asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 14–16 year-old (a) boys, and (b) girls were (i) in local prisons and (ii) in remand centres at the latest available date.

On 28th February there were 15 boys aged 14 to 16 in local prisons and 337 in remand centres. The corresponding figures for girls were 8 and 10.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although there has been a welcome decrease in the numbers on remand following the tightening up of the criteria for the issue of unruly certificates, it is totally unsatisfactory that there should be such remands of technically innocent children? Does she therefore accept that more pressure should be put on the Department of Health and Social Security to provide alternative resources? Does she agree that the best way of putting on such pressure is for her Department to take legislative action to make such remands illegal?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government's policy outlined in the recent White Paper is to end the remand of all people under 17 years of age to Prison Department establishments as soon as is practicable. Obviously there are economic restraints, but I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend from the Department of Social Services are doing everything possible to hasten this matter.

I have recently visited Holloway Prison with some of my hon. Friends. Could my hon. Friend seriously consider setting up either a Royal Commission or a high-powered inquiry to consider the position of women in prison and the philosophy behind it, and especially women with babies and pregnant women who are in prison?

My hon. Friend's question relates to adults in prison and there are two further Questions on that subject on the Order Paper. I do not believe that the question of women with babies necessarily constitutes a separate issue. Certainly my right hon. Friend, who has heard the request, will bear it in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now able to say when he expects to publish the White Paper on broadcasting.

I am still considering the Annan Committee's report and the comments that I have received on it. The report raises many important and complex issues and I am not yet able to say when the White Paper setting out the Government's proposals will be ready for presentation.

I appreciate that, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is now over a year since the Annan Report was published and that every month that goes by without decisions makes easier the task of the slick and well-financed lobby for an ITV 2, which is rejected by most independent students of broadcasting and the majority of my hon. Friends?

The report was 500 pages long and contained 174 recommendations. What I want to do in the White Paper is to take the discussion further before we have legislation. I know that many people are taking up prepared positions, but they will just have to wait until they see the Government's proposals.

The proposals for local broadcasting were extremely controversial—certainly to listeners of BBC Radio Leicester. Has the Home Secretary really kicked this matter into the long grass for the rest of this Parliament?

No. I shall be publishing a White Paper, which the hon. Member can read and form a view on.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that some of us do not mind his taking a fair time to consider this matter, provided that he takes the right decision in the end and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said, rejects the meretricious proposals for an ITV 2.

I am sure that I shall come to the right conclusions.

The House will welcome the Home Secretary's saying that he does not know when the White Paper will be issued. His Department announced that it would be issued in the autumn, by the end of the year, and in March. Is the Home Secretary aware of the disservice that this is doing to the industry? This might be good for democracy but it is pretty bad for broadcasting.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. A most interesting report, a White Paper, and then legislation, will set the pattern for the next 15 years. Perhaps those in the industry who think that a quick answer is possible are the same people who give quick answers to serious problems on their television programmes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he agrees with the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration on immigration; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he now proposes to take on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration with regard to the problems arising from immigration from the Indian subcontinent.

I shall be making a statement relevant to the recent report of the Select Committee at the end of Question Time today.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever his view about the shortcomings of some of the details of the Select Committee report, it is nevertheless a constructive approach to the problems of immigration? Why was he not prepared to welcome the publication more fully?

I welcomed the publication of the Select Committee report. There can be no doubt about that. The Government are, however, entitled to read it and put forward their views. They do not have to accept a Select Committee report.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the report is severely critical of the Home Office for the lack of official and accurate figures on this emotional subject? Does he not think that the Home Office should set itself the task of finding out how many immigrants there are in this country and, perhaps even more important, how many more are lawfully entitled to come here?

I hesitate to get involved in this matter in advance of my full response to the report. However, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. First, he must read the report that he signed. The Home Office is concerned about immigration statistics. The statistics applying to people living in this country are a different matter. But I would rather leave this matter alone for the moment.

rose—

Order. There will be questions later, when the statement is made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the overwhelming rejection of advertising by hospital broadcasting services, he will refuse to sanction any experiment in this field.

