asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to alternatives to prison as a form of punishment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making in finding alternatives to prison.

A wide range of powers to pass sentences alternative to imprisonment is now available to the courts. While I do not rule out the possibility of fresh powers, the main task now is to develop facilities to match the powers that already exist. Good progress is being made in developing community service in particular, and it is now available in all or part of 49 out of 56 probation areas in England and Wales.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I recognise that the courts have the opportunity to give suspended sentences and other alternatives. However, does my right hon. Friend realise that magistrates are in the difficult position of receiving advice from various Lord Chancellors suggesting that they should be reluctant to give prison sentences, and that at the same time the public are demanding that magistrates' courts should be more severe in their sentencing? In view of the tremendous public expense incurred by keeping people incarcerated in prison, will my right hon. Friend look at the possibility of setting up other schemes as well as the Community Work Scheme to ensure that people can make a contribution to redress what they have done to society rather than just be kept in prison for long periods?

Yes, indeed. There is a range of possibilities. In particular, there is community service. There are four day training centres, which are at a more experimental stage, situated in Liverpool, Sheffield, London and Pontypridd. There are also the suspended sentence and certain other ranges of penalties.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of my constituents in a short period has collected 250,000 signatures to a petition to bring back the birch? Will the right hon. Gentleman support the Second Reading of the Corporal Punishment Bill on 20th February, a Bill which I have presented and which aims at bringing back the birch?

No, I shall take the view that every Home Secretary has taken, including Home Secretaries in at least four Governments which the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has supported.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is desirable to extend the alternatives to prison, particularly for juveniles, and that in doing so it is crucial that the proper resources be committed to non-custodial measures? Will he not accept that any attempt to reduce the prison population on the cheap will lead only to an increase in the failure rate of non-custodial measures and discredit desirable alternatives to prison?

Yes. It would be quite wrong to try to carry out non-custodial measures on the cheap. The restraints on public expenditure imply that there must be some limit on how fast I or any Home Secretary can advance in this area. However, within the resources available I shall do what I can.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of those who are given community service sentences commit further offences later?

No, not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent report, he remains satisfied with the penalties for crimes of vandalism and violence.

We do not think that the problem lies with the penalties available to the courts, which are already substantial.

Is the Minister aware that there is genuine concern about the increase in vandalism? Does he not agree that the parents of young offenders should be held responsible to the extent that they should be forced to pay compensation to those whose property has been vandalised?

We are aware of the concern and share it. It was for that reason that we set up the working party, the report of which the hon. Gentleman mentions in his Question. That report tries to mobilise public opinion in order to inhibit the spread of this kind of hooliganism. In this respect the powers of juvenile courts are adequate. It is simply a question of using them.

Can my hon. Friend justify the actions of a magistrate in a recent case in allowing a man convicted of theft to keep £300 or £400 worth of goods that he had stolen?

If my hon. Friend applies himself to the specific facts of that case, he will find that the magistrate's conclusion was justified. However, it is no part of my job to comment on the decisions of the judiciary.

Assuming that the penalties in respect of vandalism are sufficient as a matter of law, what efforts is the Home Secretary making to ensure that there is proper payment of compensation by vandals, so that if they are ordered to pay, they pay? I understand that a considerable amount of money is outstanding in respect of the imposition by the courts of orders for the payment of compensation.

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there are adequate powers now for the courts to order compensation in all cases. It is simply a question of collecting the money. As he indicates, in a number of cases where compensation orders were made there has been great difficulty in getting the money, because those ordered had not the means to provide it.

Does not the Minister agree that for vandalism and violence a short, sharp term in a detention centre which specialises in discipline and control would often be a very good thing? Do we have enough detention centres to extend sentences towards that end?

