asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the transfer of the Price sisters to Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what considerations he decided on the transfer of the Misses Price to Northern Ireland.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) on 25th March.—[Vol. 889, c. 118.]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but does he not think, first, that it might have been better had he made a statement at the time that the transfer of the Price sisters was made? Second, might he not now feel, in the light of the renewed outbreak of violence in the Province, regrettable though it is, that the transfer was perhaps, to say the least, premature?

No, I do not think so on either point. Both are matters for consideration. We announced the transfer as soon as it had taken place. One would never announce a transfer before it had taken place or while it was taking place. I made it clear to the House last June that I intended to transfer these two sisters before the end of 1974, subject to there being no great outbreak of violence or deterioration in the security position. Clearly those conditions did not prevail towards the end of 1974. I believed, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that they had come to prevail and I judged—it is bound to be a difficult matter of judgment—that the time was right for the transfer.

While it is desirable that long-term prisoners should be as near as possible to their relatives, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the safety at Armagh women's prison is satisfactory? Is he aware that there is some outcry in Republican, no less than in Loyalist, circles that these prisoners have been treated more favourably than others? What will his attitude be to other prisoners from Northern Ireland serving sentences in Great Britain?

I have to consider all cases on their individual merits. As the House knows, I made three further transfers in the course of this week. I have no further transfers in prospect at the moment. Cases have to be considered in relation to security and compassionate considerations in combination, but I always made it clear that I was not prepared to consider the Price sisters in total isolation from other prisoners. I also made it clear, however, before the crisis, as it were, of last May and June, that I believed that at some stage they should serve the bulk of their sentences near their home.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us who have followed this matter closely since it began last year would agree with his judgment while deploring the recent outbreaks of violence? Will he accept that those of us who are deeply seeking a peaceful political solution to the problems in Northern Ireland look on this transfer as a constructive contribution to the creation of an atmosphere in Northern Ireland which will allow political judgments to prevail?

I note what my hon. Friend says and I am grateful to him. I do not see it so much in a political context myself. I thought that it was the right decision to foreshadow last May and June and I thought that it was right to carry it out when I did.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with the so-called cease-fire currently breaking down, the release of these terrorists may become a priority for the Provisionals? What measures did he take to satisfy himself that Armagh prison was sufficiently secure to prevent that from happening?

Security in Armagh and other gaols in Northern Ireland is now a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and not for me, but I certainly would not have proceeded without close consultation with him. Although eight or nine years ago I lived through too many prison escapes in this country ever to be prepared to make an absolute statement about anything, I believe that Armagh gaol, while like other gaols it has had its troubles, has not been notable for escapes.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little more about the future? Since there is more violence now in Northern Ireland, would it not be good for him to say that there will certainly be no further transfers until there is full resumption of peaceful conditions in Northern Ireland?

With respect, I think that it is a mistake to lay down these absolute conditions. What I said earlier is that I have no further transfers in mind at the present time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from the TUC regarding the Shrewsbury pickets.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received at the latest convenient date for the release from prison of the Shrewsbury pickets; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations from the TUC and have discussed the case with its representatives on several occasions. I have also received many representations from other organisations and individuals. The position remains that no new considerations have been put before me such as would justify my recommending interference with the decisions of the courts.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the 83 Labour Members of Parliament who have signed the motion for the immediate release of the Shrewsbury Two will almost certainly be, like those who headed the TUC delegation, somewhat disappointed and dismayed? Will he also bear in mind that notwithstanding the fact that the 83 Members represented a minority of the Parliamentary Labour Party, there was seemingly a very large majority of the PLP who neverthless, while not agreeing with us, thought that the sentences were too excessive? If he will not take heed of the somewhat disappointed and dismayed minority, will he take heed of the majority on this matter, because it is going on for a long time?

