000? But whatever the exact figure, it is too high. The prison service is completely incapable of providing adequate medical facilities for these people, and the reason behind it is that there has been a scandalous—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must seek information rather than give it. If he can put his remarks in the form of a question, it will be helpful.

Does the Minister accept that the reason behind this high number of mentally ill offenders in prison is that there has been a scandalous under-pro-vision of regional secure units, and that although the Government have allocated money it just has not been spent?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about people in prison who should be being treated in hospital under the Mental Health Act. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services continues to urge regional hospital authorities to set up more regional secure units, and 10 out of the 14 hospital authorities have submitted firm proposals for units. These are now under way and should be established in the early 1980s.

Did my hon. Friend see the recent "Tonight" programme on television which gave some examples of the use—and sometimes grave misuse—of drugs on mentally disordered offenders in prisons? Does she accept that one way to allay disquiet on this issue would be to take the prison medical service into the National Health Service, so that the standards laid down in the National Health Service about training, equipment, and so on, could be guaranteed within the prison medical service?

My hon. Friend raised this on the Adjournment, and in reply I spoke at great length on the whole subject. I recommend that he reads my speech in Hansard.

Can the Minister confirm that this whole subject is being looked at in the present inquiry under Mr. Justice May? Can she also confirm that it is still expected that the final report of that inquiry will reach us by the target date of March, as originally intended?

I understand that a parliamentary question on that matter was answered yesterday, and that the reply was that it was expected to receive the report in the summer.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the prison department not only says that it is inhuman to keep such persons in prison but also adamantly refuses to make proper arrangements for their appropriate medical care and treatment? Surely this is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security, which has failed to provide regional secure units? Perhaps some pressure could be brought to bear on that Department, if the full economic cost of keeping such persons in prison was charged to the Department of Health and Social Security, and if we legislated to ensure that courts could remand mentally disordered offenders to named hospitals.

This has always been considered jointly between the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security. I have already referred to the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is taking to set up these units.

Order. I intend to move faster on the other questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make a statement about the authorisation of further local radio stations.

We hope to be able to announce the location of further local radio stations in the course of the year.

Is the Minister aware that there was great disappointment in Blackpool and the Fylde that they were left out of the Government's last list? Is she also aware that they were named by the IBA as a priority area in regard to the development of independent local radio and that they are not adequately covered by Radio Blackburn? Will she, therefore, give careful attention to their claim in considering the next list?

I realise that many hon. Members must have been disappointed that their areas were not among the 18 that were recently announced. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, and no doubt he will be making representations to the BBC and the IBA.

Will my hon. Friend convey to the IBA the Government's hope that these local radio stations will be genuine community stations that are owned by the community and not the conventional kind of joint stock companies, since the profitability of independent local radio is now established?

Great efforts are being made in the preliminary period, as the stations are being set up, to make sure that the views of the local communities are taken into consideration, and that they are able to make representations to the BBC and the IBA.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a departmental working party into the effects of scenes of violence in television programmes on society, and the influence which they have on the viewing public, particularly children and young people.

In response to the Government's White Paper on broadcasting, the BBC and the IBA have been reviewing their codes of guidance on violence and have set up their own working parties to advise them, in the light of available research. My Department has recently conducted, and published in 1977, a wide-ranging research study on "Screen Violence and Film Censorship", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The available research also includes the study by Dr. Belson, published last year, on "TV Violence and the Adolescent Boy".

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that I am very disappointed that he has not set up a high-level working party in his Department? Is he also aware that, judging from a recent reply that I received from the chairwoman of the IBA, the working parties do not seem to be working very well? Does he accept that the balance of evidence now shows that the disgusting scenes of violence on television are increasing the tolerance of violence in society and encouraging the aping of violence among the young? Will he reconsider his position and set up an urgent inquiry?

I indicated to my hon. Friend that research has been done. I shall willingly help in any way. The problem is that I believe it has been proved that violence on television does have this effect. I am not sure whether I need more advice in that regard. What matters now is what the BBC and IBA do about it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a little more urgency to this matter? His hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) has a motion on the Order Paper that has been signed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. Can we have a ministerial reaction to that?

It is on the same subject, as to whether one could grade films that are shown on television in the same way as films are graded for the cinema. The difference is that control in the home is different from control in the community, and is something that can be done only by the head of the household.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that as a first step at least feature films on television could carry the BBFC grading that is operated for cinemas? Surely it seems a bit ludicrous to have censorship indication for cinemas but no indication at all for films shown on television. Could not that suggestion, which I made more than two years ago, be adopted?