I suppose that whether we have enough detention centres is a matter of one's view of when detention is the appropriate sentence. The appropriate sentence is for the courts. We have done our best to provide an increased number of juvenile detention centres and the numbers have increased substantially in recent years. However, magistrates occasionally complain that they do not have enough places available. All I can say is that the availability of space now in detention centres is very much more than it was some years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will explain in more detail the meaning of paragraph 109 section (f) of the White Paper on Racial Discrimination, Command Paper No. 6234.

It will be part of the task of the new Race Relations Commission to inform and educate public opinion on race relations. How it fulfils this responsibility will be for the new Commission to decide, but it will no doubt do so by seeking to ensure that the results of its investigations are widely publicised and by engaging directly in educative work.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, while much valuable work has been done in schools and elsewhere to counteract the disadvantages suffered by some racial groups, there is an equally important task to be done in educating the community to the fact that we live in a multi-racial society? Will he therefore ensure that the Race Relations Commission pays adequate attention to this aspect of its work and that proper liaison is established with the Department of Education and Science and the Schools Council and other interested bodies?

We are using the word "education" in two senses. There is, first, the general education of society about the need to regard ourselves as a multi-racial society and to act accordingly. I subscribe to what my hon. Friend said about that. Secondly there is the syllabus in schools. That is decided by headmasters and not by the Department of Education and Science. However, we bring to the attention of teachers and headmasters all the evidence now available about the needs of immigrant communities in our society and the wider need to educate society about the needs of these communities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on present trends in Metropolitan Police recruitment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present strength of the Metropolitan Police Force.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how many and by what proportion police forces in England and Wales are below strength, both at the latest date for which figures are available and for one year earlier.

There has been a substantial increase in the rate of recruitment to the Metropolitan Police during 1975. The strength on 30th November was 21,200, a gain of 350 in the first 11 months of the year.

Although we all welcome this upsurge in police recruitment figures and congratulate the police on their impressive achievements, especially within the last few weeks, can the Home Secretary estimate how far the improvement is due to a positive wish to join the police and how far it is due to a fall in other job opportunities due to economic conditions outside the force? Are the Government doing anything tangible to ensure that the new recruits stay in the force if and when the economy picks up again?

No, Sir, I very much doubt whether such an estimate from me or anyone else would be of great value to the hon. Gentleman, or to the House, or the nation. Obviously, varying factors are at work here. It must be said, however, that, apart from fluctuations in the employment prospects, the position concerning the police generally has improved substantially. When I was first Home Secretary, just over 10 years ago, there were 80,000 policemen in this country. We now have just about on 107,000. That has been a big change over a 10-year period. It is extremely important that we not only recruit but retain people. This depends on a substantial number of factors.

A police State.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) is mistaken if he thinks that recruiting police up to complement amounts to having a police State. It depends on a number of things. I should have thought that my hon. Friend was greatly at variance with public opinion if he did not think it desirable to get an adequate number of policemen to do the job.

As improving rates of detection and conviction rather than dramatic punishments are the best response to crime, is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply must be regarded as being as encouraging as have been the commendable achievements of policemen in recent months?

It is important to pay regard not only to numbers but to the achievements of the police. I am glad that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) drew attention to this. Events in London, particularly at the end of 1975, were a triumph for the police and a tribute to methods that were a combination of skill and patience, which have been a particular characteristic of the police in this country. This was a great vindication of those methods.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that Paris, with a smaller population than London, has more than twice as many policemen as has London? Does he also appreciate that the successful tactics, to which he has just paid tribute, in dealing with demonstrations and sieges absorb a very great deal of police manpower? Will he at least ensure that the police are allowed to recruit and to replace the civilian staff that they need in large quantities to complement their own strength?

Yes. In dealing with comparative figures of this kind one has to be a little careful, because the exact organisation of the police in other countries, with certain para-military units involved in some instances, is not strictly comparable. However, I am bound to say that, as compared with most major capital cities, London has to manage with a fairly small number of police, though I am also bound to say that I am not aware—thanks to the efforts of the police—that as a result we manage to deal less successfully with public disorder or terrorist threats or other matters of that sort. That is a great tribute to the police.

