asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the publication of a White Paper outlining the manner in which he proposes to deal with the problems of sex discrimination in all its aspects.

Yes, Sir. I intend to publish a White Paper announcing my proposals for securing equal status for women.

Will my right hon. Friend give an indication when the White Paper will be published, and will he give an assurance that the proposals outlined in it will be much more ambitious and comprehensive than those in the previous Government's White Paper?

I am unable to give an absolutely definite time regarding publication, but I would think that it would be within a matter of two months or, at the most, three months, and possibly during the recess. I certainly hope that the proposals will be comprehensive and reasonably ambitious.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the early-day motion in my name and in the name of some of my hon. Friends? It is an all-party early-day motion. Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on it?

No, Sir. Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to give some indication of what the early-day motion says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take with regard to the report of his Department's Committee on Death Certification and Coroners which was published in 1971; and if he will make a statement.

We are considering the report, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement soon.

Are there not at least two urgent matters arising from the report which require action? First, is it not time that we had some clarification of the law relating to death certification in cases involving human tissue transplants? Secondly, is it not high time that we curbed the activities of certain of Her Majesty's coroners, who appear frequently to ignore the coroners' rules, often causing unnecessary distress to bereaved persons?

I agree that these are only two of the very important aspects of the report which are being considered. There were 114 recommendations in all, and different Government Departments are involved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in the final stages of consultation.

May I remind the hon. Lady of the reply she gave to a Question from me on 2nd April? Will she remember that great distress can be caused to people as a result of the non-issue of death certificates? May I also remind her of a case of a constituent of mine whose wife was killed by a hit-and-run driver? The constituent could not be furnished with a death certificate and for years and years was unable to get benefits from the insurance companies. This is a very urgent matter.

I appreciate the urgency, but many of these recommendations are controversial. There is by no means unanimous agreement on them. It is important that we get some agreement between Departments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will examine ways in which Special Branch activities can, in total, be made publicly accountable without damaging the security needs of individual operations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will examine ways in which Special Branch activities can, in total, be made publicly accountable without damaging the security needs of individual operations.

Individual Special Branch officers are accountable for their actions in the same way as other police officers. I am ready to look into any general aspects which may concern hon. Members, although, as my hon. Friends recognise, individual operations must normally remain secret.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Most people are concerned that they have no idea of the range and scope of these activities, and they would like to know—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea how the public can tell what is the total expenditure on this sort of activity, year after year?

The Special Branch represents approximately 1 per cent. of the total size of the police force. Although figures are not kept of exactly what percentage of cost this represents, since the overwhelming proportion of the cost represents pay and allowances I would think that it was approximately the same proportion.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that with the increase in terrorism in this country it is essential to have a police intelligence organisation which can seek out terrorists before they strike? Does he not further agree that we rely heavily upon the Special Branch in this regard and that this is really no time for anyone to conduct a campaign against it?

I agree that the Special Branch performs a most valuable service—possibly as valuable as, or even more valuable and necessary than, at any time since its inception 90 years ago. I do not think this is a reason why my hon. Friend or others should not ask Questions which they think it appropriate to ask. I shall always endeavour to provide hon. Members and the House generally with such information as I think proper. At the same time, I certainly think that we owe a considerable debt to the Special Branch.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply? Does he accept that there is considerable public disquiet about the erosion of democracy and public accountability today? Will he do all that he can to ensure that at least Members of this House are kept informed?

My hon. Friend's premise has possible interpretations in a number of different ways. As a broad statement, I accept it. I certainly accept that it is not only my desire but my duty to keep this House informed as far as I can.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the two points raised in this Question are connected, namely, the importance of the Special Branch and the value of its work, and the desirability of opening it to public scrutiny, notwithstanding the need to protect individual operations? Does he recognise that in the past there has been a tendency to shroud it in secrecy, which is not in the interests of ensuring that there is public recognition of the work of the Special Branch?

What is desirable, and what I have always endeavoured to do, and will endeavour to do in future, is not to shroud a perfectly reputable and normal branch of the police organisation in any undesirable secrecy, which only arouses suspicion. At the same time, I recognise that there are bound to be certain operations which have to be conducted confidentially or not at all.