My right hon. Friend has written to my hon. Friend explaining, as he announced in the House on 23rd March, that he proposes to authorise advertising as part of the hospital broadcasting service conducted by London Hospitals' Broadcasting, for an initial experimental period of one year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that London Hospitals' Broadcasting is not representative of hospital broadcasting organisations either in London or in the country as a whole? Does she recognise that this deceitful title of London Hospitals' Broadcasting has been chosen by the organisation because it was set up precisely for the purpose of commercialising hospital broadcasting? If this concern is allowed to get away with it, it will destroy a voluntary service which is greatly valued in the hospital community.

This is an experiment for one year. It does not imply a permanent service. It will enable information to be obtained for dealing with any future applications.

Will my hon. Friend consider extending hospital broadcasting beyond the current normal rules of curtilage which apply here, because this is a valuable experiment in local radio?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's view will be taken into account at the end of the year, when the whole issue is reviewed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage increase in juvenile crime in 1975, 1976, and 1977, compared with 1974; and what action is proposed to deal with the problem.

I am glad to say that my hon. Friend's assumptions are mistaken. In 1975 there was not an increase but a 5 per cent. decrease, compared with the 1974 figure, in the number of juveniles found guilty of or cautioned for indictable offences per 100,000 of the population in the relevant age group. There was a further 4 per cent. decrease in 1976. Figures for 1977 are not yet available. The Government's policies for dealing with the problem of juvenile crime were set out in some detail during the law and order debate on 27th February.

I thank my hon. Friend for those interesting statistics which, at a time when so much is being said about increasing crime, show that there is a reduction in juvenile crime. Does she agree that magistrates' courts should be encouraged to use community service orders rather than to award custodial sentences, as that would be a method of keeping young people away from a life of crime?

I assure my hon. Friend that magistrates' courts are being encouraged to do so, and there is evidence that they are using an increasing number of community service orders.

Has not the time come when the Government must decide to adopt positive and effective methods of dealing with juvenile crime on the lines of the recommendations of the all-party Expenditure Committee and the Conservative Committee on Juvenile Crime? Is it not essential that there should be amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act, so that the juvenile courts can be given the powers they so sorely need to deal with the growing band of persistent offenders?

There is no evidence to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals would necessarily lead to any improvement in the situation beyond that achieved by the measures which are now available to the courts which are extremely extensive, especially in view of the provisions of the recent Criminal Law Act.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is comforting to note the reduction shown by her figures? Does she not think, however, that those figures are still unnaturally high as a result of harassment by the police of young people in many parts of the country—young people who are merely showing a certain amount of exuberance but who in some cases are being victimised by exuberance on the part of the police?

My hon. Friend has made a generalised statement. If he has any specific cases in mind perhaps he will let my right hon. Friend and myself have them, so that we may look into them.

The Minister says that there is no evidence to show that restoration of powers to magistrates would help solve the problem of juvenile crime, but is that correct? Is there not evidence coming to her, as it is coming to many of us, from magistrates all over the country that they believe that some of the principles of the 1969 Act were wrong and that the time has come to amend it at least to give magistrates power to make secure care orders in line with the expansion of secure accommodation, which we all believe is necessary?

I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that in such a complicated matter as the causes and prevention of crime no one would claim that he had any positive evidence that a particular proposal was the right remedy. I can only say that what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is a belief; it is by no means a certainty.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to introduce parental liability as a circumstance to be considered in cases involving children under 10 years of age.

Juvenile courts are required to take into consideration all the circumstances of a child's background before deciding what order, if any, to make in care proceedings. In my view the court's power to bind over parents to take proper care of and exercise proper control over their child is a sufficient reminder of parental responsibility.

Since that can mean that nothing will be done to impose a real penalty upon the parents, should not parents be fined when they choose to refrain from restraining their children from committing petty crime?

There already is power in the case of children over 10 for the parents to be liable to pay a fine or compensation. The Criminal Law Act 1977 raise the level of fines as well as providing additional powers to enforce payments on parents. I do not think that these are sufficiently well known.

Will the Minister reconsider her answer and see whether it would be advisable to extend these powers to cover the parents of children under 10?