Will my right hon. Friend consider approaching the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to see whether it would be possible to reintroduce the scheme whereby young police officers visited schools in the Metropolitan Police area to talk to school leavers and to discuss some of the aspects that my right hon. Friend has been discussing and the dangers when they leave school? This scheme had the very useful by-product of encouraging some young people to consider joining the police force.

The Commissioner and those working closely with him attach the greatest importance to stepping up recruitment and to following up schemes which are valuable, whether of the sort mentioned by my hon. Friend or other schemes. I shall certainly ask the Commissioner for his view of the present scheme.

The net increase in the Metropolitan Police is 250. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a surprisingly large proportion of this increase is likely to have to be set aside for the increase in the number of police dealing with complaints, particularly in the A10 Division? Is not this the wrong moment for setting up a complaints structure—just when the police are under great pressure in dealing with crime—with a greater proportion of policemen having to be set aside to deal with it?

The hon. Gentleman's figure is wrong: it is 350 and not 250—the mistake is understandable. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's contention. I think that the A10 Division has done a substantial job in this respect. If anything, the new procedure will pose fewer and not additional burdens on the A10 Division.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reject the James Committee recommendations to deprive people of the right to trial by jury if accused of shoplifting goods to the value of less than £20.

As my right hon. Friend indicated in the reply he gave on 25th November to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead West (Mr. Horam), we wish to assess reactions to the report generally before reaching conclusions on particular recommendations.—[Vol. 901, c. 105–106.]

Is it not an obnoxious principle that access to a jury should be denied by rationing by cash value? As the increase in shoplifting can be attributed largely to the increase in the number of supermarkets, particularly food supermarkets, and as people who are accused of shoplifting offences are frequently those who have never found themselves on criminal charges before, would not the Home Office be better employed in concentrating its activities on trying to deal with the problem at source—namely, the trading methods employed by the supermarkets? Would it not be better to approach the problem in that way than to try to ration justice in the manner recommended by the James Committee?

If the hon. Gentleman reads the appropriate part of the James Committee Report, he will find that the Committee tried to balance the consideration that he has put forward, a consideration of considerable public policy, against another consideration of public policy—namely, that the higher courts should not be burdened with cases which, on the whole, are trivial. This is a question of judgment and a matter on which the Government will have to come to a decision in the light of all kinds of representations, including that put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a respectable person does not regard shoplifting as a trivial offence? Is he aware that it is a charge that can not only ruin a person's good name and career from a very small sum but cause the person concerned to suffer a nervous breakdown, even if acquitted? Is my hon. Friend aware that it is the feeling of most hon. Members on both sides of the House that the right to jury trial should be retained for these offences?

We are listening to these expressions of opinion, but my hon. and learned Friend will recognise that the James Committee paid attention to the consideration that he has just laid before the House. Is it any more right that a person who is alleged to have made a false declaration in claiming social security benefit, for example, cannot obtain a jury trial, whereas someone who is alleged to have stolen £1 is afforded that opportunity? This is a consideration to which a balance or argument should be applied. It is a matter that we shall have to decide in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a statement about the results of investigations into allegations of corruption against senior Metropolitan Police officers arising out of the pornography trade in London's West End.

Inquiries into these allegations are not complete. Two officers found guilty of disciplinary offences have appealed against the punishment of dismissal from the force. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to make any statement.

Will my right hon. Friend try to explain why it has taken more than three years to reach the position that he has just outlined? Does he accept that it is as damaging to the public's confidence in the police as it is to the morale of the police force itself that these serious matters should be unresolved after such a startling lengthy time?

I know that this matter has taken a long time. In preparing for answering this Question I looked back over a number of Questions from my hon. Friend to which I have had to give stalling replies. To that extent I appreciate and understand what he is saying.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making in improving conditions for unconvicted prisoners who are held in prisons awaiting trial.