Bearing in mind the many activities of the Special Branch, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has yet had the opportunity to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to posters which appeared in London in the early hours of this morning claiming that the police are responsible for the murder of the student who unfortunately died last week? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a most important point? Is he aware that it is stated on the poster that there is to be another demonstration this weekend? Is he further aware that one of his hon. Friends is named in the Morning Star today as being the principal speaker at the demonstration planned for this coming Saturday? If the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has not been drawn to the poster may I rectify that omission herewith and show him it—

Order. The hon. Member may not do that at Question Time.

I do not think it requires the activities of the Special Branch, or even the hon. Gentleman's poster-waving activities, to inform me of this. I was informed of it this morning. I am aware of the circumstances and I take note of them. I am also aware that the hon. Gentleman wished to put a certain question to me this afternoon on which it would not have been appropriate for me to take action, because under Section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936, and any other powers, I have no power to initiate a ban, only to respond to such a request from the Commissioner of Police or the chief police officer in any other area. No such request has been received and it would certainly be inappropriate in such circumstances for me to take action such as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give as much information as is consistent with security about the nature and scale of the work of the Special Branch.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he is prepared to give relating to the nature and scale of the activities of the Special Branch.

The Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police developed out of the Irish Bureau, set up in 1883 to deal with Fenian activity. Other forces in England and Wales now have their own Special Branches. Special Branch officers are police officers and are under the control of their chief officers, who are responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the preservation of public order in their areas.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us how he can possibly equate that reply with a report on the activities of the Special Branch concerning the taking of photographs of nurses demonstrating against their scandalously low pay? Will he also tell the House whether the Special Branch was sufficiently efficient last Saturday, in Red Lion Square, as to take the names and particulars of those members of the National Front who paraded in paramilitary uniform through the square, in direct contravention of the Public Order Act 1936?

I am informed by the Chief Constable of Kent that no photographs were taken of the nurses' demonstration to which my hon. Friend refers. It is true, as is known, that Special Branch officers were present and that one, or perhaps more of them, had cameras. It is not outside the experience of most of my hon. Friends and Members of the House generally that demonstrations organised by the most reputable organisations, and begun with the most estimable of intentions, may be joined by those whose purposes are less benign. On this occasion no photographs were taken at all. As for the details of what happened on Saturday, I have already answered a Private Notice Question about that. If my hon. Friend likes to put down a Question dealing with the particular point he has in mind I shall endeavour to reply to it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that where possible members of the Special Branch are equipped with British equipment? In particular, will he make sure that unless there is a very good reason to the contrary they use the very successful Webley and Scott police revolver, which is widely used by police forces throughout the world?

I congratulate the hon. Member upon having thought of a supplementary question which the Home Office—even with five Questions tabled dealing with the Special Branch—had not thought of. I cannot give him the specific assurance he asked for, but I will give him the general expression of my intention that whenever equipment is equally effective I hope that British equipment will be preferred.

Reverting to the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about the nurses' demonstration, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what justification there was for the intervention of the Special Branch, which was widely reported in the Press, in the industrial dispute at Strachan's in Eastleigh?

The Special Branch has no interest in intervening—and no power to intervene—in trade disputes as such. It has no interest in trade unions as such. It is interested only in subversion and possible subversion. Subversion can come from a variety of quarters. I think that it is most important that the Special Branch should be neutral in its attitude to differences between trade unions and employers, between the members of different political parties, and others. The Chief Constable of Hampshire had reason to believe that public disorder might have resulted from the incident referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). I can assure the House that this in no way detracts from the fact that the Special Branch will, as long as I have any general responsibility for it, maintain a general attitude of neutrality to those engaged in legitimate disputes. It is concerned solely with the activities of individuals who undermine the democratic party régime and not with intervening in any way between those who take different views as to how this power shall be exercised.

