asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what if the number and annual cost of staff employed by his Department and by local authorities in connection with his Department on home defence; what increases he proposes in staff and cost; and if he will make a statement on recent proposals for dealing with home defence.

Three hundred and eighty-five civil servants were employed on 31st March 1976 by the Home Office on civil defence and related matters at an annual cost of about £1·2 million, and we have no proposals for an increase. We have no information about the number and salaries of local authority employees, and we know of no recent proposals about home defence which would warrant a statement.

Would it not be more honest to tell people that there is no effective defence against hydrogen bombs instead of sending out, as the Home Office did recently, a spate of circulars to certain county council officials? Second, would my hon. Friend like to comment on the more secret and sinister aspects of civil defence refered to in today's issue of Time Out?

There have been no new proposals, and only one circular has recently been issued updating the contingency plans for the event of a nuclear attack. Some of the matters which have given rise to Press comment have been a feature of Government plans for 25 years, and others for the past five or 10 years.

Is it not the case that many countries are spending money on building underground nuclear fall-out shelters? Is it not high time that the Government grasped this nettle and formulated a policy to ensure that proper shelters are available to house people from nuclear fall-out rather than dispersing them to their homes to die in misery?

No. The Government have carefully considered this proposition and they do not advise the policy which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Although there is no acknowledged or accepted defence against nuclear fall-out, has the Department any advice to offer authorities regarding defence from germ warfare?

The circular which has been issued embraces catastrophes and emergencies, both civil and nuclear.

Is the Minister aware that the Russians do not regard money spent on civil defence as wasted and that their contribution is quite astronomical, being about four times that of the United States? Is she further aware that in NATO terms our allocation to civil defence is really one of the feeblest? Will she take note of the last report of the committee of NATO on civil defence which recommended that there should be an allocation from the defence budget itself?

The Home Office is in continuous consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised, and our policy is decided according to co-operation between the two Departments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes, if any, he proposes to the law governing the age of consent.

We have no present proposal to do so. The law relating to the age of consent is being considered by the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the Policy Advisory Committee in the context of a wider review of the law relating to sexual offences.

Is the Minister of State aware that recent flippant comments from judges appear to have brought the age of consent into question, and is he aware also that 3,500 girls under 16 had abortions carried out on them last year? Will he ask the judiciary to stick to the letter of the law?

In this country the judiciary is independent, and I am sure that if Ministers started to interfere with the judges in the exercise of their discretion the hon. Gentleman, among others, would be the first to shout.

In view of conflicting judicial decisions, which seem to make the age of consent a movable feast, could we have a little more certitude in this branch of the law and a little less beatitude?

I am not sure whether the age of consent is a feast, but the age is 16 under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. It is neither movable nor is it to be moved.

But has the Minister of State, as representative of the public, noted the concern expressed by many members of the public at the apparently indulgent attitude taken by some High Court judges towards statutory sexual offences against children, and does he share that concern?

As a member of the public, I have, of course, noted what judges have said, but as a Minister all I say is that the judges, within the discretion given to them by Parliament, have a right to express themselves. Although I have opinions as a private Member, I am answering on this occasion not as a private Member but as a Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will bring forward legislation based on the White Paper on Computers and Privacy, Cmnd. 6353, published in December 1975.

The timing of the legislation will depend upon the progress made by the Data Protection Committee.

As there seems to be a bit more time available generally nowadays, could my hon. Friend be a bit more definite than that?

I take it that my right hon. Friend refers to the time available to us. As I have said, we are governed in this case by the speed of deliberation of the Data Protection Committee, which undertook its examination of this difficult subject only in August last.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the latest position in the pay dispute with the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the leaders of the Police Federation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the Police Federation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current claim by the Police Federation for improved terms of service.

I last met the Chairman and Secretary of the Police Federation for England and Wales the day before yesterday. This was the latest in a series of meetings; and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had meetings with representatives of the Scottish Federation. I have also had meetings—the latest only this morning—with representatives of the official side of the Police Council, which, of course, has to be involved in any settlement.