Conditions are being improved to the extent that circumstances allow and the necessary resources can be made available.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that that reply is quite unsatisfactory? It oozes with official complacency. Is not my hon. Friend aware that there are approximately 1,000 men in Brixton Prison, for example, and that many of them will be acquitted at the end of their trials? Some of them are kept in prison for over 12 months.

I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are not at all complacent about the conditions in local prisons. Unfortunately, nearly all local prisons are old and overcrowded. There is a continual programme of improvement in spite of severe economic constraint. At Brixton, work will begin in 1976–77 to improve the hospital and on an extension to accommodation for solicitors' visits. Work should also begin on the building of a new education and recreation block and a sports hall.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to the Government and local authorities of the Pop Festival which he authorised at Watchfield in August 1975.

The Thames Water Authority, the Vale of White Horse District Council and the Property Services Agency incurred a total of £25,000. Of this, some £11,000 will be reimbursed to the Thames Water Authority by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The Government have agreed to reimburse the Vale of White Horse District Council for expenses which would not have been incurred but for the festival, in so far as they are not covered by contributions from the organisers. The precise figure to be paid is now under discussion with the council. Substantial expenditure was also, of course, incurred on policing. This figure is not finalised, but I will write to the lion. Member when it is.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the assurance he personally gave to the chairman of the Oxfordshire County Council that in his view no significant charge in this respect should fall upon the general body of taxpayers and ratepayers in the area? Will he confirm that police expenditure on the Watchfield Festival amounted to £107,000, of which £84,000 was spent on extra costs? In the light of the assurance to which I have referred, how can the right hon. Gentleman justify forcing the ratepayers of Berkshire. Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire to suffer from the results of a decision forced upon them by him and his Department without any consultation having taken place?

My assurance to the local authority that the cost would not fall upon the Vale of White Horse is covered by my answer. On the broader issue, the policing costs must be considered in relation to what were likely to have been the costs of a repeat of 1974. It is no good assuming that something one does not like will not happen. In fact, the police authority is still the same authority. The figures have not yet been finalised, but when adjusted to 1975 prices the law and order costs were significantly greater at Windsor in 1974 than those at Watch-field in 1975. Total costs were about the same in both cases.

Did not the Home Secretary assure me by letter that he thought it wrong that the costs should fall on the ratepayers in Buckinghamshire, the area with which I was immediately concerned? Is not his answer today rather at variance with what he wrote in his letter?

No. The involvement of the ratepayers in Buckinghamshire applies only to the police authority. The ratepayers in the Vale of White Horse have been reimbursed. I think that that was right. They have been reimbursed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who took the view that it was right to do so in the interests of property management, or by the Government.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are many Labour Members who believe that he has kept these matters in proportion, and that young people in our society are just as entitled to incur reasonable police costs at their gatherings as are their elders who attend Ascot, Epsom and other great events?

Reasonable police costs, yes. However, I think that it would have been much more appropriate if the people organising such festivals were prepared to pay a great deal more towards the cost of such events. Regrettably, we do not live in a wholly reasonable world. Indeed, if everybody behaved reasonably, we could not only cut the figure of £80.000, but make substantial reductions in the amount of £600 million spent on the police each year.

Will the Home Secretary give a promise that when in future he is asked to approve pop festivals, he will see that the money required to cover the cost of these events comes from the festival and from nowhere else?

No, I cannot give that assurance. If I could have done so, I would have done so previously. The hon. Gentleman shows a failure to appreciate the reality of what happened at Windsor not only in 1974, but in 1973, 1972 and 1971. It is no good ignoring reality—a reality which the previous Home Secretary had to face. I thought it right and desirable to provide this alternative site to break the pattern of the mounting difficulty of rising police costs and to avoid the violence that took place at Windsor in 1974. There is no question of Watch-field being offered again, nor, from a point of view of law and order, is it any part of a Home Secretary's business to organise further sites in future.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of administering the collection of television licences between 1st April 1975 and 1st January 1976.