Although the Home Secretary is not responsible for the apparent campaign of some of his hon. Friends against both the police and the Special Branch—[Interruption.]—the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible—is he aware that most hon. Members and most members of the public will think it extremely odd that Members of this House at a demonstration on Saturday will give implicit support to people who practise provocation and violence against the democracy and peace of this country?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to hold that point of view. I do not think that he or any other hon. Member will doubt my determination to uphold the legitimate powers of the police in all its aspects. The fact that these Questions have appeared together is not, in my view, part of a campaign. It is because there was a desire to put down certain other Questions which the Table Office, in its wisdom and without consultation with me—which would have been quite inappropriate—decided to regard as being out of order. That has resulted in their concentration on today's Order Paper. It is important that we preserve a balance, that we give the police our confidence and that we sustain them strongly in their proper activities, but that we do not say that hon. Members may not ask Questions which they think appropriate.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that although he is personally responsible for the activities of the Special Branch of the Metropolitan Police it is his judgment and decision alone which should determine whether information sought by hon. Members which by its nature is secret should be supplied? Is that not a decision for the Home Secretary of the day and for no other authority?

Clearly the House has to apply the established rules that have been developed. It is then for me to decide, when Questions are tabled, how much information I can give.

Is the Home Secretary aware that his reply to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about the episode in my constituency and about the non-photography will give considerable comfort and support to the Kent Police? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, further, that there are many elements fomenting trouble against the police and that we look to him to continue to give the police proper support?

Yes. Certainly I shall endeavour to continue my proper support—and I attach equal importance to the adjective and the noun.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that the training of Special Branch officers is such as to ensure they do not encourage the collection of material on legitimate political groups.

It is generally understood in the police service that Special Branch officers should not concern themselves with the political activities of individuals except to the extent required in connection with security and public order.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he reiterate his belief in the good faith of hon. Members on the Government side of the House and stress that what we are concerned about is the defence of the freedom of individuals and legitimate organisations?

I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned, in their varying ways, with the freedom of the individual. I am sure that that applies to my hon. Friend.

Rather than holding public inquiries into the conduct of the police on such occasions as those that we have been discussing, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much more to the point to hold a public inquiry into Communist-backed subversive organisations in this country, whether paramilitary or otherwise?

I do not really know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Nor does the hon. Gentleman.

The only suggestion that I have under consideration for a public inquiry into the activities which I think the hon. Gentleman is describing is about what happened last Saturday, which I told the House on Monday was proposed and welcomed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and which would be concerned equally with the activities of all those concerned in this regrettable incident.

I accept my right hon. Friend's contention that we should do everything possible to support the police, Special Branch or otherwise, in ensuring the maintenance of law and order, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of concern in many quarters about some of the activities of the Special Branch? Cases have been enumerated of photographs being taken of innocent people who were simply going along a road where a meeting was taking place. Is my right hon. Friend aware, further, that the activities of the Special Branch in attending meetings and in taking photographs are giving a great deal of concern to people who are also concerned about the freedom of the individual?

I would have no intention of forbidding the Special Branch to take photographs, even if I had that power. It is extremely valuable that photographs were taken of what took place in Kilburn High Road two weeks ago, for instance. It is very difficult to know who exactly is included in a photograph. We all have photograpths taken of ourselves when we hope that we are innocent and when we do not necessarily ask for the photographs to be taken. I am against any unreasonable use of the power of the camera by the Special Branch, but I am unconvinced—and I have denied specifically in one case which has been put to me that the camera ever was used—that it is used inappropriately.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if the public and Parliament are to be protected from terrorism it will be necessary to take more photographs, to tap more telephones, to open more letters and to recruit more informers, however disagreeable those activities may be?

That is rather an extreme and general statement. My concern is that we should have as effective security as we can. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman will achieve it by his generalised statements that we should do more of everything.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet ready to initiate an experimental scheme to monitor and control the incidence of shoplifting in supermarkets, in accordance with the proposals made to him by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington; and if he would make a statement.

My noble Friend, the Minister of State, has written to the hon. Member.

Does the Minister accept the point that her noble Friend has made in his letter, namely, that he understands the problem but thinks that carrying out an experiment might be administratively difficult? Does she agree that unless we have an experiment we cannot possibly assess the difficulties which may or may not follow if the proposals which have been made can be given wider circulation?

I accept the fact that the Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention which looked into the suggestion did not think that the hon. Member's experiment was feasible. The committee includes representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the National Chamber of Trade. However, it is sympathetic towards a similar scheme—the provision of parking areas for shopping bags in new premises.

