asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that just and effective procedures are available in cases where individuals who may have been found unfit to plead to serious criminal charges subsequently experience marked improvement in their mental state.

There are inherent difficulties in dealing with the situation of persons who are mentally unfit to stand trial. The whole area of the law governing mental disability in relation to criminal trial is currently under review, in the light of the recommendations of Lord Butler's Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders.

Does my hon. Friend accept that in cases such as that involving my constituent, Ian Adams, the process of consideration seems to be extremely protracted? Does my hon. Friend agree that as individual liberty is so important, urgent consideration should be given to there being no detention unless there has been aconviction?

My hon. Friend will realise that there are complex matters to be considered when referring to the case of his constituent, Mr. Adams. The Director of Public Prosecutions is currently considering whether a trial is appropriate. As soon as I have a reply I shall contact my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable disquiet at the rumours surrounding the prisoner Myra Hindley? Will he still the anxiety of those who fear that she will be released soon?

The hon. Member will know that there is a procedure which must be gone through before any life sentence prisoner is released on licence. All that I can tell the hon. Member is what I have told other hon. Members in correspondence—that there is certainly no prospect of an early release for Miss Hindley.

When reviewing the position of mentally retarded people before the courts, will my hon. Friend bear in mind not only the Butler Committee but the Fisher Report, since that concerns the Confait case, involving a constituent of mine who has a mental age of eight and who managed to confess to a murder that he could not have committed? Will my hon. Friend take the Fisher Report into full account?

Of course I shall take the report into account. It is an extremely serious report, which obviously we shall bear in mind. However, the subject of the Question was unfitness to plead, whereas in the Confait case that was not so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the laws on animal welfare.

My right hon. Friend regularly receives representations about all aspects of cruelty to animals and animal welfare.

Does the Minister agree that there is a high and probably rising degree of public concern about this matter, which the standard Home Office replies fall far short of allaying? What progress is being made on the proposals that were brought forward on this matter last year by the group led by Lord Houghton?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the proposals put forward by Lord Houghton are being carefully considered. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already had one meeting with Lord Houghton. I have had a meeting with him, and we are to have a third meeting with his group in the near future. We are considering revision of the annual returns in order to make more information available to the public. We are also considering the exact constitution of the advisory committee.

When considering animal welfare, will the hon. Lady bear in mind that some of us would like to see a hare coursing Bill on the statute book at some time this Session?

As I was involved in trying to get such a Bill through last Session, but was unsuccessful, I naturally agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is taking any steps to initiate discussions on the increase of election expenses for parliamentary elections.

It would be appropriate for this matter to be among the first items to be considered by a new Speaker's Conference.

That is precisely the point that worries us. There is no Speaker's Conference, and the Government seem to be dragging their feet. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his friends in the Cabinet to get a move on?

I think that in the second part of the question the hon. Gentleman is trading upon my good nature with regard to that subject.

Following on the last questioner, may I ask my hon. Friend whether his Department is absolutely clear and ahead with its preparations for direct elections when the Bill comes before the House of Commons?

In the classic phrase, we our using our best endeavours.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement about security arrangements following the preliminary inquiries into the escape of William Hughes.

No, Sir. Until I receive the report of the inquiry currently being conducted by the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service and the more detailed report of the Chief Constable of Derbyshire I have nothing to add to the statement that I made on 17th January.

Yes, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the grave disquiet felt by many people in the rural areas of North Derbyshire, where these atrocities took place, as more is learned about this case? Will he also bear in mind the considerable disquiet in Leicester Prison and in the Prison Service in general about what happened? When he receives the report will he undertake not to close his mind to a public inquiry, which many of us believe is necessary?

As I said in the House the other day, let us look at the detailed report that I get from the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service, and if that shows that there are general problems of course I shall consider holding a general inquiry.

I am not seeking to place the Home Secretary in a difficult position before the report is forthcoming, but will he give an assurance to the House that he will ensure that on all future occasions dangerous prisoners of the type of William Hughes, when being transported from prison to court or from court to prison or from prison to prison, will be transported in a proper official custodial vehicle—a prison van—and will be properly handcuffed to two prison officers?