The total cost of television licence collection and enforcement work for the period from 1st April 1975 to 31st December 1975 was £12·9 million.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large proportion of that money is spent on the illegal collection of licences and the harassment of those who are properly observing the law? What suggestions has he to put forward to compensate the taxpayer for having refused to repay this money? Since the Government always appear prepared to spend taxpayers' money in pursuit of their own aims, is it not time that some token payment was made by the right hon. Gentleman and others responsible for this waste of money at a time when the Government are already overspent by £12 billion a year?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "a large proportion". The costs involved were £72,000 in collecting the money, which is a little over ·05 per cent. of the total I gave. I made a statement to the House indicating that we acted to try to collect revenue not to dissipate it. It was necessary to try to collect the money for the BBC, but the Court of Appeal decided that to do so was not proper. I accepted that decision immediately. I do not know what other way I could have acted—unless the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I make a personal repayment, which I am afraid would be beyond my resources.

What progress has my right hon. Friend made towards removing the anomalies involved in the previous concession to elderly persons in respect of television licences?

I have nothing to report on that aspect. I fear that we meet the basic problem that as soon as we make concessions in a matter of this kind, anomalies are inevitable. The only way to avoid anomolies is to make no concessions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the law of privacy.

We continue to receive a small number of representations from hon. Members and others on various aspects of privacy. As the House will be aware, the Government published a White Paper on Computers and Privacy on 16th December.

Does the Minister conclude from representations that there is wide spread support, as I believe there is, for his decision to take action in this matter? When will the promised data collection committee be set up? Will he give some hope that legislation to amend the situation will not take as long as the Younger Committee took, because there are areas of activity, such as credit agencies, where early action is desirable?

We hope to establish a data protection committee in the near future and are at present considering the names for its membership. The wider recommendations of the Younger Committee and the implications for more general areas of privacy are now under discussion.

If a Private Member's Bill embodying proposals in this respect were introduced, would it receive Government support and be given a fair wind?

I should have to see the Bill before commenting.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used by Customs and Excise or the police in deciding whether or not to confiscate, on grounds of obscenity, films and magazines entering the country.

I understand that the operation of the import control on films and magazines takes account of the Obscene Publication Acts and their application by the courts, as well as the Customs legislation.

Will the Minister say whether prosecutions are a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, or whether the process depends purely on police action or on the use of arbitrary power by others?

The scope of the Customs and Excise Acts is wider than the Obscene Publications Act and enforcement of import controls is principally a matter for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, although the police sometimes become involved. It is for the courts to decide whether publications are obscene within the terms of the statutes.

Will the Minister have conversations with or make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is responsible for the Customs and Excise Department, because it is clear that that Department and its officers do not make a detailed examination of all films brought into the country? This means that citizens have to prosecute privately when this material should have been stopped by Customs and Excise officers. Will the hon. Lady ensure that all films are properly examined on entry?

I shall certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Customs officers take account of the operation of domestic law, since a pronounced divergence would probably bring the controls into dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints were made against the police in Sheffield in 1974 and 1975.

I understand from the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire that the number of complaints made against police officers in Sheffield was 301 in 1974 and 309 in 1975.

Will the Minister say how many of these complaints resulted in disciplinary action and how many in prosecution?

Of 301 complaints in 1974 86 were subsequently withdrawn or not proceeded with; 42 of them—about 14 per cent.—were substantiated. The complete figures for 1975 are not yet available, but of 309 complaints 98 were subsequently withdrawn or not proceeded with; 19 were substantiated.

Will the Minister agree that the fact that a high proportion of complaints is not substantiated might now be brought more to public attention through the new complaints machinery? It ill behoves the Opposition Front Bench to complain about the measure when they did not vote against it on Second Reading.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what registration procedures are operative in respect of both Commonwealth and foreign workers entering the United Kingdom under work permits; what records are maintained with regard to their originally permitted and subsequent employment; and why no records are kept of foreign nationals who return to their native countries at the end of the period covered by their work permits.