Is it not curious that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who belongs to a party dedicated to the sanctity of private property, should now be regarded as the best friend of every shoplifting sneak thief in the country? Why does he always come to their defence?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits have been paid by Lord Longford to Her Majesty's Prisons since January 1971; how many interviews he had with Myra Hindley and with Maxine Croft; whether he had any meetings with Patricia Cairns; and what instructions apply in relation to future applications to visit these prisoners.

There is no central record of the number of visits made to prisoners by Members of either House of Parliament but records are kept of visits to individual prisoners. These show that Myra Hindley has been visited by Lord Longford on 13 occasions since January 1971. There is no record that he ever visited Maxine Croft, or of any meeting with Patricia Cairns in Holloway while she was employed as a prison officer there. My right hon. Friend does not propose to make any changes in the arrangements for authorising visits to prisons by Members of either House of Parliament.

The House will want to study that reply with great care. What are the rules which govern visits to prisoners by peers and Members of Parliament, particularly when the private conversations are then revealed, as Lord Longford revealed them recently in a whole chapter in his book relating to his meetings with the Moors murderess? Should not this practice be condemned?

A Member of Parliament may visit or interview a prisoner only on the express authority of the Secretary of State unless he receives a valid visiting order direct from a prisoner or is a justice of the peace. As to the conditions on which he visits a prison, it is assumed that a Member can be trusted to use with discretion and propriety any information that he gains in the course of his visit. Facilities were always granted to Lord Longford in his capacity as a Member of the House of Lords who had an interest in the welfare and rehabilitation of individual prisoners.

I accept the necessity for Members of the House of Commons to have access to prisons; but I am somewhat disturbed to learn of the privileges extended to Members of the House of Lords, bearing in mind that a constituent of mine, who wished to have access to certain prisoners to investigate the circumstances of the death of his son, has been denied such access. I should have thought that if a privileged occasion existed that would have been it.

I shall certainly reconsider the conditions of access to prisons by peers. The situation at the moment is that Members of Parliament and peers can visit prisoners, but only with the express authority of the Secretary of State.

Is not a peer just as much a Member of Parliament as any Member of this House?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants have been detected in each of the last three years; and whether he will make a statement.

Eighty-four illegal entrants against whom action could be taken were detected during 1971; 59 during 1972; and 258 during 1973. The latter figure includes foreign nationals, for whom records were kept for the first time in 1973.

I thank the Minister of State for that reply. Is he satisfied with the degree of co-operation and coordination between our authorities and those on the Continent in tackling this serious problem?

Yes. We are constantly seeking ways to improve our checks against evasion and illegal smuggling. We have a department which is co-operating with authorities not only in Europe but all over the world.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on this side of the House resent intensely the remarks made a few minutes ago by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) speaking from the Opposition Front Bench? Will my hon. Friend—

Order. The hon. Member must relate his supplementary question to the Question.

Indeed I am, Mr. Speaker. I want to go on from that point to ask my hon. Friend whether he will give an assurance that any investigations conducted under this heading will be made by the legitimate police force, which is answerable to the Home Secretary, who is then accountable to this House, not by private security firms with which the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench is or has been associated?

rose—

Perhaps I may answer my hon. Friend. I must leave the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the personal matters relating to him.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scope of the international organisations responsible for illegal immigration, which has been disclosed in a number of criminal trials, indicates an operation on a vast scale between the Indian subcontinent and this country, and shows that far larger numbers of illegal immigrants are reaching this country than have been disclosed by the official figures that he gave this afternoon? Does he consider that the amnesty that Her Majesty's Government have granted to illegal immigrants is a great encouragement to illegal immigration? Will he therefore reconsider this policy?

I do not agree with anything that the hon. and learned Gentleman said.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman—

Order. We cannot have a debate.

May I ask my hon. Friend to tell us how many of those illegal immigrants were white, how many were coloured, how many came from the United States, and how many came from Europe before we joined the EEC?

My right hon. Friend will have to put down a Question before I can possibly give the answer that he requires. I have to deal daily with those who are deported under the law as it exists. I find that they come from all parts of the world, and that they are of different colours.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that my question was designed to inflame racial prejudice—[Interruption.]

Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of argument.