I shall certainly put it to the BBC and the IBA. But it is still a fact that notification outside a cinema leads to those who control the cinema controlling people who move in and out on the basis of age. I shall put that suggestion to the authorities, but it is a fact that the use of television in the home is rather different from paying to go to the cinema.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we do not need any more inquiries, because they tend only to delay the action that is required. Does he also appreciate that if this House tells the governors of both the BBC and IBA that they must act now—and we believe that they should do so—they then must respond to our request?

I do not know that they have to, but we can bring that matter to their notice. There are schemes in the legislation for the BBC and the IBA that I believe would help us in monitoring, or whatever the word is.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has had any recent meeting with the director-general of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

I last met the governors and the director-general of the BBC on 8 February and discussed a range of subjects.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea if he met the director-general again urgently and told him that it is not only members of Parliament but many millions of people outside who are concerned about the removal of certain current affairs programmes and their replacement by chat shows? If it is really a question of finance for the BBC, surely the Gov- ernment should take on board the idea that has been put forward by many Labour Members, namely, that the funds should be paid out of a block grant from the Government instead of in their present form.

On the latter point, as was announced in the House recently, an inquiry is taking place without any commitment. Whatever my views may be about the difference between a chat show and the very interesting programmes on "Tonight", I have no control over them and neither should I. However, I can indicate my view.

When the Home Secretary does see the director-general, will he be able to give him an assurance that the Government have had second thoughts on the White Paper proposal to undermine the political independence of the BBC by introducing about 20 Home Office nominees into the management?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong with regard to the proposal, but there will be plenty of time to discuss it when the appropriate moment comes. I have been looking back to the time of Suez, about 20 years ago, and I do not believe that there is any political control over the BBC in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman has suggested, nor do I believe that any of the changes would bring that about.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the criteria on which the immigration officials reach decisions concerning the admission of fiancées of British residents and the advice issued by his Department on what methods may be used to obtain the necessary information on which to base decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will hold an inquiry into the examination of women by his immigration officers, giving the full text of instruction and legal provisions extant since the passing of the first Act and publish the report of his findings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the fairness of the screening procedures for immigrants' dependants and fiancées by the immigration authorities.

I have nothing to add to what I said in the House on Monday 19 February.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread feeling among the minority communities in the country that the immigration procedures, adopted particularly at Heathrow, are discriminatory either in principle or in application? Does he accept that the only way to allow a proper and informed discussion on this matter is to publish the regulations that have been issued to immigration officers, so that we can judge whether they are fair and whether they are being properly applied in individual cases?

The regulations have been published. I have looked through the regulations very carefully this week. There is a problem. The instructions give advice to immigration officers as to how to deal with abuse. They describe methods of doctoring passports, and so on. It would be very foolish to publish that information. I dealt with the medical aspect at length a few days ago. Indeed, I gave the figures which show that only 0·8 per cent. of those who arrived from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1977 were refused admission. It is only 0·1 per cent. for all those arriving, about 12 million people. I do not believe what my hon. Friend says. Although there may be problems from time to time, I do not accept the general stricture.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sense of shock and abhorrence that most of us feel about these events was not allayed by his announcement of two professional inquiries on Tuesday? Will he make sure that there is a public announcement about the results of the inquiries? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the hazards of life and death for would-be immigrants and members of the prison service exposed to X-ray by unqualified radiographers is a responsibility that cannot be met by mere instructions? Qualified radiographers must do these jobs.

It is important to look at the use made of the X-rays, not only because of what has happened recently. Indeed, we are considering the whole nature of medical examinations. We went into this at great length the other night. I am sad that all that was said in the House the other night was not reported, whereas the original allegation was.

On Tuesday I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend said, but will he now go further and say whether the inquiry that he has set in train, in consultation with Sir Henry Yellowlees, will include the practices of our immigration authorities on the Indian sub-continent? Secondly, will the results of the investigation be published?

I see no reason for not publishing the results of the inquiry in this country and abroad.

If a major mistake was made by immigration officials recently, will the Home Secretary tell us whether any official has been reprimanded as a result? Does he appreciate that the whole of our immigration policy has been discredited by that episode?

I do not think that is so. This was the action of a doctor, and in terms of the rules. It was done after signing a paper. There is no need for disciplinary action. It was wrong to have done it, and I have stopped it happening again.