As four Questions from one side of the House are being answered together, I shall call other hon. Members for supplementary questions afterwards.

I recognise the delicacy of the situation, but will the Home Secretary bear firmly in mind the principle that those who behave with most responsibility should not fare worst?

Yes, but in this respect—I have been looking into it recently—one has to remember that even in bad times the number of people who have had pay awards because of strikes has been extremely small, and, as regards the police, their unique position was recognised 18 months ago when they had 30 per cent. instead of £6. I certainly understand the uniqueness of their position, but I must act within the pay policy.

Does the Home Secretary realise that, if the pay talks with the Police Federation break down, the Government will have set the police down the politically dangerous road of becoming a trade union-type organisation, affiliated to the TUC and with the right to strike? Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that any such fundamental change in the unique status of the police would be highly regrettable, since the police must be seen to be independent of all political groups and factions if they are to do their job properly?

Certainly, with regard to the right to strike I agree fully. However, with regard to the question which the police have raised with me—and, I understand, over a long period—that we should look at the status of the Police Federation, it is not for me to say what the TUC would say. If the police were to talk to me about affiliating to the TUC, that is a matter which I should consider, but it has not arisen.

In the course of his meetings, has the Home Secretary understood the very genuine feeling of the police that they have not been given the award which they were originally granted in the way in which it was originally awarded? Should the matter come to the Cabinet on a discussion of pay policy, will the right hon. Gentleman try to explain to his colleagues that the public place a far higher priority on carrying through the police award than on some other items of public expenditure?

In fact it did come to the Cabinet, and on that occasion my predecessor put the case for the police having 30 per cent. instead of £6. That was the decision taken. So the Cabinet has done exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggests. [Interruption.] It is no good making a statement and then withdrawing from it. At that time the Cabinet treated the police as a unique body, and that is why that decision was taken.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the police accept that they were regarded as a unique case 18 months ago but that this should not now be thrown in their teeth in negotiations, and that they should continue to be regarded as a unique body? Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to maintain in the discussions that the moderation of the police must not allow them to be treated less well than people who show themselves to be bloody-minded and unreasonable?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he shows an understanding of the matter. What we are now talking about in this context is an increase of 5 per cent. in earnings, subject to a minimum of £2·50 and a maximum of £4 a week. It is within that context that everyone has to settle. But, as I say, I have discussed—not negotiated, because there are others involved there—forward commitments into the next phase. I am aware of the uniqueness of the police. The problem is within this phase, and it is important for the sake of everyone that we should get to negotiation and settle this matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dismay and concern in Lancashire about the activities of the chief constable there? Does he not consider it appropriate in these circumstances that the chief constable and the senior officers should be suspended from duty—

Order.

and that my right hon. Friend should institute—

Order. I remind hon. Members who continue to speak after I have called for order that I have an inclination to lose my sight for a while where they are concerned. That is only fair to the House, and hon. Members must acknowledge the rule. The Question is about police pay.

Has the Home Secretary had talks with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find out whether it is possible to conduct talks, with the intention of obtaining a settlement for August or September, that will enable a more amicable settlement in the present phase?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to the next phase, that is a different matter altogether. It is, of course, a matter for the Police Federation and other organisations. All I can say is that what we have been talking about—not negotiating—refers to this phase with regard to the pay angle. Forward commitment—upon which there has been some discussion—does not seem to be a major issue.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that Question No. 7 refers to meetings with the Police Federation, not to pay, and that, therefore, the question that I raised is a proper matter of concern for the Federation? Would the Home Secretary now care to answer my question?

Order. I dealt with that question earlier.

Is the Minister aware that there will be wide public support for measures to allay discontent in the police force, particularly from people such as some of my constituents who are afraid to go out in the evenings and who realise that the only way to defeat hooliganism, vandalism and petty crime is by having a plentiful supply of contented, well-paid bobbies on the ground?