This is what we shall have to consider when we receive the report. In the recent debate I indicated to the hon. Gentleman that the rules are in the Library. There are proper rules. We are now trying to discover whether they were carried out.

I accept that of course the right hon. Gentleman should see the report, which he hopes to receive in the very near future, but will he nevertheless take very seriously the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead)? Does he appreciate that everything that I have been told since the event leads me to the conclusion that I was right on that occasion to demand an independent public inquiry? I hope that the Home Secretary will realise that in the end that is what is going to happen. I hope that he will come to that decision as soon as possible.

I shall certainly take that into account, but I hope that the information that the right hon. Gentleman has will be passed on to the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service or to the Chief Constable of Derbyshire, because they have to make the evaluation on which I must judge.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue instructions that all prison officers accompanying prisoners to court shall be supplied with details of the prisoners' record.

Prison officers are taught during basic training that they must acquaint themselves with the details of the prisoners they are to escort. Escorts to court are supplied with copies of all remand warrants and bail warrants. What further instructions my right hon. Friend issues will depend upon his consideration of the report by the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service on the circumstances of William Thomas Hughes' escape from prison custody.

Can the Minister confirm that the criminal record of William Hughes was well known to the police? Is he aware, for example, that Superintendent John Brown of the Lancashire Constabulary at Blackpool was able to warn the Derbyshire police, before Hughes was traced and after his escape, that Hughes was in fact a violent and dangerous man? Can the Minister say why vital information of this kind, which was readily available to the police, was not known to the prison authorities responsible for the safe custody of this violent man?

If I could and did say that, there would be no point in awaiting the results of the inquiry. That is what the inquiry is about and that is what will become apparent when the results of the inquiry are communicated to my right hon. Friend.

Why is the report about this tragic incident so long in reaching the Minister?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that the report has been a long time. It will be received soon by my right hon. Friend and will be considered expeditiously.

In view of the widespread concern not just in Derbyshire but in many other parts of the country, will my hon. Friend agree to consider publishing the report if he is not going to agree to an independent inquiry?

My right hon. Friend made that point to the House when he answered the debate last Thursday.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that people who are under threat of deportation are given such information in relation to allegations against them as will not entail disclosure of sources of evidence.

This is already the case.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an assurance was given by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), and that failure to fulfil it in the two cases at present before us means that it is impossible not only to prepare a defence to the charges but also to know their nature or, indeed, the length of time covered by the charges? Is not this totally against the concept of justice as we know it in this country?

I say to my hon. Friend, so that the record is clear, that with regard to deportation I deport in the following cases—following a court recommendation; for breach of a condition of entry or over-staying; if I deem it to be conducive to the public good; and when the person concerned is a member of the family of a person already ordered to be deported—and in all those four cases there are appeals. What my predecessor was concerned with was the question whether it was conducive to the public good on security grounds. I have his statement before me. What is quite clear is that neither the source of evidence nor evidence that can lead to disclosure of sources can be revealed to the person concerned. That is what I have to work on, and if anybody can suggest a better system of working, given that basic fact, I shall of course listen to him.

Is it not correct that in the Agee case it has manifestly not been the case that the deportee has been given the details of what is alleged against him, consistent with the proviso contained in this Question? All that he knows is that an allegation has been made that he consorted with foreign agents. He does not even know which country the agents are alleged to have represented. He does not know in what circumstances it is alleged. He does not know what the information is that he is supposed to have communicated. Surely the principle is clear, but in this case the details have not been adhered to, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) indicated, in 1971, they would be.

My hon. Friend did not listen to the three strands or aspects of the information that I gave to the House concerning Mr. Agee. As I am sure my hon. Friend accepts, there is not an acceptable way in which security service information can be tested in public. I know of no way by which this can be done. It is a judgment that I made in the first instance, and anybody who looks at the case will know that there were ways in which I could have done this without its being made public. I felt it right to make it public. I am not so silly as not to have imagined all the implications that would follow from what I have done in public and what is said. I thought it right for the State that it be done in this way. There is no acceptable way in which security confirmation can be tested in public.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present position on the admission of Chilean refugees to this country; and what period elapses before an individual is cleared for entry to the United Kingdom.