Foreign work permit holders given leave to enter the United Kingdom for more than three months must register with the police. Approved changes of employment are recorded in their police registration certificates. Commonwealth citizens are not required so to register but their work permit records, including authorised job changes, are maintained by the Department of Employment.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that from what he has said in correspondence on this subject there is evidence of a lack of follow-up to ensure that those who reach the end of their term on a work permit return to their own countries? Does he not agree that for all practical purposes there is little control on those entering the United Kingdom on work permits?

I am sorry that my latest letter has failed to persuade the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong. There is a substantial check upon the progress of foreign workers subject to work permits. They have to apply for extensions at every level. The hon. Gentleman says that there is no check at the ports on whether they have gone out. Since 1st March 1975 they have had to fill in a card when they enter or leave. It is now possible, as it never was before, to check each card.

Is my hon. Friend aware that people who are in jobs other than those for which they were originally admitted to this country are liable to be exploited by employers when their work permits expire? Does he realise that it can be in an employer's interests and enable him to keep down wages and maintain such people in conditions which would not be acceptable to others working in this country?

If anyone works without a work permit or in a job not authorised by the permit, he is committing an offence. It may be that the employer who takes him on is also committing an offence. Both are liable to prosecution.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen a recent survey of the London catering trade which suggested that only 16 per cent. of those surveyed had work permits? Does he not agree that this is a small proportion? What is he proposing to do to rectify the situation?

I have had some difficulty about seeing this survey, because the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which is alleged to have prepared it, tells me that the report never existed but that it simply sent out a questionnaire and talked to a reporter on the basis of that questionnaire. It has not yet got the report available. It was on the basis of the answers to 300 inquiries—and some of those were in relation to a particular Turkish undertaking, which caused some trouble last year—that these rather grand implications were read into what was somewhat inadequate evidence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a ministerial broadcast about the need for public vigilance in support of police efforts to apprehend terrorists.

I have no immediate plans to do so, Sir, though I recognise that a ministerial broadcast could be of value if delivered at the right time. I have made clear in this House and elsewhere on a number of occasions that I consider the vigilance of the public to be of the highest importance in the fight against terrorism.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the public is sufficiently aware of the vigilance to which he has referred? Does he not think that it would assist in achieving that degree of vigilance if he, who is still a respected member of the Government, were to make that broadcast?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for such an unusual and uncalled for tribute. I have told him in correspondence that I take his suggestion—not his premise—seriously. There might well be a moment—such a moment might have been in December—when a broadcast could be of importance. I am never complacent about the degree of vigilance needed or any other aspect of this matter. I will certainly continue to keep the hon. Gentleman's helpful suggestion in mind with a view to deciding whether there might be an appropriate moment at which to stress this subject in a new way to the public.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners currently in Her Majesty's prisons have served a continuous period of 10 years or more; and what proportion of these prisoners were sentenced for offences of murder or manslaughter.

On 31st December 1975, 130 persons in Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales had been imprisoned for 10 years or more. Of these, 83 per cent. were serving sentences for offences of murder or manslaughter.

Does not that answer indicate that, although the surrounding circumstances in cases of murder and manslaughter vary a great deal from case to case, in appropriate cases the sentence of life means 10 years or more?

Of the 83 per cent. of people who spent 10 years or more in prison, 89 were serving sentences for murder and 18 for manslaughter. The remaining 17 per cent. were serving sentences for other offences.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 15th January.

I chaired a meeting of the Cabinet this morning and have had a number of meetings with my colleagues and others. This evening I shall be chairing a meeting at 10 Downing Street of the relevant political parties in this House on security in Northern Ireland.