Is it not obvious that the Government's amnesty for a past category of illegal immigrants may have the effect, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) said, of encouraging more illegal immigration in future? Will the Minister of State give an absolute assurance that the Government will vigorously pursue all the measures to counter illegal immigration that the last Government were developing?

It will not have that effect, because it was designed to cover only a very limited number of illegal entrants who were dealt with under the retrospective legislation of the 1971 Act. We are increasing our checks against any kind of illegal immigration. In general, those who evade immigration laws will be sent back.

Am I entitled, on a point of order—[Interruption.]

Order. I shall rule on this matter. I should prefer the right hon. Gentleman to raise his point of order at the end of Question Time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) suggested that I am or was connected with a security firm. Although I can see nothing discreditable in such a connection, I wish to say to the House that I am not and was not so connected.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my anxiety to convince you, Mr. Speaker, that my supplementary question was in order, I inadvertently used the definite article. I did not intend to say" the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench "but" right hon Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench". I apologise to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of his answer to my supplementary question on Question No. 12—the Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack)—the Minister of State, Home Office said that my question was designed to inflame racial prejudice. My question was designed to do nothing of the sort. I do not expect the Minister to agree with me, and I think that he is wrong, but it is wrong of him to impute that my question had base and criminal motives, and I ask him to withdraw.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On reflection, which I began in the middle of my answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, which caused me to stop, I recognise that I did the hon. Gentleman an injustice. I think that instead of "designed" I should have said "calculated".

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now set up an inquiry into the procedures leading to the arrest and conviction of James Hanratty for murder, in view of new evidence which has been sent to him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the new evidence which is now available, he will now set up a public inquiry into the case of James Hanratty.

I have considered very carefully all the representations which have been made to me, but I am not at present persuaded that it would be right to institute a public inquiry into the case. I intend, however, to invite a Queen's Counsel to make an independent assessment of the representations and of any other relevant material the result of which I would propose to publish.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that even the announcement of this limited inquiry will be widely welcomed not only in the House but by Mr. and Mrs. Hanratty, senior, and many others, who have spent years campaigning for this very tragic affair to be cleared up? We accept that the possibility of intolerable stress for some of the major witnesses militates against a public inquiry, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we must avoid the lack of credibility which in retrospect attaches to the Scott Henderson inquiry, for example, into the Timothy Evans case? Will this investigator have the power to call for documents and to subpoena witnesses, albeit to be heard in private, and will the Hanratty family be granted representation at the inquiry?

No, Sir, there cannot, at an inquiry of this kind, be power to subpoena witnesses or to have representation as such. I think that I am right in saying that neither consideration applied in the case of the Brabin inquiry, which was the ultimate inquiry into the Evans case.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the consideration that he has given to this matter at a time when he has a great number of other matters to which he has had to give much of his time. May I assure my right hon. Friend that there will be an understanding of the reason why much of the inquiry could not take place in public? Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that the Brabin inquiry was held in public, apart from just two days, I think? Might it not be possible for most of this inquiry to take place in public? Is he also aware that there is a great deal of public concern about this matter and that the question of confidence in this inquiry will turn very much on the powers given to the Queen's Counsel who is conducting it? Will counsel have power to call for any relevant police documents and Home Office documents, and will private individuals be able to submit evidence to him?

Yes, individuals concerned can submit evidence. Counsel will have power to see all documents which are relevant. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said earlier. He is probably right in saying that the Brabin inquiry was held to some extent in public, but it had no power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to take evidence on oath, or to demand the disclosure of documents. But my intention, certainly, is that this inquiry, which I trust will be useful, will have all the documents available to it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the new security arrangements at Heathrow Airport.

I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the Policing of Airports Bill, which I presented on 12th June and which I hope will shortly receive a Second Reading.

What will be the future of the original Airports Police in relation to the Metropolitan Police?

The original Airports Police will come into the Metropolitan Police so far as London Airport is concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are now held in prison; and what changes he proposes in the custodial treatment of women offenders.