Since many of us have watched the immigration officials at work, will the Home Secretary pass on to them our admiration of their courtesy and dignity, often under great provocation?

The immigration officers work under the Home Office. They are civil servants in the Home Office. I shall pass on the comments of the hon. Gentleman.

My right hon. Friend said that he cannot publish the detailed guidelines that are issued, but can he publish parts of the guidelines or at least give the House the general criteria of guidelines that are issued to immigration officers? That would be a response to the widespread concern that this case, and others, have revealed.

It would be helpful from my point of view to do that. But there is information in general that I would not want to publish. The criteria are in the immigration regulations. Although it looks like covering up, it is not. We have gone a long way recently in what we have said. We must see what comes out of the inquiry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we deplore the virginity tests and welcome his instructions to stop them? Secondly, when does he expect the investigations into the medical examinations and the X-ray examinations to be completed? Urgency is important, especially because of what is happening in the Indian Parliament. Thirdly, although we expect high standards from immigration officers, will he ensure that no changes are made that will assist those trying to abuse or evade our immigration controls?

On the latter point, the answer is "No". It is important that there is firm immigration control. If there were not, it would give ammunition to those who want to make something out of it. That is absolutely firm.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees from Chile have been admitted to the United Kingdom in the years 1976, 1977 and 1978 respectively.

The available figures are 568 and 600 Chilean refugees in 1976 and 1977 respectively and 485 refugees from Latin America in 1978.

Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the Government's record on Chilean refugees? But we must press the Department on individual cases. In Argentina there are many Chilean refugees as well as Argentinians who are in a desperate plight. It would be more than likely that if the Chileans were sent back to their country they would be tortured and killed. Will my hon. Friend consider the plight of these refugees in Argentina in order to expedite matters?

I am grateful for that tribute to our policy on Chilean refugees. I welcome the opportunity to enlarge upon an answer given by my right hon. Friend in June last year in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). He indicated that, in addition to Chileans and non-Argentinian nationals in Argentina, applications are considered from Latin Americans in their countries who can show a genuine need for resettlement and who have ties with this country.

Is the Minister's definition of "refugee" the same as that applied to Vietnamese refugees or East African Asians? Should not the Government adopt the Convention on the Status of Refugees so that we know the conditions under which people may qualify as refugees?

I confirm that the definition is the same. We have nothing to yield to any country in our observance of that United Nation's convention and the number of refugees that we accept.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of persons who are currently in arrears in payment of fines; and what is the present total of such arrears.

The information sought in the first part of the question is not available. On 30 September 1978, the latest date for which this information is available, the amount of unpaid fines outstanding in England and Wales, excluding inner London, was £26,605,835. This figure includes fines in respect of which the time allowed for payment had not expired.

Is it therefore not clear that urgent and intensive consideration should be given not merely to alternatives to fines but alternatives to custodial sentences that could be awarded to defaulters? Does my hon. Friend agree that her answer suggests that there may be a measure of disdain for the law that should not be ignored?

My hon. Friend is rightly concerned that such a large amount of money is not paid, but he does not suggest a satisfactory remedy. The fines written off annually as uncollectable are 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of the total amount imposed.

Can the Minister state what proportion of the arrears relate to juvenile courts? Is she satisfied that juvenile courts have sufficient powers to enforce their fines?

If the hon. Gentleman would ask a specific question I could give him the exact figures. On the practice in courts, a Home Office working party on administration and procedures in courts has considered and issued advice on the enforcement of fines.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of new recruits to the police force in the last six months were women.

About 25 per cent.

As women are very often physically unable to carry out the difficult tasks required of our police officers in protecting the public against violent crime, does not the Under-Secretary think that this relatively high percentage of new women recruits shows that there are still many police forces in this country which are desperately undermanned or, as the Minister of State says, underpersonned? Does not this mean that we should be implementing in full the Edmund-Davies report to make sure that we have more male recruits to bring our police forces up to strength?

The question shows the total confusion in the hon. Member's mind. He says that there are too many women on the one hand, but on the other he says that there are not enough men. To reduce the number of women will not increase the number of men. The proportion of women in the police service is 7·8 per cent., which does not sound an excessive amount. There is a desperate need for more male police officers, but it is nothing to do with the fact that 7·8 per cent. are women.