Up to and including 31st January 1977, 1,873 persons are known to have arrived. The period which elapses between application and clearance for entry varies from case to case.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern about the time that is taken in each case? Is she also aware of an allegation that the chief adjudicator dealing with these cases has made a statement that he is not inclined to admit supporters of the former Allende régime? [Interruption.]

My right hon. Friend is very much aware of the concern that is felt about delays in entry. I can assure my hon. Friend that he has met interested bodies and will examine the procedures. Although adjudicators are appointed by the Hom Secrtary, they are not answerable to him for the way in which they carry out their duties. Under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 adjudicators operate under the general provisions of the Council on Tribunals. I am sure that the remarks of my hon. Friend and the noises of other hon. Members will be noted by those concerned.

The joy on the Opposition Benches as a result of my hon. Friend's answer is quite obvious to all my hon. Friends. I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, from whom I recently received a curt reply to a letter, to realise that there is demoralisation among the Chilean community in this country about the slowness of the granting of visas compared with the position some months ago, and that the chief adjudicator and the Glasgow adjudicator have actually called members of the Socialist Party of Chile Communist agitators.

What about the Soviet Union?

I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to what is being said from the Opposition Benches. The adjudicators have said that members of the Socialist Party of Chile are Communist agitators. They have used this deep political bias as a reason for not allowing into this country honest political refugees from the Fascist Government of Chile. I ask my hon. Friend to take steps—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is just coming to a conclusion. Mr. Flannery.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that those who are expressing their joy on the Opposition Benches were wholeheartedly opposed to the democracy of the Allende Government in Chile? Will he help these refugees—

Go back to Russia.

Will my right hon. Friend help these refugees, who are in danger of death, to come to this country?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Will the hon. Gentleman wait until after Questions?

No, Mr. Speaker, I shall not wait. On every occasion that Chile is mentioned we get jeers and catcalls from the Opposition Benches that indicate that Opposition Members are totally Fascist in their attitude. When we raise the matter we are asked "Why don't you go back to Russia?" We are getting a little tired of Opposition Members using such occasions—

Order. There is deep feeling in the House on this issue. Perhaps it is not for me to say this, but I regard the hon. Gentleman as a very good House of Commons man. Perhaps he will now come to his point of order.

I am asking for your protection, Mr. Speaker. For my hon. Friends, this matter is not a joke. The House is a democratic institution and my hon. Friends and I are concerned—even if Opposition Members are not—with democracy in every part of the world—Russia, Chile, and everywhere else. We are sick and tired of being subjected to barrages of animal noises by Opposition Members when we raise these matters. [Interruption.]

The House knows that from time to time there are shouts from both sides. There are issues on which people feel very deeply. We must now try to get on with our business. I believe that the Minister was about to reply.

I shall make two quick replies to two of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). The nature of immigration control in this country is different from that of most other countries, in that we rely on control before or at entry, and not after entry. Under our process, which I think my hon. Friends prefer, people are certain of their status when they enter the country.

Is the hon. Lady aware that we on the Opposition Benches, and probably those in other parts of the House, prefer to have a country in which people are not required to have passes that they must produce to the police to show that they are in the right place or right part of the country? We prefer to continue with a system where entry is checked before arrival.

That is exactly what I am saying. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that the refugees are submitted to any delay. My right hon. Friend is examining the procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire about the case of the former P.C. Betteridge of the Bedfordshire Police; and whether he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to a similar Question by the hon. Gentleman on 18th November.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office still refuses to give the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire any explanation of the extraordinary judgment of the Home Secretary's predecessor in this case? Is he aware that in a debate in June, in another place, it was clear that Mr. Jenkins had discussed his reasons in detail with my noble Friend Lord Hailsham, who gave it as his opinion that it would be much better if they were given in public? Moreover, Mr. Jenkins discussed his reasons yet again at his New Bridge Lecture in July, yet any explanation is denied to the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the only thing he can do to clear up this unfortunate matter, which is a grave and deep injustice to a senior police officer, is to go into the case again and offer the Chief Constable some reason for Mr. Jenkins overturning his judgment?