On 31st May 1974, there were 1,086 women and girls in custody in prison service establishments in England and Wales, of whom 302 were unsentenced. We intend to continue the policy of providing a flexible régime of treatment and training for women offenders which will, so far as possible, take account of their individual needs.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. Does she not agree that of those women who are in prison the overwhelming majority really ought not to be there, and that women who are committed to prison because they are prostitutes, drug addicts, drunkards or shoplifters get very little help from the prison system? Will she do everything possible to see that they are either transferred to open prisons or receive care in the community? Can my hon. Friend say anything at this stage about the abolition of forced feeding of women in prison?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already announced that it is his long-term aim to secure a significant reduction in the prison population and he has emphasised that the courts have a wide range of non-custodial penalties available to them. As regards the forced feeding of women in prison, the Home Secretary has already said that he is considering this matter.

The Minister said that over 300 women are in prison today when still awaiting sentence. I think that I heard her correctly. What is the average length of time, roughly, that they spend there before sentence is passed?

I should like to give the hon. Gentleman an accurate answer to that question—if he will table a separate Question, I shall answer it—but efforts are being made to increase the number of women bailed and to reduce the number of those held on custodial remand.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has plans to visit Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Dublin.

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

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

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make an official visit to Bebington.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to the new local authority district of Mid-Sussex.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Scotland.

I have at present no plans to visit Rhodesia, Dublin, Christchurch in Dorset, Ormskirk, Bebington, the new local authority district of mid-Sussex, or Scotland, Sir.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order. Mr. Heath.

It directly affects the future conduct of business. Is it not an abuse of the existing traditions of Prime Minister's Questions that the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Order.

As it directly affects the conduct of business, I should like your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not an abuse of the tradition of Prime Minister's Questions that Questions of the nature which the Prime Minister has just grouped together should be answered in this way, because this obviously deliberately limits the number of supplementaries which you can call about a particular place to which the Prime Minister has referred.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman is allowed, when other hon. Members are not, to raise points of order during Question Time—[Interruption.] May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, that the right hon. Gentleman frequently changed his practice about grouping, and that it is widely recognised in the House that, for example, just before the last recess, when I was asked, in a Question, to visit Derbyshire, more than half the time of questions on my Derbyshire non-visit related to Chile, on which I had answered Questions for 40 minutes two days earlier?

rose—

Order. I am quite willing to pursue this matter further at the end of Questions. Meanwhile, I rule that nothing has occurred with which the Chair should interfere. Mr. Evans.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On very many occasions you, with the approval of the House, have quite rightly said that you deprecated points of order during Question Time because they deprived Members of having their Questions answered. Even this afternoon, about 10 minutes ago, you rightly deferred hearing a point of order that was about to be raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). But having allowed the Leader of the Opposition a privilege that is not given to any other Member, and now having had this point of order, hon. Members have already been deprived of five minutes of Question Time.

They have also been deprived of another two minutes by the hon. Gentleman. I have said that I am quite willing to pursue this matter later. I have to exercise my judgment on these matters. I did so. We shall now continue with the supplementary questions.

The intention of my Question was to get the House to consider the issue of Rhodesia. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has no intention of making that unnecessary journey, but does he realise that as a party we have put positive proposals on the illegal régime in Rhodesia, that in the past 25 years two-thirds of humanity have been liberated, and that the only colonial territories left are in that part of southern Africa? Now that the Portuguese dictatorship has been overthrown, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau will soon reach independence. As the custodian of the party's manifesto, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we carry out the policies in that document?

I was trying to save the time of the House so that we could make progress. I am sorry that time has been lost.

As the Prime Minister apparently is not moving around very much, will he send someone else to Dublin, in view of the serious situation that could arise if, by any accident, this country left the Common Market, while the Irish Republic will, as we know, stay in? Would not that be an absolute death blow to the long-term chances of peace in the island of Ireland? Should we not have contingency plans to guard against that?

I think that Common Market membership is a separate question from that of the grave situation in Northern Ireland. Whilst I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I had not thought of Common Market membership as necessarily a solution to the deep-lying problems of Northern Ireland. I do not feel that it is necessary for me to go there. We are in close touch with the Government of the Irish Republic, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland visited Dublin recently.