I agree, but during the lifetime of this Government we have spent, in real terms, £¼ billion more on law and order and the number of police has increased every year. Of course contentment matters. The number of policemen is not the issue.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many hon. Members on this side have considerable sympathy for people who have received rough justice at the hands of the social contract, they would resent a breach of the Pay Code in isolation for the police?

Nobody, during the talks I have had, has asked me to break the pay policy. The discussions have been about how to be fair to all concerned and finding a way forward within the existing pay policy. I must make that clear.

Is the Home Secretary aware that I join him in hoping that he will be able to reach a fair settlement that will recognise the work that, as the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) has stated, the police have to do? In reaching that settlement, will the Home Secretary accept that the situation is serious when there is a sense of grievance within the police force so great that there are demands for the police to be given the right to strike? Does the Home Secretary agree that such demands are a step down the dangerous road to a police strike, which most people would regard as a national catastrophe?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the road towards a police strike would be a bad way for the community, even if the facts of the matter belied the argument that underlay the feeling. There is a feeling of frustration and I come across it when I visit police forces, but I judge that it exists far more among young policemen than among older ones. I recognise that we all want to find a way out of the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the current review of nationality laws to be concluded; and if he will introduce legislation in the present session.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the report of the Working Party on Nationality.

As I explained on 9th February, following my statement on the Franks Report, my next step will be to publish a discussion paper on nationality law at the appropriate time.

In view of the muddle in the present nationality laws, does the Home Secretary agree that urgent action is needed to make the laws clear, comprehensive and as consistent as possible?

As I indicated the other day, I intend to publish a document soon. It will be a discussion paper, not because of lack of parliamentary time, even though under the best of circumstances that is a difficult matter, but because this is a complicated matter. The reason why I want it to be a discussion document is that any legislation will have to stand the test of time. It will have to translate the transition from Empire, durbars and Queen Victoria into the reality of today, and that will not be easy.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the urgency of the problem particularly for his officials and other Ministers' officials in embassies and high commissions who have to interpret the existing laws and find it extremely difficult?

I am not so sure that they are interpreting the nationality laws. I suspect that they are interpreting the Immigration Act 1971, and I am glad that I was not responsible for that Act.

Will the Home Secretary ensure in his discussion document and his thinking that he takes powers for himself and for other Home Secretaries for special provisions to be made for the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of people whose whole parentage has been born abroad but who have always considered themselves British and who have always been Anglo-Saxon people? It is important to them—[Interruption]—although it may not be to some hon. Members opposite, that they should have the right of British nationality.

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has read the 1971 Immigration Act. The transmission of nationality is one of the problems that one finds when considering citizenship. Citizenship is not something that one feels ought to be transmitted over the years, otherwise it ceases to be citizenship. Let us not come to a view on the matter now, but let us have a discussion to see how difficult it is to deal with each of these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends taking to improve morale in the Prison Service.

The Prison Service, which is operating under severe pressure because of overcrowding and the number of disturbed and disruptive prisoners with which it has to deal, will continue to have my full support in discharging its difficult and demanding duties.

I am pleased to hear the Minister's response to my Question. Does he accept that there is too much bureaucracy and secrecy in the administration of the Prison Service and that there is a great need for better public relations between the Prison Service and the general public? Does he agree that there is a dire need for the Home Office to give an earlier official response when incidents occur rather than, as at present, the Home Office attitude leading to outside bodies publishing documents that are often misleading?

On the matter of openness, I have found that I cannot have it both ways. I allowed television and others to visit prisons because I felt that it was right that the public should know the situation. Then one receives criticism of what has been revealed. But that is the way that it should be.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that grossly overcrowded prison conditions, lack of privacy and the refusal of parole without reason are factors that affect prisoners and inevitably prison officers as well, because the two are absolutely interdependent? Can he say whether he is carrying out any review of sentencing policy in order to reduce overcrowding?