The hon. Gentleman has me in difficulties when he says that the New Bridge Lecture gave the reasons but that people are unaware of them. The lecture was published, and if the reasons were then given presumably all those affected could read them and glean those reasons for themselves. The previous Home Secretary said that he would consider for the future whether reasons could be given. We are considering this matter, but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it does raise some important and difficult problems. We have not come to a final conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received for an increase in the establishment of the Merseyside police force; and what action he proposes to take.

No formal proposal has been put to my right hon. Friend, but discussions have taken place between the chief constable, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and Home Office officials about an increase. I understand that the police authority is now consulting the county council about an increase of 110.

Is my hon. Friend aware that very shortly she can expect a proposal from the police authority for such an increase? Is she aware that the Merseyside Police have to deal with increasing city and urban crime as well as being in a key position regarding security arrangements between England and Northern Ireland? The bomb that went off in the city yesterday was one that got through. It was not the first attempt and probably it will not be the last. Will she give both aspects her consideration when she receives a formal request for an increase in establishment?

I am sure that the points that my hon. Friend has made will be taken into consideration during the discussions, and that my right hon. Friend will give careful consideration to any proposal based on the results of the discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government intend to produce to reduce levels of vandalism to property and violence against the person, especially in urban conurbations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government intend to produce to reduce the level of vandalism to property and violence against the person, especially in urban conurbations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government intend to make to reduce levels of vandalism to property and violence against the person, especially in urban conurbations.

I have had preliminary discussions with chief officers of police, who I know give as much priority as they can to tackling vandalism in conjunction with local individuals and organisations. I am also planning with my colleagues a wider conference to see whether there is any further action which can be taken.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because more than 100 crimes against the person are now committed every week in the West Midlands, and because the West Midlands police force is 11 per cent. under strength, people in areas such as Stechford are frightened to walk the streets? What will he do to remedy that appalling situation?

Because that sort of statement is linked to a by-election, it makes nonsense of the hon. Gentleman's question. The people are not afraid to walk the streets of Britain. The number of policemen is increasing all the time. A total of £250 million more is being spent by this Government than the last on law and order. The police forces will know what to make of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which are pure poppycock, are made just for political advantage, and are no use to me in my fight for law and order.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the police forces are still undermanned when there seem to be a large number of people available for work?

The number in the police goes up and up every month. There are more than 2,000 extra policemen in the inner city areas. In the recent debate I sought not to make party capital out of that just because it had happened in the past two years, but I do make party capital out of the spending of £250 million extra. There are more policemen. Every police force is allowed to recruit to a higher level than the year before. There is no problem in that regard, but dealing with vandalism is not a question of numbers; vandalism is a deep-seated malaise of modern life. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the Home Office report on the matter, which goes into the wider issues.

In view of the dramatic rise in the number of offences of criminal and malicious damage, which have risen from 14,500 in 1969 to 78,500 in 1975, what steps do the Government now propose to take to tackle the problem, other than to set up more committees and inquiries?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A committee can only listen to the ideas of people on the ground in the areas concerned. When I have talked to people about the matter I have said that I do not want just to set up another committee but that it is a matter of what is done by the chief constables. Some have individual committees. What matters is what is done in the areas themselves. No statements from this House or things of that nature will help. We have found that within days of our debating such issues in the House the amount of vandalism increases. I do not know whether there is a psychological reason.

My right hon. Friend may say in all sincerity what he said to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) in reply to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I can give him letters from constituents who say—and we know that it is true—that they dare not walk in certain streets, not only at night but during the day. I think that all hon. Members could give him similar letters. Is it right that an old lady of 70 or 80 should be afraid to do her shopping because of the fear of being mugged or set upon? Will my right hon. Friend try to do something about that? Not only the old people but even young women are now afraid to walk in some streets of our cities.