Is the Under-Secretary equally concerned about the number and quality of entrants into another group of crime prevention officers, namely private security—

Order. This question is about the police force. The hon. Member's question must relate to that.

In the campaign that the Home Department is running for recruitment of ethnic minorities in multi-racial areas, will my hon. Friend pay special attention to the recruitment of females from such minorities? This would be of considerable help in solving a number of problems that we face in integrating ethnic minorities into the community.

I would welcome recruitment to the police service of men and women of any minority group which would improve the strength of the service. There is no discrimination within the service. The Sex Discrimination Act was introduced to deal with the kind of prejudice and discrimination shown in the original question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that British subjects resident in the Netherlands who are given the right to vote in the election for the European Parliament do not lose their electoral rights in the United Kingdom.

Under United Kingdom law, a qualified elector does not lose his right to vote by virtue of having voted in an election abroad. No one may vote more than once, however, in the forthcoming European Assembly elections.

Since the Home Office has neglected its duty to enfranchise British subjects living in Europe for the forthcoming election, does not the Minister have some sense of shame in relying on the charity of the Dutch to give these people the franchise that they deserve?

No. This was a decision of the House and I am only sorry that we were spared a contribution from the hon. and learned Member. The House having taken that decision, it is not merely a Home Office diktat.

Will the Minister look again at the question of disfranchisement of British subjects living in the EEC? This was raised at the time of the Common Market referendum and it has caused very considerable disquiet among British subjects. There are an increasing number of them living in the Community now.

The decision of Parliament has been taken in this case and any change in the franchise should be looked at by Mr. Speaker's Conference. If hon. Members want to refer it as a subject to Mr. Speaker's Conference, they are at liberty to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations have made representations to him about the rates of pay proposed on behalf of probation officers, and their concern about the erosion of their pay in recent years; what steps he has taken to reassure the probation officers; and if he will make a statement.

The only organisation from which we have received representations in the current pay round about probation officers' pay, on which the existing agreement expires on 30 June, is the National Association of Probation Officers. A working party of the joint negotiating committee is examining the pay structure of the service and is due to report shortly.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that the main concern of probation officers and all those who work in the probation service is the danger of the erosion of their pay and of future pay? Will she do all in her power to avoid a breakdown in the probation service?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware of the concern which exists in the probation service. He will give close consideration to any recommendations that the Committee makes as a result of the report.

Is the Minister aware of the great anxiety in the prison service as well—

Order. This question is about probation officers.

Many probation officers work on the fringe of the prison service.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the instructions given to immigration officers.

The instructions to the immigration service provide the detailed information and guidance as to the procedure to be followed by immigration officers in the exercise of their duties in accordance wih the Immigration Act 1971 and the immigration rules.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there are two major items of concern? First, when my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was a Minister he gave instructions to civil servants to stop the virginity test, yet apparently it has re-emerged. Secondly, wilt my hon. Friend accept that I am very concerned that, at the time when I was making representations to his office, an immigration officer gave instructions to the daughter of one of my constituents to report to Heathrow airport? This gives the impression that the immigration officers are behaving in a manner which indicates that they have rather more power than they should have. Does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers control his Department, not civil servants?

On the case that my hon. Friend has mentioned, the form sent to his constituent was for an extension of temporary admission. It contained on the top of it a telephone number. In the vast majority of cases, people who are so contacted, telephone Heathrow and therefore have no need to go along—their temporary admission is extended. That was done in response to some of my hon. Friends' representations. I have looked again at the wording of the letter, because obviously temporary admission must be extended and I am now trying to clarify that wording so that there is no confusion, even among a small minority, about what is intended. All that is intended is the extension of temporary admission.

Will not the Minister accept that there is now an urgent necessity for an inquiry into the appointment and training of immigration officers? Will he further accept that many of us feel that as immigration officers, and not this House, control immigration in this country, the inquiry is urgently needed?

In the latter part of her question, my hon. Friend puts a quite impossible doctrine. Twelve million people come to this country annually. At most, a very, very small proportion are refused admittance. Those refusals are under the control of Ministers and are subject to representation by hon. Members. I do not accept that there is a need for such an inquiry, but I shall keep procedures under review to see that they are as flexible and humane as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the director-general of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

As I said in reply earlier today to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I last met the governors and the director-general of the BBC on 8 February. I last met the chairman of the IBA yesterday.