I hope my hon. Friend will agree that even if he is disappointed and dismayed, and some others too, at least he will not be surprised by my answer to this Question, it being one which has been put down to me and which I have answered on a number of occasions previously. I shall not enter into competition with my hon. Friend about fractional calculations of minorities and majorities in the Parliamentary Labour Party or any other body. It is in fact the case that at the meetings concerned the majority supported my point of view rather than the other point of view. [Interruption.] I wish that my hon. Friend could for one moment allow a question to be answered. That apart, however, I do not take decisions on difficult matters relating to the exercise or non-exercise of the Prerogative on the basis of minorities or majorities. I try to take them on the basis of what I think is the right decision.

Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that the vast majority of people do not follow the extreme line of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and prefer that the Home Secretary should carry out his duties as he has said in reviewing the sentences? As there are no new circumstances arising in this matter, the two hooligans who have been imprisoned should stay there and serve their sentences.

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt wish to support me, but I do not think it useful to import such adjectives or pejorative nouns into the debate.

While endorsing, as would the vast majority of lion. Members on both sides of the House, the general views expressed by my right hon. Friend on this matter, may I ask whether he has any further news about the important statement he made concerning the referral of the general law of conspiracy to the Law Commission and when we may expect action on this issue, on which I think there is generally a degree of unanimity on the part of everyone in the House about the need for progress?

The Law Commission has been considering the law of conspiracy which has some wide ramifications going far beyond picketing and industrial law, for example, and it has produced interim reports on some aspects of the matter. I have indicated that I am fully prepared to consider whether there should be interim legislation at some stage on matters of this sc rt. The TUC has been in touch with me. I have told the TUC that I would be very anxious to receive its detailed views on this matter, which I shall consider. It clearly cannot be a matter for this Session—one would want any reform of the law to be tidy and sensible—but I certainly have it in mind as a possibility for next Session.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many experiments in local television he expects to be in existence on 31st December 1975 and whether he will make a statement.

The experiments at Bristol and Wellingborough have now closed down, but those at Greenwich, Sheffield and Swindon are still in operation. We hope they will continue, although that is a matter for the commercial judgment of their operators.

Is my hon. Friend aware that by allowing advertising on these stations the Government made it easier for them to continue under private control, and that it would be preferable for cable community television to be developed under public ownership and control?

I recognise that it would be possible to allow these to continue under public control in the circumstances indicated by my hon. Friend, but we were pressed by the Annan Committee to consider allowing them to advertise as a means of allowing them to continue until the Annan Committee could consider their long-term future. We thought it right to respond to that request.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision of Rediffusion to close down the Bristol experiment, Rediffusion being the most well-financed of all the organisations which have been involved in this experiment, is very deplorable and that the decision of my right hon. Friend to allow a variation in the terms of the experiment was probably the right one if we were to get all the necessary data by 1977?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said in the latter part of his question. I cannot really comment on the first part of it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he is taking in tackling urban deprivation.

We are continuing to develop programmes which have already been announced.

When shall we see some real momentum behind the Government's urban drive? If the difficulty is resources, does not the Minister agree that several inner city areas could be transformed for a fraction of the money that is being wasted, for example, on some of the ill-conceived brainchildren of the Secretary of State for Industry? Will the hon. Gentleman consider this matter further?

In the last two phases of the urban programme we have recently distributed something a little short of £7 million, and we are continuing with the community development projects. We are at present discussing ways in which they can be improved. As for the comprehensive community programmes, the programme for which was announced last year, we are in discussion with a number of local authorities to see whether they would be able to assist in the trial programmes we have projected, and we shall be making announcements as soon as we have hard decisions to make.

While a certain amount of urban aid has come to Central Lambeth, may I ask my hon. Friend to look at the report recently produced by the Department of the Environment which shows that Central Lambeth has a higher proportion of low-paid workers than exists anywhere else, with 15 per cent. earning less than £24 a week?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the problems of Lambeth. Indeed, I have visited the borough on a number of occasions. We paid special attention to Lambeth's problems in the allocation of urban aid. But Lambeth shares—I agree, in a marked degree—with many other parts of our inner cities problems which need a major Government programme to finance. These are matters which we have under consideration.