What my hon. Friend said is correct. There are certain areas where there are problems, but that was not the question to which I was replying. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) made an assertion about Britain as a whole. There are areas where there ate problems, and it is locally that they will have to be dealt with. That will not come about through statements by me. I shall have information about the conference passed on. It is a matter for the Metropolitan Police and other police forces.

Is the Home Secretary aware—I am sure that he must be—that his own Standing Committee's report on vandalism, to which he referred just now, makes the point that there are already adequate powers for substantial fines for vandalism, including fines on parents and guardians, and that the trouble is that the penalties are not severely enough applied by the magistrates? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Lord Chancellor to write to the magistracy asking it to have another look at the levels of fines being imposed under existing statutes to deal with vandalism?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. We have increased some fines, and parents must pay in certain cases. I cannot be responsible for magistrates, but everybody in the community is aware of what is required now. I shall have a word with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that although we in no way want to condone criminal damage or violence, many of those involved have been subjected to unemployment or are socially deprived, and that it would be far more productive to tackle the problem at its roots rather than to have a hysterical rush to harsher measures, which will not be effective in any case? Will my right hon. Friend consider something that may be a positive help? Will he consider extending a variant of the community service order to, for example, juveniles, so that they can put something back into the community for the damage they have caused?

I think that the community service orders in general, which started under the previous Government, or were developed under them, should be further developed first. Deprivation is a factor to which I have put my mind a great deal since becoming Home Secretary. Without moving away from agreement with my hon. Friend on that, I should say that the cause of vandalism is deeper than deprivation. There are many factors. It is because it is so complicated that vandalism is difficult to deal with.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will discuss with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman designate of the Commission for Racial Equality complaints of racialist propaganda on the media.

I look forward to consultation with Mr. Lane and the Commission for Racial Equality on all matters concerning race relations.

Should not a distinction be drawn between freedom of political speech for Left, Right or Centre and racial propaganda? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend consult the main parties on this proposition, that if the National Front or any other racialist party publishes election material or an election manifesto containing racially objectionable matter, it should not be granted television or radio programmes as at present?

My hon. Friend was good enough to discuss this matter with me in recent weeks. As he knows, party political broadcasts are a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in consultation with other parties. I must not interpret the law and get into hot water on that, but I understand that the incitement provisions of existing legislation, including those yet to be brought into effect, apply in this area to anyone who does the kind of thing that my hon. Friend has described under the guise of doing it electorally.

Has the Home Secretary observed prejudice by the BBC in the context of Rhodesia? Is he aware that the observations, the lightest word, of every black President or even of the most notorious guerrilla receive maximum billing, while the perfectly natural anxieties, whatever the blames of Government, of the European population—and, as it seems, because they are European—receive no adequate expression?

I cannot agree. With my responsibilities for the BBC, I observe that there seems to be a subjective evaluation of what comes over the media. On the basis of the same information, some people say that it goes one way and others that it goes the other way. It is rather like the statement on the flyleaf of a book about the American Civil War, which said "This is an objective account of the American Civil War from the Southern point of view."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British public are well able to exercise common sense on these matters, and that if we were to take specific action or legislative steps it would be likely to produce an undesirable reaction?

I am not in business to censure the media. That would be a move in the direction of the road to dictatorship, whether of the Left or of the Right.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the provision on racial encitement in the Race Rela- tions Act was strongly opposed by the Opposition and that I predicted that it would have dangerous effects and might infringe the freedom of speech—an aspect of the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Does he agree that there is a great danger that this will continue to happen? Will he bear that in mind?

That provision, which amends the Public Order Act, is not yet in force. I have carefully examined the matter, but I think the best thing to do is see what happens when the provision becomes law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of persons from foreign countries who will enter the United Kingdom in 1977 with the intention of making it their permanent home.

It would not be practicable to base an estimate on people's intentions. The circumstances in which foreign nationals may be granted settlement and the restrictions on the admission for temporary purposes of persons who may intend settlement are indicated in the Immigration Rules.

What effect does the substantial rate of immigration have on unemployment and Government expenditure?