I am looking at the whole matter of overcrowding, but if any real change is to be made some of the things that I shall have to do will not be popular. That will have to be understood by the police, the prison officers and the public. I sometimes wish that we put a lot of effort into making the problems known, because often when decisions are taken they are grossly misunderstood since the facts of the matter are not widely known.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are, no doubt, hon. Members in all parts of the House who will support what he has said about the need to put to the public both sides of the dispute over prison conditions? Can he confirm that in order to achieve this he intends to have the report on the Hull Prison riot published as soon as possible?

I have already said that. I have asked for the report to be written in a way that would enable it to be published. It is very important. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I say that the repercussions among the public are one thing, but the repercussions of the film on the prison are another. Many officers felt they had been very badly dealt with in that film. They participated in it and I do not grumble at that, but it is not simply reports from my Department that are important. Reports by other people are equally important.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the low morale at Leicester Prison, which has arisen for many reasons but particularly the Home Office policy of using detached duty staff and, perhaps more important, the delay in the publication of the prison inspector's report into conditions at Leicester Prison arising from the Hughes escape? Can my right hon. Friend comment on these matters?

I understand the problem over detached duties and I am looking at it, though without commitment. I have received the report about Hughes and it is being printed. I shall not give a precise date for publication, because, with the best will in the world, we do not know when it will emerge ready for publication, but I hope to publish it very soon as I promised in the House some weeks ago.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one factor that is exacerbating an already difficult situation in our prisons is that economies in the service are being realised by cutting prison officers' overtime, necessitating the earlier locking up of prisoners and a consequent souring of relations between prisoners and prison officers? Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that this sort of economy should not be allowed?

I should need to look at that question carefully. I did not understand that to be the case. The problem over overtime has arisen because there are now more prison officers. In the past, an important part of their income has been derived from overtime. Now that more officers have been recruited, the income of others, particularly the elderly officers, has been cut.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps he has taken to combat vandalism.

Since replying to a similar Question by my hon. Friend on 3rd February I have had discussions with my colleagues in other Departments and I hope that it will be possible to hold a conference soon.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I appreciate his reply, especially since many old and disabled people are terrified of vandalism? At the conference will he bear in mind that, if any generals suggest that there should be vigilante groups to combat vandalism, that suggestion should be rejected out of hand? However, will he consider setting up anti-vandal units in the Home Office and in each police area?

We are all against vigilante units. I think my hon. Friend will find that most police forces have an anti-vandalism unit or something similar. I am content that this work should be done locally because, although I can give a lead on behalf of the Government on dealing with vandalism, it has to be dealt with in the areas concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difficult fight against the rising tide of vandalism is not being won and could be lost unless he deals with the problem of deteriorating morale, particularly among younger police officers?

I admit that morale is a problem, but even if the morale of the police were suddenly uplifted and their pay were increased I do not think that that would prove to be the main issue. From what I have read in many reports in the Home Office, I have learned that the problem of vandalism is far deeper than that. It is a scourge of modern society. It is not just youngsters deliberately breaking up things; it is such factors as the availability of ink that can be squirted all over the place and the way in which local authorities and others build housing estates. There are many aspects to the problem. It is not only a question of police conditions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who are very anxious to stop vandalism find it a difficult problem to solve? Is he aware, for instance, that I asked my local police to put on extra patrols and when they did I ran into criticism from parents in the area, who claimed that the police were picking up youngsters who had not been involved in vandalism? Will my right hon. Friend therefore keep a balance in this matter and realise that it is difficult to get it right?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He has discovered what I have learned in this job—that even though one has the best of intentions, one sometimes gets criticism. However, that is what we are paid for.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that vandalism relates not only to damage and destruction of property but to damage and destruction of people? In the light of the callous and brutal murders in my constituency within the last week, will he consider bringing in a referendum to allow the people of this country to decide whether there should be a capital deterrent?

It would not be right for me to comment on a case that is subjudice. As with vandalism, there is no simple answer to the problem with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. That has been found over the years.