I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend finds that he is unable to make an official visit to Ormskirk. Will he take note of the unacceptably high level of unemployment in the area of Kirkby in my constituency? Will he also take a personal interest in the workers' sit-in at the New Are factory there and give whatever assistance he and the Government can give to their attempts to create a workers' co-operative? Further, will my right hon. Friend note the desire of my constituents for the speedy implementation of the Labour Party's proposals for an extension of public ownership and the preservation of the right to work?

Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has approached a question about which he and I have been concerned over many years. I have visited the Ormskirk constituency many times—more, I think, than my hon. Friend—and Kirkby, which was in my constituency until recently. I am very concerned about what has happened to the plant, which was saved from closure two years ago, but there are great problems in any Government's putting money into the factory in such a situation. The right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) was very helpful to the factory, and consulted me at the end of last year about his anxieties. The collateral which the then Government thought would be available, in terms of premises, against the Government loan does not now seem to be available. There are heavy losses. We are concerned now to save the factory itself for employment much more suited to the purposes for which it was built. It is one of the best engineering premises in the North of England. We are now concerned with finding alternative employment there. We do not rule out, if necessary, the Government's taking over the premises and providing them for suitable management.

As the Prime Minister has just expressed his great concern about jobs, if he is unwilling to come to Christchurch, perhaps he will be willing to receive a deputation of my constituents who are working on Concorde at BAC, Hurn, near Christchurch, explain why his Government are still prevaricating about Concorde, and tell them that he has come out firmly in favour of the aircraft and that he will allow production to proceed as quickly as possible.

I know and understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the future of the Concorde project, which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry—who represent other areas involved, such as Weybridge, Bristol and the engine-producing areas. The Government have been going into the matter very fully I do not think it would help if I said anything further this afternoon, but I take very seriously what the hon. Gentleman said.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the new idea of answering Questions together? It is bound to lead to questions and answers being very diffuse, and may well ensure that Questions from No. Q2 onwards are not dealt with.

I did this grouping today hoping that we could make more rapid progress than we have done in recent weeks, but we lost seven minutes at the beginning because the Leader of the Opposition wanted to celebrate the end of the phoney war by raising a point of order.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for answering my Question, which, as it stands at No. 19 on the Order Paper, I was not totally expecting.

Order. This is all very interesting, but the hon. Gentleman must ask a Question.

If he had visited Mid-Sussex the Prime Minister would have found that many of my constituents were interested in the date of the next General Election. Will he advise us what progress he is making into his investigation of voting at a General Election on what might be called a shift basis?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. It is obvious that I have pleased one hon. Member by grouping a number of Questions, all of which were put down on the same day—in which I am following the Leader of the Opposition—and enabling the hon. Members concerned to put their Questions. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman was not expecting it, but I am happy to feel that he is glad to have had a chance to put a supplementary question on the matter.

I revert to Salisbury. Is my right hon. Friend aware that according to information that some of us have there was a fair chance of Smith making some agreement with Bishop Muzorewa and his people in the ANC? Is my right hon. Friend saying today that if that were possible he would be against it, or would he lend his best efforts to that end?

I did not say that I would be against it. I think that the Government's attitude is that of their predecessors. If there were meaningful talks—and I think that there have been talks between Mr. Smith and his col leagues on the one hand and Bishop Muzorewa and the ANC on the other—and if those talks produced a scheme that looked like commending itself to the African population as well as to the white population, that is something that we would all take very seriously. However, we would have to be satisfied, as our predecessors insisted that they would have to be satisfied, that such a scheme was acceptable to the African population.

Will the right hon. Gentleman come to Scotland, where on 28th February he would have found that unemployment had fallen sharply, that job vacancies were at an all-time high, that industry was in a good state and emigration was at an all-time low? If he went to Scotland today he would see the total uncertainty which industry is facing because of the wild nationalisation plans put forward by the Secretary of State for Industry.