It is not possible to identify the exact effect of immigration on employment. I would point out to the hon. Member that the Question refers to immigration from foreign countries. Comparable Commonwealth figures are given in the published Home Office immigration statistics.

If I may revert to the matter of adjudication under the immigration legislation, with particular reference to adjudication on Chilean entrants, will my hon. Friend take properly on board the nature of these determinations? Not only have they been insulting attempted entrants; they have been gratuitously insulting to the people of this country, including my constituents, who object to the Pinochet régime. If the Home Office does not accept direct responsibility, will my hon. Friend at least accept that since the Home Secretary appointed these adjudicators he has the power to "unappoint" them?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to get in that supplementary question, but I hope that he will read what I said about adjudicators in answer to a previous Question. Although my right hon. Friend appoints adjudicators, I would remind the House that they operate under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. I suggest that he reads that Act, which will give him a full answer to his question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to restrict the number of male fiancés from Commonwealth or former Commonwealth countries entering the United Kingdom.

I am anxious to prevent abuse of the entitlement, not only by people from Commonwealth countries but by those from other parts of the world.

Does the Home Secretary have in mind the comparatively recent statistics from the Home Office, which show that between the first quarter of 1975 and the first quarter of 1976 the number of immigrants from the Commonwealth in this category increased by about 50 per cent.? Does he agree that the right of entry of fiancés from the Commonwealth should now be stopped immediately, and that this should be done partly in the interests of Asian girls brought up in this country who find themselves forced into arranged marriages, but mostly in the interests of all the people of this country in an effort to improve race relations by restricting immigration?

The change was made by my predecessor. The numbers have risen in this respect. The hon. Gentleman suggests that because women who come into the country in this way are protected by the law—unlike the men—we should specifically deal with the matter in the way he suggests. That is not the way in which we should proceed. I am examining the question of abuses, and those abuses go right across the board. I have found significant abuses not just by Commonwealth citizens but on a larger scale from people in other parts of the world. I hope to come to the House with steps to deal with the matter.

Surely if my right hon. Friend sought to make a judgment between male fiancés and female fiancées he would run into trouble over the Sex Discrimination Act.

So far as I am responsible for that legislation, I am not unaware of that consideration.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to changes made by his predecessor. Does he realise that another change made by another predecessor—namely, the present Prime Minister, who was Home Secretary in 1968—restricted this very category of immigrants, because at that time the figures of immigrants, although lower than the present ones, were considered to be too high? Will he consider the need to take steps similar to those taken by the Home Secretary at that time?

On that occasion there was a particular purpose. I was pointing to a recent change in the law of this country —a law that I am in no position to break. There are aspects that could be developed, and there are abuses that need to be examined.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay a visit to Muckle Flugga.

As I informed the hon. Member on the 25th January, 27th January and 1st February, I have no present plans to visit Scalloway and Bressay—to which I must now add Muckle Flugga—or, indeed, any other part of Shetland.

Is the Prime Minister aware that if he were to visit the three inhabitants on Muckle Flugga or any of the other islands in the Shetlands he would find the people there extremely disappointed by the Government's insensitive attitude to the legitimate fears of Shetland as a result of the Government's devolution proposals? Did not the Prime Minister over-react to the situation by dismissing Parliamentary Private Secretaries for supporting the reasonable demands of the Shetland people? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to listen sympathetically to the reasonable demands of the Shetlands not for independence but for safeguards?

I am aware of the problems of some of the islands, which in due course the hon. Gentleman no doubt will also request me to visit, such as Unst, Yell and Fetlar, Lerwick and many other delectable places. But I cannot accept that the purpose of the Question is to elicit any idea that the Government are insensitive in these matters, because that is not true. Scottish Ministers have visited the islands, and there have been discussions. We have offered discussions to the people of Shetland about these matters, and they are still open. I am sure that if those discussions take place, the people of the Shetlands will not have to look as far as Kingston upon Thames to obtain support from their own Member of Parliament.