What are the Government learning about urban deprivation from the work of the Urban Deprivation Unit, which has been in existence for two years and has not produced its report?

The Urban Deprivation Unit was not set up to produce a report. It was set up to consider what initiatives would best pay off in the tackling of these very difficult and intractable problems. One of the initiatives has been the establishment of the CCPs, and it is that on which it is currently engaged.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the largest and most vulnerable groups resident in inner city areas is one-parent families? Does he accept that the implementation of the Finer Committee's proposals would do a great deal to ease the strains of urban deprivation? If so, will he use his influence with his Cabinet colleagues who are responsible for the recommendations on income, housing and day care, to get the proposals implemented?

I suspect that the major part of that question is well outside the Question I have to consider today and is outside my departmental responsibility. All I would say is that I will certainly try to exercise my influence with my Cabinet colleagues, such as it is, in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government intentions concerning the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his intention with regard to the continuation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974.

I have not reached a final decision, but my present view is that it would be unwise to allow the Act to lapse at the end of May. I have no intention, however, of asking Parliament to keep the Act in operation longer than is necessary.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that in the circumstances of the Birmingham bomb outrage it was understandable that the House should rush through legislation but that it is not appropriate that we should legislate on such a sensitive area of civil liberties in that manner? Would it not be better, if we are to prolong this legislation, to have a new Bill and to debate and consider it fully in Committee, with proper regard to appeal procedures and all the consequential matters arising from this kind of legislation?

I think I would take the view of my hon. Friend if I were contemplating a position in which legislation of this sort became a permanent part of our statute law. But I do not think it would be sensible to do this in circumstances in which I believe that it would be right to renew it at the present time. I think the House will on balance agree that, with a fragile cease-fire, for me to allow the Act to lapse and then to discover that one was back in more difficult circumstances within a short time would be very rash indeed. I regard this as being essentially temporary legislation. No renewal from six months to six months will be a formality so far as my position is concerned, nor, I am sure, as regards the endorsement of it by the House, if it is so disposed to do.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recall how warmly the House welcomed last November his undertaking that, if and when this legislation came to be renewed after six months, he would not necessarily renew it in exactly its same form but would hold himself open to renew it in an altered form if necessary, taking account of experience in the meantime?

I recall that undertaking and I hope the right hon. Gentleman recalls that it was in no way an absolute undertaking. I remember saying very carefully that my undertaking did not mean that we would legislate again but that we would consider whether alterations were so required as to make legislation more desirable than renewal by order. I am sure that is almost exactly what I said. If I were persuaded that it were right to make alterations, of course I would have to consider whether to renew by legislation rather than by order. I shall consider that matter further in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, I gave no undertakings, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises, that I would not necessarily proceed by order.

In reaching his decision, which I appreciate will rest largely on security considerations, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless pay attention to the plight of the families—I think particularly of the families in my constituency—which have been broken up as a result of the exclusion of husbands and fathers? Will he recognise that many of these families, which are well established in this country with children born and bred here, face much more serious difficulties as a result of the exclusion of the men concerned than would have been the case if they had been convicted of an ordinary offence after proper trial and had been imprisoned in this country?

I shall bear that in mind. I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not lightly endorse exclusion orders. Only 33 persons have been removed from the United Kingdom during the period of the Act. A total of 44 exclusion orders have been made, but some were revoked and others applied to people who were already outside this island. There have, therefore, been a limited number. I bear in mind the disruption of families which is involved, but I must also bear in mind that someone who is killed in a terrorist act suffers still greater disruption of family and every other aspect of existence. While the numbers who have been removed are fewer than those who have been killed by terrorist activities, I do not think I can be accused of using the Act in an excessive way.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Act has been of considerable assistance to the Metropolitan Police and to police forces generally in arresting and detecting those who are wanted for terrorist offences? Does he agree that it has also had a considerable deterrent effect on potential terrorists?