I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). Did he say something about February? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes.") In February, Scotland was on a three-day week like the rest of the country. The numbers signing on unemployed or temporarily stopped at that time were the highest since the war. I do not know whether Scotland had the same experience as the rest of Britain—I suspect that it did—but what the Government did was to end the three-day week in two days.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your guidance because the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who, incidentally, appears to be treating Question Time more and more like a bad version of the Clitheroe Kid, during Questions on visits to various places, grouped all the visit Questions together without exception, save the Question which I tabled—No. Q6—about visiting all the capital cities of the European Economic Community. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that that was right and justified, or was it done because my Question was more difficult than some of the others.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman's point is one that I was considering, and I should like to think about what he said. We are all learning—some of us—on these matters. The reason that I did not include the hon. Gentleman's Question—I admit that perhaps it was wrong not to do so—was that the answer to all the other Questions was that I was not proposing to visit the places concerned. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am going to Brussels next week. I was in Germany yesterday. I should very much like to consider the point that the hon. Member made.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If a number of hon. Members table Questions on a particular speech, which is now accepted as customary, the Prime Minister of the day can be pressed on that matter. It is obvious that this afternoon, when a large number of Questions were answered about visits to different places on which back bench and Front Bench hon. Members may have wished to press the right hon. Gentleman, there was no possible opportunity of pressing him. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will abandon this procedure until the Procedure Committee has ruled upon it.

In my experience one of the problems is that most Prime Ministers, if they are asked a substantive Question, usually transfer it to the Minister responsible. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was no more guilty than any other Prime Minister. It has happened all the time. That is one of the problems.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the suggestion that the matter should be further considered by the Select Com mittee. However, the House will be aware that the Select Committee on Procedure recently considered this matter and reached the conclusion—I speak from memory, and hon. Members can correct me—that the present situation regarding visit Questions was unsatisfactory. The Committee did not have anything to recommend to the House on the matter. If, on the second bite at this cherry, it can find a satisfactory answer—I recognise that this afternoon's experiment has not been 100 per cent. successful, partly because we wasted seven minutes at the beginning on the point of order raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—that will be a matter for the House to consider.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to be suggested that the Procedure Committee be given the task of improving things. Would it not be a good idea if in this Parliament we established a Procedure Committee? We have not yet done so.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier I paid tribute to you, and I think that the House was pleased with the way in which you previously tried to safeguard hon. Members' time on Questions to the Prime Minister. Would it not be possible to have such a safeguard by having an agreed procedure whereby, for example, the first four or five Questions, which may be of a similar character, are lumped together, at the discretion of the Prime Minister in consultation with the Chair? The other Questions could take their normal course. The reasonable figure for such a grouping could be discussed through the usual channels, and the Prime Minister of the day would be able to say, "With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the first three Questions together". Of course, it might be the first three, four or five Questions. That would solve the problem.

rose—

Order. If I am going to get further advice on this matter, I think it would be more convenient for the House if it were conveyed to me in some other way. We have two very important debates today, and also business questions.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While one admires the Prime Minister's ingenuity in avoiding Questions that he is frightened to answer, will he tell us how he proposes to group Questions in future—otherwise hon. Members will have no idea how to put down Questions to him?

That question seems to have been addressed to me, rather than to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall consider what has been said today, and also your own proposal. I find some merit in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). Since there is at present no Select Committee on Procedure, I think that one will have to be appointed specially. There may be a case for discussions through the usual channels to see whether we can agree, not only with the official Opposition but with other parties and hon. Members, on a means acceptable to the House which will help us to move rapidly to other Questions. It may be that the answer lies in grouping only three or four Questions together, whichever happened to be first on the Order Paper. I suggest that there should first be talks through the usual channels, in order to make progress on this matter.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The back bencher in this House has a right to suspect every Prime Minister all the time, because all Prime Ministers have abused Question Time at one time or another. Is it not the case that in the absence of a Select Committee on Procedure the responsibility for protecting the back bencher from this abuse rests with you? In this case, would it not have been within your power to ignore the grouping and to call the other Questions? You are not bound to call supplementary questions from hon. Members who have put down Questions about visits to various parts of the world. It is entirely up to you to protect the back bencher from the abuses of every Prime Minister who has sat on the Front Bench.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. Q2 was obviously vitally important, and the device used by the Prime Minister deprived me of the opportunity of putting to him the position in Northern Ireland, which has been blasted by bombs during the past few days, and of finding out what pressures he intends to bring on the Prime Minister of the Republic to end the smuggling of bombs and explosives from the Republic to Northern Ireland. What protection do you give to a back bencher who represents part of the Province which is suffering in this way?

I shall certainly consider all these points.