I sympathise with the Prime Minister in his geography lesson, but I hope that he and other people will bear in mind that there are other problems in Shetland besides devolution. He will realise that questions of transport, freight and fishing are more important to ordinary people. He will be aware that the only amendment so far accepted by the Government to the Scotland and Wales Bill is an amendment that I tabled. There are further amendments seeking to protect the position of the Shetlands, which the Secretary of State for Scotland, without committing himself, has said he will examine.

I am aware of that. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the acceptance of his amendment. It goes to show that the Government are willing to give careful consideration to these matters.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are people much nearer home than Muckle Flugga who share the opinion of the Shetlands inhabitants about devolution and about the guillotine motion? If he seeks to persuade hon. Members who are against devolution by dining with them, would it not be more economical of his time if he were to dine with us all at the same time—provided that he can find a dining room big enough!

My dining habits, which, truth to tell, are frugal enough, seem to be getting a lot of attention recently. I am bound to say that disappointing though it may be, and though it may seem less exciting and romantic, it so happens that it is the custom of the trades union group of officers, after a speaker has addressed it, to invite him to dinner. I was very glad to accept the invitation. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend but we did not mention even once the Scotland and Wales Bill—which was a great relief to all concerned.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Industry, Energy and Employment in the implementation of measures to ensure the survival of the power plant industry in the light of the CPRS report.

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the level of unemployment in my constituency and in those around it on Tyneside which depend on C. A. Parsons Limited and Clarke Chapman for part of their industrial prosperity? Is he further aware that the placing of the Drax B order, following the consultation process, is critical to my constituents, 900 of whom face redundancy in the near future? Does he realise that long-term discussions about mergers should not be used to hold up this decision?

My hon. Friend is persistent in his questions on this matter, and with every justification. I am aware of the importance of the Drax B order. This is clearly bound up with the discussions taking place among the Departments concerned, the turbine manufacturers and the boilermakers. All of these are linked. I can promise my hon. Friend that a decision will not take many months, as may have been suggested. There has to be proper consideration when many thousands of jobs are involved together with substantial capital investment. We shall take the proper time, but no more, to reach a conclusion

Rather than provide subsidies to build power stations that we do not need at present, would it not be more sensible to provide the incentives for the industry to develop export markets to cater for world demand that does exist?

Building power stations that we do not require is not the whole of the problem. There is also the question whether we should seek to retain —in my view we should—a power plant industry. That is equally important. The power plant industry may require domestic orders if it is to secure export orders. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it may well be that if we are to get into the world league for exports of this plant he should not take such an antediluvian view about this. We shall need considerable rationalisation to create units large enough to compete.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people, and almost certainly all those in the mining industry, including those who represent it here, want to see the fulfilment of the Drax B project as quickly as possible? Will he bear in mind that some of us are concerned about the stories circulating in Parliament and outside about the way in which Arnold Weinstock is using his muscle to get the contracts and push out Parsons while making conciliatory gestures in respect of Meriden? Can my right hon. Friend shed a little light on that matter?

I do not believe more than about 10 per cent. of the stories I read in the newspapers, and I advise my hon. Friend not to do so either. As for the coal-fired stations, I have always been a believer in using our indigenous resources as far as we can. I have a record on this. I certainly promise my hon. Friend that the matter will be taken very fully into consideration.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to me at Question Time, my right hon. Friend used the word "months" in connection with problems that are affecting my constituency most seriously. If "months" is the word that he intended to use, it will create great anxiety in my constituency. May I give him this opportunity to clear the matter up?

The hon. Gentleman really means, will I give the Prime Minister the opportunity? I do not see any movement on the right hon. Gentleman's part.

asked the Prime Minister when he last took the chair at NEDC.

I took the chair at the meeting of the National Economic Development Council yesterday at which representatives from the trade unions, management and Government reaffirmed their commitment to the industrial strategy and reviewed the valuable reports of the sector working parties. There was agreement on the next steps to be taken, and on the need for action at company level, including the implications for investment, manpower, finance, product development and marketing. Discussions also covered a number of other matters, including prospects for employment and economic growth. The Government undertook to look into a number of points raised by the trade union representatives about manpower training.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I am sure will be welcomed on both sides of the House. Although things are looking much better at the moment, with interest rates coming down, the pound strong and the industrial strategy on course, would my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong for people's expectations to be raised too high too soon? Is it not clear that there will be a need for a further period of restraint and that the decay of a decade in British industry cannot be cleared away in a matter of minutes?