Would my hon. Friend consider my suggestion in regard to vandals and all hooligans? Do not put them in prison or on probation; stick them in the Army for three years. That will give them discipline—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question and answering it at the same time. Perhaps he will complete a question.

I was asking my right hon. Friend whether he would consider sticking them in the Army. Does he not agree that this would discipline them and give them a lesson that they would never forget and would probably discourage future acts of vandalism?

If my hon. Friend puts that to people in the Army, they will tell him where he can stick his answer.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the 1975 report of Chief Superintendent Chappell of the Merseyside police entitled "Report on the Social and Police Problems in Kirkby"? Is he aware that the report discloses a very serious state of lawlessness there, with vandalism rife, a very high crime rate, serious truancy in the schools, and mas- sive arrears of rent? Is it not important that the authorities in the area should be backed so that they can re-establish some sense of community?

I have not read the report, but I shall now do so. Rent arrears occur in all parts of the country, just as drug-taking occurs more often in the higher income groups than in the lower income groups. We need to look at these problems in depth, and I shall read the report.

The next Question—Mr. Patrick Mayhew.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) made direct references to conditions in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). In those circumstances, and assuming that the right hon. Gentleman knew exactly what he was doing, my hon. Friend should have an opportunity to put a more balanced view.

Order. I want to be fair. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) will ask his question.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who has made a terrible slur on the town of Kirkby and the people who live there, that many of the local people resent the unfair generalisations of the Chappell Report and that the people of the town suffer to a higher degree than anywhere else in Western Europe from social deprivation and unemployment?

I have not read the report, but my hon. Friend will remember that I visited his area There is no doubt that there are problems in my hon. Friend's area. There are problems in other parts of the country as well. There is no doubt that one factor is economic and social deprivation, for which we have a responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to give details of the new Immigration Rules covering marriages of convenience.

Not yet, but my right hon. Friend hopes to lay the new rules before Parliament in the course of this month.

In framing the new rules, will the hon. Lady's right hon. Friend bear in mind that evidence can arise in certain cases after the event that throws light on the true intention of the marriage? Will her right hon. Friend take power with proper safeguards in such a case to revoke the qualification to which the original marriage gave rise?

I advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to study the rules when they are laid. If he does so, I think he will find the answer to his question.

Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that there is a good deal of evidence that these marriages are being undertaken illegally in that the persons who marry are already married and have not been divorced? Will she consider the possibility of the need to check at a central registry of births, divorces and deaths before a marriage licence is allowed?

We are considering the very point that the hon. Lady has raised.

When my hon. Friend is considering the rules, will she ensure, despite some of the more strident cries from Conservative Members, that they are not tipped in the balance so that they become a harassment to couples who marry legally and genuinely?

We are anxious to do what my hon. Friend suggests, but, as my right hon. Friend has announced, we are determined to tackle abuses of the present system of immigration control. One such abuse is a marriage of convenience aimed solely at achieving entry to this country or avoiding removal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total increase in the number of immigrants who have settled in Great Britain in each of the following years: 1973–74, 1974–75 and 1975–76.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total increase in the number of immigrants who have settled permanently in Great Britain in each of the following years: 1973–74, 1974–75 and 1975–76.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total increase in the number of immigrants who have settled permanently in Great Britain in each of the following years: 1973–74, 1974–75 and 1975–76.

The total numbers of Commonwealth citizens and foreign nationals accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom, either on arrival or on removal of time limit, in each of the years 1973–75 were, respectively, 55,162, 68,878 and 82,405.

Is the hon. Lady aware that immigration has heavily increased under the present Government and that one of the most serious aspects is the developing problems in the crowded, run-down inner areas of cities such as Birmingham which are the main immigrant reception areas? Resources for housing, education and social services are being cut. Unless the Government are willing to allow the creation of extended slum areas, which cannot be in the interests of any family living there now, will the Government undertake a drastic review of immigration and reduce the numbers arriving?