Children under 10 are not legally able to be convicted of a criminal offence. I should like to see how the present changes in the Criminal Law Act oeprate before we consider further changes.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief officer of police on the steps taken to apprehend Mr. David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan leader, who is subject to a deportation order.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now cause an investigation to be made to ascertain how and why it took the authorities 14 days to serve a deportation order on Mr. Duke, in view of the fact that he was known to be freely available for interview with representatives of the media.

Mr. Duke, who has now returned to the United States of America, was not subject to a deportation order but to a variation order curtailing his stay. I am satisfied that the police took all reasonable steps in the case, bearing in mind that a variation order must be served personally and carries no power of arrest. I see no reason to call for a report.

Does not this incident, however, involve an important matter of principle—namely, what criteria the Home Secretary of a democratic State should apply in using his discretion in deciding which visitors from abroad should be allowed entry and which should not? Why, for instance, should members of the Ku Klux Klan or the Scientologists be banned, and yet others who might be a more serious threat to the security of the State, such as Marxist revolutionaries or subversive agents, be admitted freely?

This matter raises problems for a Home Secretary, as to whom he deals with in this respect. The hon. Gentleman has called in question the methods that we use. A man arrives in this country as a normal tourist. There is no way of telling what his views are. What has happened should not be a reflection on the immigration service or the police. I took a judgment—it is a judgment that I have to take—that the way in which the man behaved when he came here showed that he was not someone coming to visit, in terms of the way in which he proceeded to go around the country, to have his picture taken outside the Home Office and outside the House. It was a question of the way he behaved. The man was better off in the United States. He arrived in Washington the other day while I was there, but no one seemed to take any notice.

How long did it take before my right hon. Friend made up his mind that this man should not stay in this country? How much did it cost to chase him? Finally, will my right hon. Friend say whether there is a list of Ku Klux Klan members supplied to the immigration authorities to enable them to intercept them in the future and to prevent anything like this happening again?

My hon. Friend must reconsider the way in which he has put this question. It would be impossible to get a list of people who had been in the Ku Klux Klan, to get a list at the ports, and to have them checked. I put a stop on one man who was a leader, but given the number of people coming in and going out of the country, which increases every day, it is impossible to put this burden on the immigration service.

Am I right in thinking that the criterion that the Home Secretary applies in such cases as this is whether the person who has come in is misusing the hospitality of this country, as it were, and that that applies whatever his political views are?

Such as Peter Hain.

The operative words are "conducive to the public good". I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman who raised the question. I believe that any Home Secretary ought to be careful as to the degree to which he uses this power, particularly in this country, where, on the whole, we can bear people coming here with political views and it does not hurt the country. I took a judgment with regard to this man and the way in which he behaved in the current situation. But the criterion is contained in the words "conducive to the public good".

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will exclude from his Department's definition of "subversion" legitimate political activity.

I see no reason to depart from the definition given in another place by my noble friend the Minister of State on 26th February 1975 which was

"activities … which threaten the safety or well-being of the State, and are intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means "

Can my right hon. Friend explain why it has been necessary for the Home Office to go much wider than the definition originally offered by Lord Denning in 1963, which clearly defines subversives as those who would contemplate the overthrow of the Government by unlawful means? Is my right hon. Friend not aware that acting on the present definition of subversion, the Special Branch has been seen to note those who attend anti-apartheid meetings, or enrol for WEA classes? Does he regard these people as subversive? If not, will he prevent the police from noting down their names?

In the particular case of the WEA classes, I reminded the police force concerned that I was, and would be very happy to be again, a tutor in the WEA. But it was considered to be too remote a possibility to bother about.

Is my right hon. Friend not concerned about the fact that the scandal of the Special Branch in South Australia took place under the presidency of a chief constable who used to be the Chief Constable of the North Riding of Yorkshire? One ought to consider the powers of the Special Branch and of the security services. If they are so innocuous, does my right hon. Friend mind if I look at my file in Box 500?

I think that my hon. Friend would find that it was not worth reading.

Does the Home Secretary agree that it is very important to deal with subversion before it arises as well as after it has arisen? [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Therefore, it is a perfectly reasonable activity that the Special Branch should monitor activities that could lead to threats to the State. Will the right hon. Gentleman also say that this very hard-working and often overstretched arm of the police service does a first-class job for this country?