It is difficult to judge the latter point. However, I think it has been of assistance in dealing with a particular situation and has assisted the Metropolitan and other police forces. I think it has been fully justified in the circumstances of the last six months, but that does not mean that I would regard it as a legitimate permanent part of our legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a further statement about his investigation into the use of dogs in experiments to develop new smoking materials.

Yes, Sir. The following have accepted my right hon. Friend's invitation to join the Advisory Committee on the Administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876: My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), Mrs. Peggy Fenner, Professor G. R. Dunstan and Mrs. Mary Warnock.

When does the Minister expect to get the report of the advisory committee? In the meantime, will she suspend these grotesque experiments by withdrawing her licence from them?

In answer to the first point, at the earliest possible moment that the committee can make its recommendation. Clearly, however, it cannot predict exactly how long it will take to carry out its inquiries. On the second point, I do not think it would be right to anticipate the result of the committee's inquiries.

Is my hon. Friend aware that reports of these experiments have caused grave disquiet and considerable offence to many people throughout the country? She says that she is not prepared to act and that she is guided by advice about these experiments, which the majority of people recognise as being evil and disgraceful. Is she aware that while she is waiting for that guidance more damage might be inflicted on animals? I plead with her please to act now to stop the experiment and continue with the investigation.

I appreciate the strong feelings that exist on the matter, but there are strong feelings on both sides and the committee is being asked to look at the subject. The purpose of the reference is to obtain a recommendation from a group of very distinguished people who will take a great deal of trouble to look into this matter.

Does not the Minister agree that the repugnance in which this experiment is held is reflected by the fact that more than 170 right hon. and hon. Members, none of whom I think is opposed to all vivisection, have asked that this experiment should be brought to an end? Does she not agree that the time has now come when the whole question of the use of animals in laboratories must be investigated and licensing considerably tightened up?

The advisory committee was set up for the purpose of looking into experiments which present particular or unusual difficulties or particular controversy. That is the purpose of the committee and it is for that reason that the question of these experiments has been submitted to the committee.

Is it not the case that these experiments have been conducted on the initiative of ICI? Would it not be a good idea, if that company wants to discover the deleterious effects of continuous smoking, for it to put the ICI directors in place of the dogs.

No doubt the committee will look into that point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in his consideration of alternative national sites for a free pop festival in view of the representations made to him about the fear of a breakdown of law and order by residents in the Windsor area.

I regret that so far no alternative site acceptable to all concerned has been found.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his efforts to find an alternative site. One can blame Home Secretaries for a lot of things, but I cannot blame the right hon. Gentleman for the organisers having turned down the most recent suggested site on the ground that it might be offensive to their unclothed devotees. It was called Bramshott, not Brambles, Common, which was very appropriate. On a more serious note, is the Home Secretary aware of the deep feelings which would be aroused should this festival be held again in Windsor? Would it not be better to make sure that it was dealt with on the first day rather than allow an illegal act to continue until 6,000 people were present, when there would be no chance of the police taking appropriate action?

Although I have endeavoured to use my good offices to see whether a site can be found which would avoid the likelihood of difficulties similar to those which took place at the end of August last year, as Home Secretary I am not in the pop festival organisation business. It is no part of my duty to provide a site, and I have no legal authority to say where pop festivals should or should not be held. If there is an attempt for it to take place again on Cavalry Ground in Windsor Great Park, the question of dealing with it would be for the Crown Estates Commission, which is the landlord there, and for the Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police. The Home Secretary has specifically no authority to give any chief constable directions on matters of law enforcement.

In view of the obvious difficulty here, with which we sympathise, would it not be a good idea to suggest to the pop organisers that they should hold these festivals in a remote island somewhere, perhaps off the the coast of Scotland?

The Scilly Isles.

There might be a certain problem over selecting a particular remote island. As the organisers have so far indicated that for some reason they wish to keep fairly close to Windsor, I am not sure that that would be very acceptable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now received the report by Mr. Lewis Hawser, QC, into the Hanratty case; and if he will make a statement.

