asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many senior attendance centres there are in England and Wales; and what plans he has to increase their number.

Only two such centres have been established, on an experimental basis. We have no plans to provide more at present.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the centres to which he refers have been open since 1958 and 1962, respectively, thus giving ample time for evaluating experiments? Is he aware that despite the apparent lack of interest in these experiments by the Home Office, the centres have proved successful as an economic means of dealing with young offenders in the 17–20 age group? Will he reconsider this decision?

The Advisory Committee on the Penal System has recommended in its 1974 Report, as part of a larger package, that these two centres be closed, because it feels that the opportunity for community service forms a more constructive way of proceeding. We are considering that matter as part of the whole of the recommendations, but during the time we are considering it the two centres will remain open.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is of the greatest urgency and importance that there should be a move away from custodial treatment for offences towards this sort of technique? Is this matter receiving urgent attention in the Home Office?

It is receiving immediate attention. I point out to my hon. Friend that the alternative posed by the Advisory Committee is non-custodial in its nature.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will tighten the controls over the possession of shot-guns.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 18th March.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the shot-gun has become the preferred weapon for the serious criminal? Is she further aware that many senior police officers feel that the current rules and regulations are riddled with anomalies? Will she take urgent action to try to deal with the situation?

We hope that in the next Session amending legislation to the firearms law will be included in a Criminal Justice Bill, the passage of which we hope the hon. Gentleman's party will facilitate; but I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech.

I do not wish to mitigate the problems of the criminal use of shot-guns, but will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no intention on the part of the Government to limit the use of shot-guns to those living in the country who own land? Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that would inhibit the use of shot-guns for sporting purposes?

I cannot anticipate the details of the legislation, but I can assure my hon. Friend that that matter will be taken into consideration when the legislation is drawn up.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further proposals for immigration controls he is considering to assist local authorities charged with having to house immigrant families who come to the United Kingdom with no advance provision for their housing or other financial support.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now revise the immigration rules to ensure that no immigrant, from whatever authorised method of entry to the United Kingdom, is allowed to enter the United Kingdom unless he or she can demonstrate that he will not be a charge on the provision of social security services.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the liaison between his Department and local authorities on the reception of immigrant families.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans for issuing further orders under the Immigration Act 1974 to tighten the restrictions on new immigrant entrants and their dependants.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with current provisions for admitting voucher holders from Malawi; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans to reduce the annual quota of 5,000 special vouchers for United Kingdom passport holders, whether from Malawi or elsewhere. I recognise that a very small proportion of the families who are admitted under the voucher scheme may be unable to provide for themselves immediately on arrival, but it would be undesirable and inconsistent with the object of the scheme to refuse them admission on that account. I keep the operation of the scheme under review, but it would not in general be feasible to arrange with local authorities in advance for the reception of individual families.

Is the Home Secretary aware that these recent incidents—admittedly involving a small number of families—have created enormous resentment among ordinary working people and pensioners, especially those with incomes under £3,000; that in our current economic conditions they do our immigration policy and social security system no good in the public eye; and that they are unfair to the immigrants themselves? Will he, in consultation with the Foreign Secretary, use our considerable muscle over relevant African Governments to introduce a tighter system that ensures that these cases do not arise again?

I am certainly aware that there has been considerable concern and resentment about this much-publicised but somewhat isolated, case. It is easy to criticise others, but, on the information available to me, I do not think that the local authority handled the matter particularly well. However, I am aware of the problem and am anxious—as I know the hon. Gentleman is from the way in which he phrased his supplementary question—that there should not be any unfair repercussions on other immigrants.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been various loopholes in the immigration controls, of which unscrupulous people have taken advantage? Will he see what can be done to stop up these loopholes, which are a matter of concern to both the indigenous and the legally immigrant population of this country?

I am aware that there are attempts to exploit loopholes in various ways. The extent can sometimes be exaggerated, but it certainly exists. In the interests of the immigrant community, the community as a whole, and good race relations, we need strict immigration control. Therefore, I am endeavouring in all possible ways to stop up such loopholes.