The Special Branch does an excellent job. I think that it would be wrong to bring the political aspect of their work into this matter. It would be a grave mistake, because I believe that it would be going much too far in the wrong direction, and it is something which, quite properly, one does not talk about. The impression so far is that the Special Branch is engaged in a great deal of political work. That is not true. It would be concerned with subversion from not just the Left but the Right.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were serving terms of imprisonment in Her Majesty's prisons at the latest available date; and what proportion of them were in prisons constructed before 1900.

On 28th February the sentenced population in Prison Department establishments in England and Wales was 28,349, of which about 65 per cent. were in establishments first used for the purpose before 1900, although, of course, most of these establishments have been added to and improved since then.

Does the Minister agree that there are far too many people in prison at present and too many in buildings which are much too old? What hope is there of reforming prisoners if they are living in conditions such as those? What is the Minister doing to reduce the size of the prison population and to make sure that in more modern prisons fewer prisoners are housed?

Within the limits of financial constraint, every effort is being made to reduce overcrowding and to expand capacity. There are plans to provide for the completion of building schemes already in progress, so that in the next five years there will be an additional 4,700 places. The picture is not all black, because during my time at the Home Office I have had the honour to open a purpose-built prison.

Will the Minister bear in mind that most of our prisons were built as human cattle pens—those such as Leeds and Wandsworth, and many others—and that until we have modern prisons there is very little hope of rehabilitation, or of prisoners doing useful work? Will the Minister, therefore, press very strongly on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the view that it is in the interests of the prevention of crime and the reduction of the commission of crime to have more modern prisons, where there is more chance of rehabilitation and of prisoners doing useful work?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the most overcrowded establishments tend to be the local prisons, especially in the North. But we have noted the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Penal System that perhaps the best way to reduce the prison population is to reduce the average length of sentence rather than necessarily swinging to non-custodial penalties.

Will the hon. Lady consider the fact that there are at least three open prisons which have been closed and are not being used at the moment, and seriously consider bringing back into use some of those prisons, which could relieve some of the disgraceful and degrading conditions which exist in the closed prisons?

It so happens that the prison that I opened in 1974 was an open prison, and it is still open. The reason for the tendency to close open prisons is that the type of person who is now going into prison tends to require strict custodial treatment.

Would my hon. Friend accept it from me that on a recent visit with some of my hon. Friends to the women's prison at Holloway we were alarmed to find that almost 80 per cent. of the women were in for stealing—mainly shoplifting—and that, in personal conversations the staff, whom we found to be very humane, we gathered that they felt that far too many people were put in prison for trivial offences? Does this suggestion not offer us one means of preventing overcrowding in our prisons? Will she take it up?

Whether someone is sent to prison is a matter for the courts, but, as I said in reply to an earlier question, the courts are now being given every encouragement to impose non-custodial sentences.

Is the Minister aware that we would agree with an earlier reply that she gave, that perhaps shorter, sharper sentences would be the answer? Is there any evidence linking the rate of recidivism with the age of the prison? I have seen none myself.

To correct the hon. Gentleman, I said "short"; I did not say "sharp"—that was his Freudian word. We have no evidence at the moment on the subject of recividism and age of prison.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates that the findings of the police inquiry into business and local government matters in Lancashire being carried out under the direction of the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire will be available; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions has recently received the report of the investigation and is at present studying it.

One appreciates the necessity for thoroughness in these matters, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that the findings of this inquiry and the decision whether to reopen the Osmonde inquiry into the conduct of the Chief Constable of Lancashire should be finalised as quickly as possible? Does he agree that until these matters are resolved there will be a cloud over the administration in Lancashire and over the heads of many hundreds of innocent and decent people.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he understands why I could not see him until late on in this matter; it was because I had an appellate role to play. I am sensitive to what he says and I shall certainly make a statement as soon as I can. I agree that a long period has passed, but I have to proceed in a proper manner, because there are legal aspects.

Will the Home Secretary direct his attention to the serious criticisms that have been made by the Chairman of the Lancashire Police Committee, County Councillor Frank Lofthouse, about the state of the regulations which govern the disciplinary procedure under which the Chief Constable of Lancashire, as he then was, was dismissed from his post?