I have received Mr. Hawser's report and it is being published today. I am most grateful to him for undertaking this onerous task and for the time and care he has given to it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have had only five minutes to study the document, unlike the national Press, representatives of which were telephoning people last night about the matter, with consequent distress? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that while we must all thank Mr. Hawser for the detailed investigation, and must study it carefully, the conclusions will be a matter of profound grief to the Hanratty family? Those who have campaigned for so long on the matter will wish for further evidence as to why Miss Stone's first identification was not used in the court hearings and was not made available at the time of trial, and will perhaps wish for publication of documents 1 to 11 enumerated in the Hawser Report.

As is common practice with Governments of both parties, the report was issued to the Press in advance under an embargo. It appears that that embargo was not respected by some members of the Press. I greatly regret that and the fact that they apparently rang up members of the family. It is highly undesirable behaviour, which is bound to call into question whether one can issue reports in this way. The ending of the practice would mean grave inconvenience to the Press and everyone concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a special fund for those members of the Metropolitan Police Force injured in violent demonstrations; and if he will make this retrospective.

The police pensions scheme makes provision for officers who are forced to retire as the result of an injury on duty, and any officer injured through an assault, or while effecting an arrest, may apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Assistance to officers injured on duty, or their dependants, is among the objects of the Police Dependants' Trust and my right hon. Friend and I do not think it would be appropriate to set up a separate fund.

Is the hon. Lady aware that that answer does not get to the root of the problem, and that violent demonstrations place a heavy burden on the police? Is she aware of Sir Robert Mark's recent speech in which he said that sentences were so lenient in the London area that prosecutions were hardly worth bringing? Will she comment on those remarks?

That is a separate point from the original Question, but I confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. In his report on the Red Lion Square disorders, Lord Justice Scarman said:

"there may well be good reason to wonder whether magistrates do always appreciate the gravity of an offence against public order."

Will my hon. Friend be good enough to convey to the police the appreciation of hon. Members on both sides of the House of the exemplary patience and courtesy shown by the vast majority of police forces in dealing with most demonstrations, which are totally non-violent?

I certainly concur with what my hon. and learned Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought during the last 12 months period for which figures are available, arising from threats and disturbances connected with indoor public meetings.

I regret that this information is not available, because criminal statistics are not collected in such a way as to identify the figures requested.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's difficulties. Is she aware of the existence of an extreme Zionist group which has assaulted people and made threats at at least three recent meetings in London? Is any action being contemplated to contain the activities of the group?

On 19th March two arrests were made, but the cases have not yet been dealt with by the courts and, therefore, are sub judice.

Is my hon. Friend aware that after the last election I submitted to her Department a list of 30 constituencies where violent incidents had taken place, committed by the National Front and other similar extreme Right-wing organisations? Those incidents range from criminal damage to the use of firearms. Can my hon. Friend provide the House on a future occasion with the number of convictions and the number of cases that are pending?

I can only confirm what I said in my first answer, that figures relating to particular types of meetings are not collected. I remind the House, and the courts will be aware, that extremely severe maximum penalties are available for the kind of offences which arise in demonstrations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce legislation to repeal Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

I have nothing at present to add to the reply I gave on 6th March to a similar Question by the hon. Member.—[Vol. 887, c. 468.]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the section is discredited and virtually unusable, and that there is an urgent need for new legislation which will confine the operation of criminal law to the narrowest possible category of situation, where the security of the country is genuinely at risk?

I have indicated in various public statements, one of them probably made since 6th March, that I believe that the area should be narrowly circumscribed and that the object should be to keep the criminal law out of this field so far as possible. That remains the basis of my thinking on the matter. I hope in due course to be able to make a statement to the House in somewhat greater detail about the broad lines on which I wish to proceed and then at a reasonably early practicable time to introduce legislation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many years have elapsed since the Franks Committee reported on the matter, and that it produced a detailed and exhaustive report on which apparently no action has been taken?