Does the Secretary of State now recognise that he was wrong to criticise the West Sussex County Council over its handling of the case that has been mentioned? It is intolerable that any local authority should be made responsible for carrying out what is national policy. Furthermore, there is the strongest objection to allowing immigrants into this country who immediately become dependent upon our social security services. What does he propose to do about reducing the number of entry vouchers?

I do not propose to reduce the number of entry vouchers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect, must see that, having accepted this obligation, which we inherited from the previous Government, to deal with the problem more slowly while people in other countries, for reasons into which I do not wish to go, pursue discriminatory policies against these people, would almost certainly guarantee that a greater proportion would be without funds when they came here. We want to deal with this limited, but difficult, problem in an orderly way, so that the people who arrive, as in the great majority of cases, are able to support themselves on arrival.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the story of the Malawi Asian family in West Sussex has been ballooned out of all proportion to its importance to the British people, and that the most intelligent of them understand that? Does he further agree that in principle there is nothing against a destitute British pass-holding family being accommodated in a swanky hotel in West Sussex for a limited period, provided that they have a legitimate right to be in this country? Does he also agree that the Tory backwoodsmen should have their attention drawn to the action taken by Lord Carr, when Home Secretary, in facing the 1972 Ugandan Asian exodus fairly and squarely, and in principle—

Order. There are many supplementary questions on this Question.

I agree that Lord Carr faced this issue with courage and from the point of view of principle. I think that one must face this issue as a matter of principle. I agree that it must be handled with reasonable sensitivity to the feelings of the people who were accommodated in the way that they were. Such a matter is almost inevitably ballooned out of all proportion. The job of all of us is to try to bring the matter back into proportion. One of the two families concerned did not come here under the voucher scheme, because the wife was patrial and was entitled to be here in any case.

The Home Secretary referred to dealing with this problem in a limited and orderly way. Is not the danger that it may cease to be either a limited or an orderly problem? Does he agree with two propositions: first, that the possession of a United Kingdom passport should in no way be thought of as a passport to the social services and, secondly, that the reception of a large number of immigrants and their families places an intolerable strain on local authorities which have to deal with them, and that therefore they should be dealt with on a national basis?

If there were anything approaching a major problem, such as arose in 1972, it would have to be dealt with on a national basis. The circumstances surrounding the two families have been ballooned out of all proportion. The number of people who arrived last weekend was many more than the Press suggested, and none of them constituted a burden on the local authorities where they arrived. To set up an elaborate national organisation to deal with a limited problem would be bureaucracy run mad and not sensible future planning.

When considering the assistance of local authorities in receiving immigrants, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to cities such as Leicester, which have assimilated large numbers of immigrants and require help with their problems?

I am aware that when large numbers of immigrants come in, as happened in 1972 and on certain other occasions, there is a concentration and demand upon the resources of certain cities, of which Leicester is one and Birmingham is another. There are other cities as well. I agree that a considerable strain is imposed on local authorities. I pay tribute to the efforts of local authorities and, indeed, of individuals living in those areas to deal with the problem, often in difficult circumstances.

Are the Government unable to persuade other countries in the free world to offer refuge and hospitality to the victims of racialism in Malawi?

Many United Kingdom passport holders, formerly resident in East Africa, have gone to countries other than the United Kingdom, with a view to settlement. No doubt many more will do so. That is a reasonable allocation in view of what is happening. Obviously we cannot act by unilateral diktat in this matter. I agree that it is desirable that there should be dispersal when these problems arise. But, if that does not occur, they are passport holders of this country and not of other countries.

Would it not be totally dishonourable if Britain were to welsh on her obligations in respect of a limited number of immigrants, the more particularly since those obligations devolve upon Britain as part of her post-imperial responsibilities?

I assure my hon. Friend and the House that I have no intention of welshing on any obligations at all. My hon. Friend's historical analysis is correct. It arose, I think, from the arrangements made by Lord Duncan Sandys in the early 1960s. It presents a problem, but I am convinced that the way that we have proceeded with this substantial but not huge increase, in a limited and orderly way, has enabled us, at any rate so far, to accommodate the Malawi Asians within the total of vouchers that we announced some time ago. That has proved to be the correct approach to this limited, but difficult, problem. We are determined to discharge our duties both to the individuals concerned and to the people in this country.

Before I call the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), may I ask hon. Members not to use the expression "to welsh" as long as I am in the Chair? It is highly offensive to the people from where I come.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that unfortunate word. As a Scot, I know no other.