I have looked at that matter, but it is of a particular nature. What my hon. Friend is concerned about is a general situation in the county of Lancashire. I think that it is right for all concerned that I make a statement on that as soon as I can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to introduce further measures to combat football hooliganism.

My right hon. Friend is having a further meeting very shortly with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, who has responsibility for sport and recreation, and the Chairman of the Football Association, to discuss recent incidents.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the call by Sir Harold Thompson, Chairman of the Football Association, at the time of the Millwall-Ipswich riot, for greater Government action to combat hooliganism looks a bit sick now, when the so-called punishment dished out to Millwall is considered? Has not that punishment been reduced to farce by the decision of the Football League to allow Millwall to play its "away-home" game at the end of the season? Is it not time that my hon. Friend called on the football authorities to put their house in order by segregating all supporters, fencing all football grounds and, particularly, banning the sale of alcohol at football grounds?

My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the police and football and transport authorities as necessary, and the Minister with responsibility for sport and recreation chairs a working party on crowd behaviour. Constant discussions are going on with sporting clubs to see how best to stop this sort of hooliganism.

Is the Minister aware that this is a problem not basically for football clubs but for the Home Office, the police and law and order? Therefore, will she make sure that the punishment inflicted by magistrates on hooligans is sufficient to meet the crime? Furthermore, does she not agree that it is time that we returned to corporal punishment for the young hooligan?

The hon. Member must be aware that the Criminal Law Act 1977 raised certain maximum summary fines for those over 17, for young persons and for those under 14. This is a range of penalties to deal with offences associated with football hooliganism. It would be better to see how those penalties affect the situation before considering further measures in the way of penalties.

Will my hon. Friend take a special look at hooliganism by football crowds en route to a match? In my area, for example, the Cup Final will be held at Wembley on 6th May. Will my hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State for Transport ways of easing this problem, which for many of my constituents becomes an annual nightmare?

Whenever a local match is to take place, police forces locally exchange information with the clubs, with supporters' organisations, and with transport undertakings. This is best achieved by local contacts and consultation in the area where the match is to take place.

Does the Minister accept that one of the most effective ways of dealing with these hooligans, many of whom are aged between 17 and 21, would be to deprive them of their liberty and take them out of circulation on Saturday afternoon? Why do the Government turn their faces so firmly against expanding the number of senior attendance centres, of which there are only two at present, with no plans to extend them?

There are 63 attendance centres in England and Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not senior ones."] I am answering the question in my own way. There are 63 attendance centres in England and Wales covering the major areas of population, and the Government have made additional resources available for the expansion of the system.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he remains satisfied with the operation of the new police complaints procedure.

Yes. Sir.

Does the Minister accept that, although we on the Government Benches welcome the new police complaints procedure as a step towards making the police more accountable to the public, it now seems more difficult for individual members of the public actually to bring a complaint against the police, since the way in which the new system works makes it necessary for victims of police violence to provide far more specific information—for instance, about the identity of their assailants—than was ever required before, and that this tends to check the flow of legitimate complaints against the police?

I would prefer to comment on criticisms of the new system when we receive the first annual report of the board. It came into operation only on 1st June last year. That is a comparatively short period. We expect the report to be published on 4th May. We shall then be able to assess the success of its operations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations in the last year he has received to give all retired couples, living alone, either television licences free or licences at half the licence fee.

One representation has been received in the last year advocating television licence concessions solely for retired couples living alone, but, as my hon. Friend knows, there have been a number of representations in favour of concessions for pensioners living alone. The Government are currently considering the question of television licence concessions in the light of the Annan Committee's recommendation that no further concessions should be introduced.

Does the Home Secretary agree that many retired people living alone have a deep sense of grievance about the present arrangements whereby a small number of pensioners, living in certain types of accommodation, have a 5p licence while the vast majority have to pay the full rate? Does he not also agree that the cost of adopting the suggestion in my Question would be peanuts in national economic terms but would at the same time offer enormous assistance to a greater number of retired people living alone?