Does the right hon. Gentleman have it in mind to attend any more of the devolution debate in the House? Is he aware that if he had been here yesterday, he would have heard, in contrast to his own intransigent speech, a speech by that new man of flexibility, the Lord President of the Council, who told us that the Government would consider the constitutional powers of the Secretary of State, whether the Law Officers ought to be the judges of what is ultra vires, and whether there might be separate Bills for Wales and Scotland? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Government's conduct of the debate will continue in that vein? If so, we might end up with an acceptable basis for devolution.

You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that answers to this newly developed Question should deal with the engagements I have attended or propose to attend and not to others. I did look in on the debate last night. I have had full reports about it. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Lord President made a very constructive speech, as did his colleagues, on this subject. The assurances that were given will be fully honoured. We are listening to the debate as well as taking part in it.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat surprising that he has not taken the opportunity today to say farewell to the departing American Ambassador, Mr. Elliot Richardson, so that he could at the same time secure from him some assurances about the activities in this country of the CIA? Is my right hon. Friend aware that for the first time, to the knowledge of many of us, the Americans have agreed that there is a considerable force of CIA employees at work in this country, apparently engaged in overt political activity? Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the work of the CIA that he has endorsed does not involve any political activity, but concerns normal secret service work?

You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that meetings I do not have are not in order on this Question. I pay tribute to the retiring United States Ambassador, who has had a brief but constructive period in this country. Not least do I pay tribute to him for the lead he has given on the subject of North American aid to terrorism in Northern Ireland. He has made it clear that he will pursue that endeavour when he returns to America. There is no ministerial responsibility for the CIA.

As the Prime Minister pointed out in his reply that he chaired a meeting of the Cabinet this morning, may I ask him to say whether he has given any fresh advice to his senior colleagues about how they should react to requests to appear before parliamentary Select Committees? Is he aware that many of us, whether on the Front or Back Benches, would regard such a request as mandatory? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard it in that way?

Again you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that what comes out of the Cabinet is not a matter which is normally reported to the House. No Conservative Prime Minister has ever answered any question of this kind—

Why?

Because such questions were never put in those days. Nevertheless, this subject is not a matter for the Cabinet. The appearance of Ministers before the House or its Committees is arranged in the same way as it is at Question Time. The Government decide which Minister answer Questions on particular matters. The same should be the case with Select Committees. Ministers who have responsibility for particular questions are available to Select Committees more than ever before in the history of the House, but it is not a question of 23 or 24 Members of the Cabinet being called before a Select Committee, each to express his or her own view. This Government, unlike that of which the right hon. Lady was a member, accept the principle of collective responsibility.

Is the Prime Minister therefore saying that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had no responsibility whatsoever in the Chrysler matter?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had no ministerial responsibility in this matter. The Ministers with ministerial and departmental responsibility are fully at the service of the House in a way the right hon. Lady's right hon. Friends never were.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has enunciated an extremely important principle which should be abrogated by every Back Bench Member? Does he not accept that Select Committees are empowered to send for persons and papers, which is quite different from the procedure in the House? If any Select Committee asks for a particular Minister, can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the Minister and not a substitute well attend?

Yes, providing the Minister is relevant to the inquiries. My hon. Friend and I were simultaneously chairmen of the two principal Select Committees of this House, and we are now following the procedures followed by those Select Committees.

No, we are not.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the existing co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Employment, Industry and Trade in implementing Government policy to create jobs.

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing anger and resentment among working people all over the United Kingdom at the rising tide of unemployment and the Government's apparent inaction? Does he realise that in Scotland another 10,000 to 15,000 jobs are immediately at risk in steel, Scottish Aviation, Chrysler, Rolls-Royce and the Marathon and Govan Shipyards? Is it not about time the Government reverted to the promise of full employment in our manifesto and ensured the right to work for everyone? Can my right hon. Friend also give an assurance that if public money is spent to save jobs, there will be public ownership to ensure public accountability?