Two and a half years have elapsed since the committee reported. In relation to Government action on independent reports, I would not describe that as "many years". But certainly a number of years have elapsed, and I do not wish to add to any dilatoriness that there may have been.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to repeal the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received calling for the amendment or repeal of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

Since 1st October 1974 the Home Office has received 64 letters about obscenity and indecency; but many of these are couched in general terms or relate to several different aspects of the subject, and it is not possible to state precisely how many should be read as calling for amendment to the Obscene Publications Acts. My right hon. Friend has no plans to seek the repeal of this legislation.

Is the hon. Lady aware of the lecture given by the Home Secretary in which he outlined certain restraints which he felt were required on the media in terms of incitement to violence and of gross obscenity? Can anyone by any stretch of the imagination claim that the Obscene Publications Act is controlling either of those abuses?

The subject of this Question must await consideration of the two working papers recently published, one on vagrancy and street offences and one by the Law Commission's working party on conspiracies relating to morals and decency. These should be fully considered and discussed before any decisions are taken on the need for changes in the law.

Has the Minister considered requiring newsagents and supermarkets which stock publications which may be considered offensive to display them only in an area set aside for that purpose? Is she aware that many otherwise broad-minded parents object to the display of pornography at the sweets counter?

If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about any particular display, he is free to report it to the police and they will consider whether it comes within the existing law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to implement the recommendation of his Department's working party document on the prevention of shoplifting.

The working party's report was widely distributed to the retail trade and placed on sale, and a shorter version was made available free to small shopkeepers. Action to implement the recommendations on ways of preventing shoplifting is a matter for individual retailers.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that none or very few of them are likely to take any notice of the recommendations of the report unless his Department does something about it? Is he not slightly concerned at the apparent creation of a wholly new criminal class, like clergymen's wives, specifically as a result of problems encountered in food supermarkets?

First, the working party did not make any recommendation which called for Government action. Secondly, we have made available as widely as possible the recommendations of the working party, and it lies in the hands of retailers to act upon them if they wish. Thirdly, I have no evidence, and I very much doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has, which suggests that clergymen's wives are very much at risk in this area.

Is not my hon. Friend aware of the vast risk which the ordinary decent shopper runs of being wrongfully charged with shoplifting? Will he consider requiring any prosecution brought by a private person or by an independent retailer to have the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions?

That would be wholly inconsonant with the degree of mischief which might exist in this area. It might be possible to consider whether the police should bring the prosecutions, but there remains an important principle in people bringing their own private prosecutions if they wish. However, since my hon. and learned Friend repeats his allegation, may I point out that the number of acquittals in this area is not markedly higher than the number of acquittals over the criminal law generally.

It is much higher.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest available figure of the number of juveniles on remand in custody in British prisons and other detention centres, respectively.

On 31st March, of the 174 boys and six girls aged 14 to 16 who were in custody in England and Wales awaiting trial, 164 boys and two girls were in remand centres and the remainder in prisons. A further 262 boys and six girls who had been convicted were in custody awaiting sentence; of these, 257 boys and three girls were in remand centres and the remainder in prisons.

Does not my hon. Friend accept that it is monstrous that so many children should be incarcerated in Prison Service establishments, particularly as many of them have not been convicted of any offence and a substantial proportion of them are subsequently acquitted or given non-custodial sentences? Would it not be a better use of our resources if they were devoted to the social service and probation departments? What positively does my hon. Friend propose to do about this matter?

I accept that many boys and girls are in custody because of the shortage of secure places in local authority accommodation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services shares my desire to see fewer juveniles remanded to prison and remand centres and she has recently announced a building programme containing proposals for considerable additions to the community home system with secure establishments for observation and assessment.

Has the hon. Lady anything to say about the numbers of children who often have committed many crimes, are taken to the juvenile courts and subsequently sent home? Recently a magistrate said that there was no way under the Children and Young Persons Act of protecting the public from children who frequently stole.

If the hon. Lady will send me examples to illustrate the point, I shall consider them.