As the hon. Gentleman may have heard in my reply, there has been a decrease during the past year. I am sure he will agree that the conditions to which he refers should not affect—I do not think this is the policy of his party—entitlement to admission conferred by Parliament on the dependants of Commonwealth citizens.

Will the two hon. Members whose Questions are also being answered ask very brief supplementary questions? Otherwise we shall be taking Prime Minister's Question Time.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the new immigrants are not being spread evenly throughout the country but siphoned into 18 large towns and cities throughout the country, thus putting tremendous pressure on existing resources? What on earth is the point of making matters worse if the Government do not have the money available to give increased resources to the areas concerned?

There is no direction of immigrants to where they should go to live. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want to see that.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Isle of Wight.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the Prime Minister aware that I am deeply disappointed that he will not be following the now monthly visit of official Opposition Members to my constituency? Is he further aware that in the Isle of Wight there are three prisons, two of which are in the top security category, and that prison officers on the island would very much like to meet him? Will he follow up the initiative on education and start a great debate on all aspects of prison life and sentencing?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has already answered the hon. Gentleman on some of those matters this afternoon. I am very satisfied with the way in which the matter is now being dealt with and I see no reason to intervene personally.

Before my right hon. Friend visits the Isle of Wight, will he visit Liverpool, where there are now over 80,000 unemployed and where—

Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that I ruled earlier this week and last week that supplementary questions should have some relationship to the Question, otherwise we can go round every city in the United Kingdom on the one question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I do not care what you say. We have over 80,000 people unemployed—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman did not mean to be discourteous. He was emphasising that he feels strongly about the matter. Perhaps he will ask a question and try to relate it to the Question on the Order Paper.

It is possible that Plessey has a factory in the Isle of Wight—

Yes, it has.

although I am not aware of such a factory. However, before my right hon. Friend visits the Plessey factory on the Isle of Wight will he visit the Plessey factory in Liverpool, where 2,800 workers are likely to be put out of work in the next few months, adding to the 89,000 who are already out of work on Merseyside? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that Merseyside is now becoming a disaster area and that we cannot tolerate it any longer?

There is a Question on the Order Paper concerning an official visit to Kirkby, which is part of Merseyside. I was expecting and intending to make some observations in response to the supplementary questions that I assumed would be coming on that Question. Perhaps it will be more convenient if I make my observations in response to that Question.

Is the Prime Minister aware that both in the Isle of Wight and in my adjacent constituency there are many people who work at Vosper Thornycroft? Is he aware that Vosper Thornycroft accounts for 10 per cent. of the ship repairing capacity of this country? As the Government have now decided to remove the ship repairing companies from the nationalisation proposals, does he agree that the ship repairing capacity of Vosper Thornycroft should be offered the same life line?

I am not prepared to give an answer to that detailed question on this Question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many employees of Vosper Thornycroft in my constituency will be delighted by the fact that the Royal Navy has placed an order for a Type 42 frigate with the firm and that they will draw comfort from that fact and will appreciate that they have nothing to fear and a great deal to gain from public ownership?

asked the Prime Minister if he will explain why he has not yet made an official visit to Kirkby.

I visited Merseyside in September last, but there was insufficient time for me to go to all parts. I will bear in mind the possibility of going to Kirkby on a future occasion.

When my right hon. Friend visits Kirkby, he will be aware that it has the highest rate of unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom and that the town will be further decimated by the announced closure of the Plessey factory. Will he look at this matter urgently? Will he look at the Post Office's ordering policy? Will he, in particular, look at the possibility of taking into public ownership the whole of the telecommunications industry?

I have considered this matter since it came to my attention this morning. I am glad to be able to say that, as the House may already know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has today appointed Professor Posner to review the latest Post Office ordering cuts. The terms of reference of his inquiry will be

"To consider the assessment which led the Post Office in November to reduce the future level of orders for telephone exchange equipment and to report."

If the Prime Minister goes to Kirkby, will he repeat what he said yesterday—that he will not be pushed out of office—and will he explain to the House and the country why he said that? Is it because he enjoys being Prime Minister or because he believes that his industrial and economic policies have been so outstandingly successful that he must stay on?