My hon. Friend's original Question related to unemployment and the House had a very full debate on this subject immediately before Christmas. Should the House, in accordance with its procedures, decide that another debate is necessary in the near future, that will be a matter for discussion through the usual channels. Like the rest of the country, Scotland has been faced with the world-wide recession and the world-wide increase in unemployment, but the rate of increase in Scotland has been less than that in the rest of Great Britain. Unemployment in Scotland, as a proportion of the Great Britain rate, has fallen from 162 per cent. when we came into office to 120 per cent. in December last year—in total contrast to what happened in Scotland under the regime of the party opposite.

As unemployment in the West Midlands has trebled in the past two years and is now higher numerically than in the North-East or Wales, and almost as high as in Scotland, will the Prime Minister instruct his right hon. Friends to end the IDC discrimination and other forms of discrimination in the West Midlands?

Certain action has already been taken in relation to parts of the country which were previously areas of high employment but which now face grave structural problems. I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman voted with the Government on Chrysler, which very much affects employment in the West Midlands.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the trade union movement accepted the £6 limit on wage increases on the clear assurance from him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that unemployment would be brought down this year? Does he also recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before going to the conference in Jamaica, said that he intended to bring forward investment programmes to create more jobs from next year to this year? In view of the increase in unemployment announced just before Christmas, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this policy will be implemented without delay?

Yes, it has already been started. Some of the particular measures of Government assistance, not only for maintaining employment, but for restructuring, were announced by my right hon. Friend in the debate immediately before Christmas. I fully endorse his assurances in that debate, what was done in Jamaica and what my right hon. Friend has said to the House since then. The TUC recognises, as do the Government and, I think, the whole House—or at least those of us who voted or abstained on these matters—that our best protection against continuing and worsening unemployment is to maintain the fight against inflation, and the TUC and the Government are fully co-operating in that matter.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the time has come when he should stop making excuses and comparisons with other countries and recognise that it is his Government's fault and that their failure to act against inflation in time has been largely responsible for the rising unemployment that we have now? What consultation is the Prime Minister having with trade unions where there are large displacements of people from jobs, such as at Chrysler and the British Steel Corporation, to see how other jobs and other special training for jobs can be introduced to help people in these areas?

I should be happy to make the statements suggested by the right hon. Gentleman if they were in accordance with the facts. They are not. Apart from the world-wide depression, the right hon. Gentleman knows that when he was a Minister he was party to a vast inflationary expansion of money, an expansion which is now being repudiated by the monetarist leaders of the Opposition. He will know that the depression was very far advanced before his party went to the country and gave up the responsibilities of Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will be taking the chair at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) on 25th November, Sir.

Will the Prime Minister explain to the NEDC the significance of the fact that the voluntary redundancies at Linwood are substantially in excess of the compulsory redundancy programme envisaged by the Government? Does not this mean that the confidence expressed by the Government in the viability of the new Chrysler is being totally disproved by the Chrysler workers, who are voting with their feet, and that there has been a serious misdirection of public funds by the pouring in of millions of pounds to protect jobs at Linwood that the workers are now showing, in the clearest possible way, they do not want?

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting speech, but I do not accept a single premise in it. Nor is his view shared by the TUC or NEDC. His original Question related to the NEDC.

On the subject of industrial strategy in the car industry; will my right hon. Friend accept that while I welcome the Government's commitment to British Leyland and Chrysler, the injection of public money into these two corporations will not necessarily ensure that we always have the sort of car industry that many of us would like to see? Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure, through the NEDC and other offices, that we work out a strategy for the future of the British motor car industry, especially so that we can have cars at the smaller end of the range made in this country?

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. He mentioned the NEDC and the NEB. There have been very significant changes in British Leyland since the action taken with the majority support of this House. Last year, we suffered in the motor car and other industries from a very serious lack of new investment. This is now going ahead. There are still problems in our own car industry, including productivity, overmanning and the number of cars produced per year by each worker. Actions taken in relation both to Chrysler and British Leyland are designed greatly to increase productivity—a matter with which the previous Government never concerned themselves at all. Action is now being taken and productivity is increasing markedly.