When the Home Secretary met the two organisations, did he draw to their attention the article in The Daily Telegraph on 22 January by the former Minister of State, Home Office in which he claimed that there was a serious imbalance in the reporting of matters relating to the police and law breakers, with a bias against the police? If he did draw their attention to their article, what reply did they give?

I did not draw this to the attention of the director-general and the chairman. There is strong feeling in the police about this matter. I think that we can let it rest that the police have let their views be known. I am quite prepared to leave it like that.

Does not the Home Secretary think it extraordinary that the BBC, an organisation that is so touchy about the dangers of interference in its affairs, should have proposals to reduce radically its current affairs coverage, and that these can reach a very advanced stage without the governors even being consulted?

I really do not know at what stage the governors were consulted, I know that there is a bit of a rumpus taking place about it now, and there are not many countries in the world where that could happen. I am glad that it is happening.

When the Home Secretary last met the director-general of the BBC did he make it clear that many of us in this House are opposed to the financing of the BBC on the basis of a block grant, as suggested by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Does the Home Secretary realise that it is much more difficult to take this position if the BBC itself is departing from its original Reithian purpose in many programmes and becoming little less than a benefit match for Michael Parkinson?

Bearing in mind the constituency that I represent, I never attack Yorkshiremen in public. I leave that part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question alone. The House will have time to discuss a block grant and other methods of finance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority he accords in his policy of combating street crime and household break-ins to increasing the number of policemen on the beat or to applying a similar amount of financial support to publicity campaigns on crime prevention.

Police forces generally, and those in metropolitan areas particularly, are below establishment. Priority can be given to their need to recruit up to establishment without restricting expenditure on crime prevention publicity.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be spending much more on crime prevention, especially on the use of modern publicity techniques, so that the public generally are made aware of how they may prevent a great deal of street crime, in particular, from taking place? In promoting such publicity campaigns, will she take a lead from other major cities in Europe and plead with the public not to carry openly purses, wallets and like items that attract crime? Likewise, should we not be publicising modern methods of securing doors and windows?

I can assure my hon. Friend that a great deal is being done. Nearly £400,000 will be spent on crime prevention publicity in 1978–79 compared with £250,000 in the year before. Local chief officers of police are spending money as they see fit to deal with problems of crime prevention in their areas.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a great deal may be done by existing resources being applied in a different way? Will she bear in mind the success of the Devon and Cornwall force in community policing, which has reduced street crime by about 40 per cent., and that of the Hands-worth force, which has achieved a 50 per cent. reduction? Is it not time that we applied that system throughout the country?

Each chief officer of police is left to decide the needs of his own area. I am sure that the chief officers are aware of the procedures in other areas and will take measures to emulate them if they think fit.

May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that the police in the Folkestone area are giving much appreciated talks to various organisations such as senior citizens clubs? The talks are much appreciated and are helping to reduce crime? Will she carry that initiative to other areas?

That is done in many areas, including my constituency of Halifax. I should like to see the practice spread throughout the country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he is contemplating in the rules and procedures governing the reviews of parliamentary constituencies in England; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

As there are frequent population changes in many English parliamentary constituencies, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the interests of fairness there should be more frequent reviews of parliamentary boundaries? Why cannot we have a system in England under which there are a fair and reasonable number of electors—about 60,000 in each constituency—rather than having 80,000 to 90,000 in many constituencies and under 40,000 in others?

In 1958 the House of Commons decided to change the period of review and make it every 10 to 15 years because the previous method of review every three to seven years was thought to be too frequent. I sometimes wish that we would make up our minds and stick to that decision.

Will my hon. Friend think about that again? Will he take on board the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel), that there is a gross and inherent unfairness in the great variations between the sizes of electorate and as to the times at which sensible changes may be made?

That is why a general review is now taking place. I was asked to change the rules in the middle of the general review and to expedite it in certain instances. That I am not prepared to do.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends next to meet representatives of chief constables; and what he expects to discuss with them.

I frequently meet the office bearers and other members of the Association of Chief Police Officers, individually or collectively, to discuss matters of common interest.

Has the Home Secretary discussed with members of the association the White Paper that was issued last week—namely, the concordat, if I may call it that?—and its contents on secondary picketing? If he has not done so, will he do so to ensure that the chief constables have their anxieties stilled about the present position?

The chief constables have no anxieties on that score. I brought the matter to their notice. That is one of my jobs. I had not discussed the issue with them because guidance was given by the TUC to its constituent unions. The guidance was not to chief constables.