My hon. Friend used the word "peanuts". Between £80 million and £90 million would be involved. That is about one-third of the licence revenue. But we are considering the matter, and I am of a mind to make what might be regarded as a minor change concerning residential and sheltered accommodation which I shall be announcing very shortly.

Does the Home Secretary agree that any anomalies which are bound to arise from concessions would be far better dealt with by looking at the possibility of competely abolishing television licences for everybody?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this has been suggested many times, and that is what the annual report is about. We are considering that possibility, but we should not ignore the position that would then result whereby the BBC would receive its money direct from the Treasury. There is an aspect to consider there about the control of the BBC by any political party.

Will the Home Secretary carefully consider the particular grievance of a large number of people, who have approved in principle the original concession, when they find that, although they live in very similar circumstances, they cannot be brought within the confines of the concession? If the Government were to decide not to abolish the licence fee altogether, would the Home Secretary consider reducing television licence fees by 50 per cent. for retired pensioners so that there was a feeling of equality among all those involved?

My hon. Friend, in his concluding remarks, showed that once we embark on concessions there is a sense of grievance among many other people. Within the concessions that are made I shall be announcing very soon something concerning my hon. Friend's first point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reducing overcrowding in Her Majesty's prisons.

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State explained on 2nd March, overcrowding, particularly in local prisons, is a matter of continuing concern. I hope that some relief will be afforded by building schemes already in progress, which are expected to provide 4,700 extra places by 1981–82, but much will depend before then on the level of crime and the sentencing practice of the courts. Provision has also been made to start one new prison in 1981–82.

Does the Minister accept that the present chronic overcrowding in prisons is effectively frustrating the aims of the prison service, other than in regard to pure containment, and that the effect on young offenders is particularly serious? Does he further accept that, in addition to the financial solution to which he has referred and the sentencing, much greater attention must be given to the use of non-custodial sentences for those who have been convicted of crimes such as maintenance default and others referred to by the Wootton Committee?

It would seem that the House is generally agreed that non-custodial sentences should be encouraged. I am also glad to learn that the Opposition support greater public expenditure on prison establishments.

How many people are in prison at the moment who ought really to be in hospital, particularly psychiatric hospitals? What is the Home Office doing about this quite scandalous situation, to which the courts and others have drawn attention?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a very great need for more secure accommodation for the mentally ill who commit criminal offences. Discussions are now going on between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Does the Minister accept that one way to reduce quickly the overcrowding in some prisons in this country would be to settle the dispute in Parkhurst, Albany and Camp Hill prisons on the Isle of Wight? When is Parkhurst Prison, which dates back to about 1840, likely to be modernised?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every effort is being made to settle the dispute at Parkhurst, which can only be detrimental to both staff and prisoners. Parkhurst will be considered, along with the needs of all the other old prisons, for early expenditure.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.

I met representatives of both the TUC and the CBI when I took the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council on 1st February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Will the Prime Minister tell the trade union leaders that in her lust for power, the Leader of the Opposition will do almost anything? First, she stabbed her ex-leader in the back. Then she took elocution lessons. Then she moved the policy of the Tory Party on immigration towards the National Front. Then she was seen drinking whisky with the editor of the Tory newspaper, The Sun—

Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may put questions only on those matters for which the Prime Minister is responsible.

Will my right hon. Friend therefore tell the Labour Party, both here and outside, that we shall fight the election not on expediency but on principles fashioned by the Labour Party and the trade union movement?

The TUC and the CBI both understand this position. I find, in my discussions with them, that they are principally concerned with how best to co-operate with each other and with the Government in getting higher industrial production, making our way out of the world recession, and raising the standard of life of the people of this country as well as ensuring that there are good industrial relations. These are the matters that we usually discuss, and with very great effect.

Will the Prime Minister, when he speaks to the TUC and the CBI, remind them that they do not entirely represent, as they are claimed to do, the people of this country? They represent a very small fraction. Will he agree that it is those who work in small businesses who are likely to achieve the production that we need?