To scotch is not as bad as to welsh.

Does the Home Secretary agree that in handling what I accept is an extremely difficult problem, it is very important to take account of the strong feelings of the British people? It is impossible to pretend that when the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says that "enough is enough", he is not reflecting the mood of the British people. We have to take that very seriously.

On the subject of the unfortunate word "welsh", I have every reason to be as sensitive about this as you, Mr. Speaker. But the Oxford Dictionary says that the word can be spelt with a "c", and is a northern racing term. Therefore I do not react as strongly as you do.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has now made of the number of dependants eligible to enter the United Kingdom from the New Commonwealth.

It is not the practice to publish estimates of this kind, and any forecasts of future immigration would necessarily be speculative since numbers arriving may be affected by a wide variety of factors.

Will the Home Secretary tell us whether he agrees with the view of Home Office officials as reported in The Times on 26th April, to the effect that the queue of dependants from the new Commonwealth, eligible for entry into this country, is never-ending? If this is so, will he tell the House what he intends to do about it? Does he have any plans for redefining the rules concerning the entry of dependants in a more restrictive way?

One should not assume that Press reports, even in The Times, about the views attributed to Home Office officials, are necessarily accurate. I take the view that this is a complex subject. It is one on which there is a debate on Monday, arising from a Private Member's motion, and I propose to intervene in that debate. I shall deal with this matter in the course of my speech.

Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has just said, there is considerable concern throughout the country as a whole, and especially in the older areas of cities. Much of this concern is based on wrong information. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that he gets the right information across on Monday? While ensuring that there are no unfair repercussions on immigrants already here, will he make sure also that there are no unfair repercussions on the people in the older areas of cities, who have been there for many years?

I hesitate to predict whether, in the course of a single speech, I can attain all the substantial objectives that my hon. Friend has outlined, but I shall try seriously to deal with these matters.

As there are still large numbers of immigrants coming from the Commonwealth and Pakistan, which is not a member of the Commonwealth, would it not be better to refuse those people, thus making it more feasible to accept the holders of United Kingdom passports?

We are maintaining very strict control over these numbers, and there is virtually no admission from the Commonwealth or Pakistan for new heads of families. Almost all the immigrants coming now are those who are entitled to do so under the rules as they originally existed and were confirmed by the 1971 Act, enabling heads of families to bring in their dependants—wives and children under 18.

Will the Home Secretary convey to his departmental officers the gratitude of all hon. Members about the way in which they deal with inquiries from families whose dependants come here? Will he discuss with the Foreign Secretary the waiting time in Bombay and Islamabad which is now 18 months, with a view to expediting the procedures?

We have made some changes, in order to expedite these procedures. Inevitably it is our right to have some degree of control there, as the overwhelming majority of immigrants are families who are entitled to join the heads of families already here, and inevitably there is pressure from those who cannot be members of families but who try to come here under a false guise. One is bound to appreciate that with the difference in the standard of living of those here and those remaining behind, a degree of pressure is inevitable. It means that we have a sieve, but we must try to make it work faster. But as a sieve is inevitable it must take a certain amount of time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the arrangements for voting rights of patients in psychiaric hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

The 1973–74 Speaker's Conference recommended that patients resident in mental hospitals should be able to use the hospital as their qualifying address for the purpose of electoral registration. The Government have now accepted this recommendation in principle, subject to the satisfactory resolution of certain practical problems that have been identified by an interdepartmental working party set up on the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he accept from me that among the best of the community health councils—modesty forbids me from admitting that one is in Sheffield—there is very deep concern about this matter? Can an overall review of the democratisation of, and voting in, such institutions be undertaken?

My hon. Friend will know from my earlier answer that the working party is looking at the practical problems, the principle having been accepted by the Government. It is now consulting other parties and specialist bodies in mental health to see how these practical problems can be overcome.

There will be a wide welcome for this move, since many patients in psychiatric hospitals are there for no better reason than that their relatives have deserted them and they have nowhere else to live. There is some urgency about sorting out the final details. May we have a date when final implementation can be expected?