Answer!

I thank my right hon. Friend for the considerable interest that he has shown in the problems of Kirkby and of Sunderland and particularly of the Plessey organisation. Will he take one further action today, namely, use his considerable influence with the Plessey company to get an assurance that there will be no redundancies while consultations and all other efforts are taking place? I believe that he can ask for that assurance and that the Plessey company ought to give it freely.

Under the Employment Protection Act, which is one of the Acts passed by this Government, the company is required to give, and has, I understand, given, 90 days' notice before any redundancies can take effect. That should give us the time that we need to investigate these matters.

Does the Prime Minister recall that when his predecessor visited Kirkby in 1972 and went to the employment exchanges he said that he felt a sense of shame at the then level of unemployment, which was just touching 1 million for Great Britain as a whole? I have no need to ask the Prime Minister whether he feels a sense of shame. I am sure that he does. But, on the third anniversary of the beginning of the Labour Government, will he now accept responsibility for the level of unemployment, which has increased by 700 for every day that his Government have been in office?

No, I do not accept that responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the right hon. Lady attempts to deceive her followers into believing that the Government can cure these matters, if she ever came to office she would rapidly disillusion them. I do not think that the cause of democracy, to which the Opposition say they are attached, is strengthened by that kind of superficial approach to this problem. It is well known that the levels of world recession, coupled, as the Conservative Party's documents say, with the run-down of British industry over a period of 30 years, will take us a long time to recover from them. The right hon. Lady does not help by pretending that there are immediate and quick solutions, and she should stop doing it.

Then I take it that the Prime Minister is prepared only to accept office but never responsibility.

The right hon. Lady is still showing her slip on these matters, and her preoccupation with office comes out in nearly every question that she asks. I am ready to accept responsibility for taking the harsh decisions necessary to achieve the industrial regeneration of the country and to put our economy on a sound foundation. That involves taking harsh decisions, not making idiotic quips.

Is it not absolutely sheer humbug for the Conservative Opposition to moan and groan about unemployment when their policies, from what little we know of them, of massive cuts in Government expenditure would mean that there would be many more unemployed? What kind of humbug is it that we are getting from the Opposition Front Bench?

It is well known that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who has just taken over as Opposition spokesman on industry, believes that there should be much tighter control than we have now on sources of credit, money and public expenditure. It is quite clear that if his policy were carried out the right hon. Gentleman, as my right hon. Friend said—whom, in passing, perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate on his birthday—if he ever had the misfortune to stand here, would be presiding over a vastly higher level of unemployment.

Does the Prime Minister agree that my prediction two and a half years ago, which he attacked—that increased public spending under Labour would lead to increased unemployment— has been proven right? My right hon. Friends and I still say that until public spending, interest rates and direct taxation are reduced, unemployment will continue to rise.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming my analysis of his attitude and of the support that he is getting from the Benches behind him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Now we know that it is the policy of the Conservative Party Front Bench to cut public expenditure even more and, therefore, to increase unemployment, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will convey that policy to those on the Opposition Back Benches as well as to those on the Front Bench who in one and the same breath are calling for additional expenditure on arms and social security, great tax credits and, of course, the abolition of the rating system. How does he square all those?

asked the Prime Minister if he will visit the Cannock Chase.

I have at present no plans to do so.

If at some date in future my right hon. Friend visits this area, he will find a very strong community spirit. Does he accept that that community spirit is in danger unless urgent steps are taken to reduce unemployment and to provide local jobs and unless there is an expansion of public expenditure, which would enable urgently-required local projects, such as the Cannock Community Hospital, to be brought forward?

Yes, it is obviously a prime concern of this country, as of other industrialised countries, to return to full employment. I hope in my discussions with President Carter in Washington next week to make this a major item of discussion leading to the summit conference of the industrialised nations in May. The free world as a whole, as well as each individual country, must tackle this matter.