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

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) on 8th April.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will visit Scotland in the course of the referendum campaign? Will he accept from me that he will get a particularly warm welcome in Glenrothes New Town, where virtually every industrialist will tell him that he desperately wants us to stay in the European Economic Community? Will he also tell them that two recent public opinion polls—one published this morning—show that about two to one of the British public want to stay in the EEC and that even in Scotland a majority of the people want to stay in?

As to visiting Scotland in the course of the referendum campaign, my hon. Friend will know that when I addressed the Scottish Labour Party in Aberdeen—he may well have been there—I spoke on this question at some length. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has told me about Glenrothes. It is true of a number of areas where a great deal of new industry has been established. I have always been extremely reserved about public opinion polls as being accurate forecasts, but I have seen both of those referred to by my hon. Friend.

In view of last night's vote in the House, will the Prime Minister take an early opportunity to advise the Scottish people which Minister is responsible for explaining the Government's case and the advantages to Scotland of Britain's remaining in the EEC?

All Ministers, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Taunton on 8th March on wages, prices and jobs.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on 14th March.

Bearing in mind that on 18th December last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that 25 per cent. of the people who had settled since July had received increases outside the TUC guidelines, can the Prime Minister say, with or without the aid of his slide rule, what the comparable figure is now? In particular, can he say how it compares with the 43 per cent. of the Parliamentary Labour Party who were good enough to follow him into the Lobby last night?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question obviously flopped, did it not? No doubt it was very carefully prepared. The question of compliance with the guidelines is the subject of frequent statements by my right hon. Friends, myself and others. However, I have not noticed from the Conservative benches at any time—perhaps the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition will give a lead here—a desire to express satisfaction and pleasure when difficult industrial situations have been resolved, including that concerning the London dockers, who are facing great anxiety about the loss of dock employment.

"a neurosis about trade union pay claims'

"A Government which now tried to take on the unions purely over pay would be fighting the wrong battle in the wrong war."

Since the social contract forms the cornerstone of the Government's economic policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"]—would it not be advisable if those who have sincerely observed it for so long were given some help in terms of job protection and if we had immediate quotas imposed on textile imports?

My hon. Friend knows that the question of textiles is being seriously considered. Successive Governments of both parties have imposed controls in these affairs when there has been dumping or unfair competition. We are examining this matter very closely indeed.

Too slow!

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that after the events of last night he would be well advised to avoid the use of phrases like "obvious flop"?

Since the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Minister in, I think, the 1960s Government who was then relegated to the back benches and who spent half of the last Parliament on the back benches, I do not have to look far to see an obvious flop. It may be that this is one of his cyclical returns to the Front Bench. I assure him that it will not last long and that he is always better from the back benches. When he got up, I thought he was about to answer on behalf of his very shy right hon. Friend the leader of his party my question about whether the statements of its finance spokesman represent the policy of the Conservative Party.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he heard the announcement on the radio today that the Government have decided to make a further increase to the Civil Service above and outside of the social contract? If that be the case, may I ask him please not to follow the example of both Governments in recent years by announcing this during the forthcoming recess, because there are many hon. Members who would like to discuss this in the House?

I may be wrong but I have the impression this week that the House is anything but in recess. I did not hear the programme, but with regard to what appears to have been an incorrect statement broadcast this morning, this was taken from an equally incorrect statement in the Press. There has been no decision on the pay of the clerical, industrial and other grades. The negotiations are still continuing. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to correct any false impression that may have been created by incorrect reports.

Since the Prime Minister's excellent speech at Taunton dealt with jobs and full employment, and since the Prime Minister has powers of hiring and firing people—

So have the Young Liberals.

Yes, but at least my problems are not in this House. Will the Prime Minister tell us, in the light of Monday's guidelines whereby Questions are likely to be transferred from politically unreliable Ministers to reliable Ministers, whether the 7 per cent. of Ministers will now have their Questions transferred to politically reliable Ministers, and, if so, whether he will put those other Ministers on half pay or whether he will declare them redundant and replace them with Ministers who can do a full day's work for a full day's pay in the national interest?