I cannot do that, because a satisfactory solution is often preferable to a quick unsatisfactory solution. As for the question of principle, I was a member of the Speaker's Conference and I have no hesitation in saying that we found the case compellingly made out. That is why we made that recommendation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is intending to take to improve the prison education situation in Winson Green Prison, Birmingham.

The education programme was restarted last week on a limited basis. Available resources are unlikely to permit a significant improvement in the near future.

Does the Minister recall that Command Paper No. 4214, which deals with education and vocational services, says that all offenders over 21 have to attend a certain number of classes each week? Does he appreciate the situation at Winson Green Prison, where just under 900 offenders are locked in their rooms for 23 hours a day, receiving no education but for the limited amount that the Minister has mentioned? Does he accept that that is far from satisfactory?

I accept what the hon. Member said about the figures. The education programme has been restarted, but "available resources" means two things. It means the money involved—and I am sure that the hon. Member joins me in expressing concern about the level of public expenditure. It also means the availability of prison staff, who, for example, are often heavily engaged in conducting people to court for hearings. That is one of the problems.

Since the education service in prisons represents only one aspect of attempts to rehabilitate people, and since that is unsatisfactory, does my hon. Friend agree that all facilities designed to rehabilitate the prisoner—the education service, the pre-release employment scheme and other such arrangements—urgently need extension and improvement? If not, prison will continue to be what it is at the moment—a university of crime.

A great deal is being done in order' to proceed along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. There are, however, certain priorities in our present economic situation and it would be foolish for me to mislead the House into believing that desirable projects do not have to be deferred whilst we tackle the main objectives.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the length of time the Boundary Commission would take to draw up the boundaries of the constituencies in the event of direct elections to a European Assembly.

The length of time that the Boundary Commissions would take to draw up constituency boundaries for direct elections to the European Assembly depends on the terms of reference and procedure which Parliament gives them in the legislation. I look forward to hearing the views of the Select Committee on this point.

That is an eminently sensible answer. May we have an assurance that when the Boundary Commissions come into operation they will operate in precisely the same way for direct elections as for the ordinary constituency boundary changes, and that there will be no short cuts in order to expedite direct elections?

No, I cannot give any such assurance. As I told the House quite firmly in the debate on the White Paper on direct elections, it would be desirable for the constituencies to be drawn up by the Boundary Commissions rather than it being done by Parliament, which is perhaps not best suited to such a job. That being so, it is essential, if we are to meet the timetable—if that remains as 1978—that the commissions should operate with existing "building blocks". They cannot go back and start afresh. They must take existing constituency units and make recommendations as to how they can be put together for direct elections.

I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend that he will take into consideration the views of the Boundary Commissions. Is he aware that the Labour Party has not yet taken a view on the question of direct elections? Therefore, will he consult not only the Labour Party but the other parties before any decision is taken by the Government either about boundaries or about the principle of direct elections?

There have been consultations with the parties, but I think it must be the constitutional position that the decision in principle about whether we should have direct elections should be taken by the Government and endorsed by the House, and not by any party.

The Home Secretary refers to using the existing pattern of constituency boundaries as a basis. Would it not give greater confidence in the exercise if he expedited the redrawing of constituency boundaries for the House of Commons and corrected the grotesque disparities which at present exist in the size of electorates?

There are, of course, conflicting considerations to be borne in mind here. There is, first, the undesirability of constant flux in the map of parliamentary constituencies. That affects the whole country. There is also the undesirability of continuing with constituencies that are grossly larger than other constituencies. A balance must be struck between these two considerations, and I believe that that will be done sensibly by sticking to the timetable laid down by the Boundary Commissions that they should report between 10 and 15 years after their last general reports. The next reports should begin to be available after 1979.

Does my right hon. Friend think that before the House takes a final decision other bodies should be consulted, as was done by the Government with the TUC in the case of the incomes policy?

Of course other bodies should be consulted. There has been close consultation with the party organisations. The Select Committee will no doubt take account of such views. These consultations can be held again and discussed by the House before it takes a final decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) seemed to be suggesting more than that, and that some other body should take the decision.

I did not say that.

Does the Home Secretary agree that if the constituencies for the European Parliament are to be made up of groupings of existing parliamentary constituencies, that could be done very quickly by the Boundary Commissions?