That is a fair way of putting the proposition. It is one which, in their more rational moments, has the support of the Conservative Opposition. They believe that it will take a considerable time to repair the ravages of the last decade. I turn to my bedside reading:

"It is idle to talk as so often before of the economic miracle that is round the corner. The foundations of our economic health will not be relaid in less than a decade."

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to encourage the nationalised industries to adopt the Bullock Report recommendations before any legislation for the private sector is introduced?

The Government are about to embark on a series of consultations on the Bullock Report and until we have done so I prefer not to state a position.

Since there is a considerable amount of agreement with private industry in Neddy over the industrial strategy, can my right hon. Friend tell us why there are as yet no planning agreements?

To tell my right hon. Friend the truth, I cannot. It seems clear, and I think this is gradually getting home to industry, that it has made a political bogy of this issue when many of the things that are being discussed in the sector working parties—such things as I have referred to dealing with the implications for investment and finance and product development—are exactly the sort of things the planning agreements would be about. This is beginning to get home. Sometimes it takes rather a long time to get it across to people. I may say that I made the point strongly at NEDC yesterday.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say something more to us about this atmosphere of agreement—which he said he sensed when he spoke at the NEDC meeting yesterday—between employers and the trade unions, because we would all be very much heartened if he could give some encouragement to the whole nation and say that he intends to prevent the two sides of industry from entering into a period of trench warfare over the question of industrial democracy?

The House knows my attitude on this. I am certainly doing my best to prevent a period of trench warfare on any of these issues. The regeneration of British industry can only be achieved by co-operation and it is in the limited areas where men are working together in their own industries that we are beginning to see this happen. I shall, therefore, continue along these lines and do my best to ensure that in these areas of common interest there is a consensus wherever I can promote it.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with special responsibilities for regional development.

I refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 20th January.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is now a total void in the Government's regional policies and that, following the sudden and unpremeditated withdrawal of regional employment premium, no new measures have been advanced to stimulate industrial development in the development areas?

I am not aware of that. New measures are constantly being considered in this area and, as I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman, it is the strong view of the Government that, while regional employment premium was successful in its initial stages, it has outlived its usefulness. We are constantly considering how best we can help the regions. I have already said that unemployment is changing its character, not only in this country but elsewhere.

Would my right hon. Friend accept that the last time the Northern Region had a Minister responsible for it he was a Minister without real power, without a direct voice in the Cabinet? Is it not a fact that some of the major fears which hon. Members representing the Northern Region have about the devolution Bill and about what is happening in Scotland and Wales—with their Secretaries of State and the structure that is suggested—arise from the feeling that regions such as ours which are suffering tremendous unemployment problems could be left out in the cold? Would not an appointment of the kind I have described help to alleviate some of these fears?

I am aware of those feelings. I myself represent a development area. But I do not believe that they are justified from what I see of the way in which Government policies are developing. It is easy to propose that the appointment of another Minister would solve a problem, but the problem of the development areas cuts across the responsibilities of a great many Departments. I believe that the Government's system of co-ordination and of Cabinet examination ensures that no region is left out of account when these matters are being looked at.

As the Prime Minister is in a mood for telling the truth today—[Interruption.]

Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady meant to say "today".

Perhaps I should start again. May I ask the Prime Minister to tell the truth on the additionality question of grants from the Regional Fund of the EEC? Will he assure us that such grants are not simply regarded by the Government as a way of saving Government money on regional spending? Will he recognise that that is not the purpose for which these grants were made and that there is an additionality principle, which is recognised by the member States? Will he come clean on this matter?

I am aware of the problem of additionality, because when I occupied my previous office I discussed it at great length. I assure the hon. Lady that the amounts that are set aside for regional aid in this country take no account, when put aside, of what may be derived from funds in Europe, which are additional funds. The way in which they are disbursed is a matter for discussion, but they are always additional to the sums put into the Estimates.