Unlike the former Leader of the Conservative Party a year ago, I never for a moment thought of hiring the right hon. Gentleman, even unpaid.

Thank God!

The right hon. Gentleman in referring to my speech at Taunton is straying a long way from the original Question. I have made clear the position of Ministers in reply to questions earlier. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to go on pleasing his party, which I am assured is delighted with him for his frivolity in deep political matters, that is something for his party. It does not concern the rest of the House.

If Ministers stay in office when their views are rejected by a substantial majority of the House, how can they be said to be accountable to a sovereign Parliament?

We now know that the right hon. Lady stayed in office for three and a half years when she did not agree with a decision. If there were one or two other decisions, perhaps she will one day get up and say what they were.

Answer.

I have answered this question a number of times already. I have made it plain that Ministers have a full job of work with their departmental responsibilities. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will now say whether she agrees with the hon. Member for Guildford.

asked the Prime Minister when last he met the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC.

I met the General Secretary of the TUC yesterday and further meetings with the TUC will be arranged as necessary.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he discussed with Len Murray the undoubted improvement in industrial relations that has taken place over the past 12 months?

It is, of course, a fact that the figures for the number of days lost through strikes in the first two months of this year are better than for any year since 1969, when we were previously in office. It is also a fact that what has happened under this Government compares with the 24 million man-days lost in 1972—with the full support, I have no doubt, of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition. I mentioned to representatives of the TUC last night that industrialists are coming to this country from the United States on a mission, which the Government will assist and facilitate, to try to persuade more Americans to invest in Britain and to start factories here. The reason they gave to me—this happened yesterday afternoon—was that there was much greater stability in industrial relations in Britain than in the United States.

Did the right hon. Gentleman ask the TUC leaders to study the latest report of the OECD on the British economy? Will he make clear whether that report, based as it is on the figures and calculations of the British Civil Service, represents the views of the Government? Will he confirm that the report shows that, apart from industrial relations, in every other respect the British economy is now far more dangerously placed than it was at the time of the November Budget or of the last election?

I did not discuss this with the General Secretary, who of course is very well briefed on all international and national documents about the economic situation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including the Common Market."] Like everyone else in this country, the General Secretary is free to form his opinion on that. But whatever opinion he forms is not based on a lack of briefing.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, although we welcome foreign investment which is likely to come to this country from the United States and we recognise the stability and hard work of the British working class and their ability to make goods, we resent any industry doing what Litton Industries did in putting 1,400 people out of work in Hull without notice and leaving them completely on the scrap heap?

And in Leicester.

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That firm, both in Hull and in Leicester, behaved deplorably. and not in accordance with the best standards of British industry. For whatever reason, the firm decided to close its factories without consultation with the workers. The purpose of current legislation before the House is to get the highest possible standards for all industrial firms in this country in relation both to consultation and to accountability, not only to those who work for them but to the nation as a whole.

Will the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC the question of avoiding in future the deplorable damage done to our economy by the recent dock strike? Is he aware that a small body of activists was able to keep out of work thousands of men who wanted to return to work? Why was no Minister prepared to intervene to help to bring that strike to an end and so avoid that damage to the economy?

I referred to the dock strike a few minutes ago. I agree about the damage. In common with other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I also represent a considerable number of dockers. One has to recognise that dock workers are extremely anxious about the posiiton. With the closure of docks and the development of the container trade inland, it is natural that they are anxious and can be worked on by militants. In this case, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would pay tribute to the courage shown by Mr. Jack Jones, the general secretary of the union—

indicated assent.

—who also visited me last night. It is true that for a time the militants got control dishonestly and deceptively and gave false tallies of the numbers who were voting. As for a Minister intervening, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises the deep sensitivity in the docks at present because of the ludicrously dangerous policy followed by the previous Government when they put five dockers in gaol on ideological grounds.