Yes, I think it could be done quite quickly and ably, and done better by an independent body. If I have misrepresented my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, I apologise.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about attempting to build on existing boundaries. Will he do his best to ensure that the European Parliament constituency boundaries do not cross over the original Westminster boundaries? If he does not, he will add to the problems of devolution.

I take note of that point, although in a sense points of that sort—the Government having taken the view that a Select Committee would be an advantage—are more relevant for Select Committee consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the arrangements, which fall within his departmental responsibilities, for official visits from overseas Heads of State.

Yes, Sir. The police make appropriate arrangements for such occasions.

In view of the protests by many people, including political and religious leaders of various persuasions, against torture and violations of human rights in Brazil, was it not provocative and an affront to all who believe in democracy to allow the Fascist dictator of Brazil to ride in state through the streets of London? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the advisability of permitting this sort of shameful spectacle?

As my hon. Friend is aware this question is not primarily one for me, although I am willing to take the responsibility for answering it. The demonstrations that occurred were of a mild nature and the Commissioner of Police assures me that the policing arrangements during the State visit were not in any way abnormal, compared to arrangements for State visits from a wide range of countries. If we were to prohibit everything against which people demonstrate, nothing much would happen in this country.

Is the Home Secretary aware that those hon. Members on both sides of the House who know enough about Brazil, unlike some hon. Members, warmly welcome the attitude that the Government have taken to the visit by President Geisel, which can do nothing but good for the cause of parliamentary democracy in Brazil and for Great Britain's trade?

I am all in favour of supplementary questions ranging reasonably widely. I am in favour of not keeping my own nose too buried in the recesses of the Home Office. But the hon. Gentleman is getting much too wide of the original Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the effect on establishments of the increase in remission to detainees in detention centres.

The increase in remission, which applied only to boys under the age of 17 when they were sentenced to detention centre training, reduced the normal training time in the six junior centres from eight and a half weeks to six and a half weeks. The wardens and staff of the junior centres have worked hard to adapt training programmes to the shorter period of custody, but it is too soon to make a definite assessment of the effects of this change.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the increase in remission has put great pressures on the organisation and staff at the centres? Will he ensure that the opinions of the staff are taken into account when the subject comes up for its annual review?

Yes. A conference was held in March to consider this problem and a further conference to consider its effects will be held in September.

Will the Minister consider whether his action is justified? Has not the procedure of unilaterally increasing remission at detention centres undermined the authority of the courts that imposed the original sentences?

A definitive assessment will be made as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is wide of the mark. The primary reason for the increase in remission is to relieve chronic overcrowding. The action is generally in line with my right hon. Friend's policy that young offenders should spend shorter periods in Prison Department custody.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the powers he possesses concerning the role of the police in the detention of people entering the country in the possession of contraband.

My right hon. Friend possesses no such powers.

Do the police have clear and unambiguous powers to apprehend, without prior reference to Customs, port or health authorities, people suspected of being about to break or of breaking, the animal quarantine regulations? Much of the problem is likely to arise in small harbours rather than in the large ports on which the Government seem to be concentrating most of their efforts.

The responsibility for directing the police officers in the enforcement of the law rests with the chief officers of police concerned. The principal rôle in enforcing the law on contraband is performed by Customs officers, but the police co-operate closely with them. If the hon. Gentleman has particulars of any local difficulty, perhaps he will inform the chief officer of police in the area concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been received by his Department seeking amendments to the Shops Act 1950.

So far this year about 60 letters on the working of the Act have been received from local authorities, shopkeepers and others. The majority favoured relaxing restrictions on Sunday trading.

Does the Minister agree that the level of representation demonstrates that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the working of the legislation, particularly as it affects Sunday trading? When will the stupid anomalies in the legislation affecting Sunday trading be swept away?

Although the hon. Gentleman may reflect the public view to some extent, he does not reflect the parliamentary view. When we last voted on amending the Shops Act the vote was 159 against and 151 for. There is no general agreement on the way in which the Shops Act should be amended, and the Government cannot find time in their present legislative programme to do so.

Irrespective of the arguments about Sunday trading, will the Minister consult the Department of Environment in order to get something done about those Sunday markets that continue to trade without planning permission?

Local authorities are responsible for implementing the Shops Act.