I find in my discussions with them that the CBI and the TUC would not claim any more than that they represent their own members. It is the responsibility of the Government to have the national interest as a whole in its charge. That is why I cannot always agree either with the TUC or with the CBI.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the CBI and the TUC, will he, through them, convey the congratulations of this House to Sir Kenneth Keith and to all the workers involved at Rolls-Royce in achieving the massive order from Pan Am for the RB211? Does he agree that this magnificent achievement has been brought about by a nationalised company in fierce competition with private enterprise? Does this not reflect great credit on everybody concerned?

Yes, Sir, I think it does, especially as I understand that the order was won on the technical merits of the engine, which goes to show that this country can still produce what is necessary against world competition.

When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he draw to their attention the leading article in The Times of today which predicts a 15 per cent. rate of inflation next year as a consequence of the increase in the money supply for the last 12 months? Will he remind them that there is in the circumstances no chance of a reflationary Budget which does not have the effect of increasing the rate of inflation?

I read that very interesting article against the background of the knowledge that the leader writer, if I guess the style correctly, is a well-known monetarist. It seemed to me that he was sensationalising a little by annualising—that is, translating into an annual rate—the increase in money supply over the last three or four months, and that would not necessarily be borne out over the full 12 months. However, I am having a study made of this proposition, because we should in no circumstances return to the bad habits of the Conservatives in 1972–73.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy in Bradford on 10th March 1978 concerning private ownership of farms, factories and banks, represents Government policy.

My right hon. Friend's speech was more of a statement of philosophy than of policy, his theme being that democracy is the best safeguard of personal freedom and of values and that private ownership does not guarantee human freedom. He added that Socialism without democracy is no Socialism at all. These propositions seem to me to be borne out by historical experience and can be verified by current observation of the international scene.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House and the country in rather more principled terms why he allows the Secretary of State for Energy's repeated and very damaging calls for the nationalisation of banks, farms, land and factories to go unrebuked, particularly as the Prime Minister himself owns substantial land in Sussex? Is it not about time that the Prime Minister stood up and said that he opposes these pseudo-Marxist policies that are being pursued not only by his own party but within his own Cabinet?

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read my right hon. Friend's speech with the care that it deserves. I have studied it extremely carefully. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to my attention, because I thought that the way in which my right hon. Friend portrayed the philosophy of freedom and democratic Socialism was excellent. If the hon. Gentleman reads the speech he will find that he has translated a negative about private ownership into a positive. I suggest that he reads the speech again.

Does the Prime Minister recall that the last time I questioned him about a speech of the Secretary of State for Energy he expressed the hope that we would take less of a morbid interest in the speeches of that right hon. Gentleman and more in his own? May I tell him that that advice appears to have fallen on deaf ears, since the only copy of this latest speech has disappeared from the Library? Without the benefit of the authorised version, may I ask the Prime Minister to confirm that so long as the Lib-Lab agreement exists none of these interesting ideas from the right hon. Gentleman is likely to see the light of day?

I understand that it is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman—which I fully appreciate and approve of—in due course to resume the full independence of the Liberal Party. I cannot anticipate that we are likely to have a united manifesto whenever the call to the people comes. We shall devise our own manifesto in due course. I am sorry to hear that the only copy of the speech is missing. It must be a little grubby by now, because on looking at the Order Paper I see that we had six identical Questions from the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), Burton (Mr. Lawrence), Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), Melton (Mr. Latham), and Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). I suppose the hon. Gentlemen concerned passed it around among themselves.

Now that it is clear that long-term changes in technology can have far-reaching implications for future generations—and can result either in economic prosperity or mass unemployment—will the Prime Minister consider setting up a Royal Commission to look into these changes and ensure that we are properly equipped for the future?

This is a very important question. A lot of us had our attention drawn to it by that very remarkable programme on BBC 2 last weekend which reviewed automation and micro-circuitry. There is no doubt that this will have—indeed, is already having—a profound impact on our employment prospects for the mid-1980s. I shall certainly consider the suggestion that my hon. Friend has made, because I do not believe that either here or in the other countries of Western Europe we have devoted enough attention to employment prospects in the next decade.

Will the Prime Minister now answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in his supplementary question? As the Secretary of State for Energy is known to want massive further nationalisation—and as Labour's programme includes demands for massive further nationalisation of banks, insurance, land, building, and many major industrial companies—will the Prime Minister say whether he accepts or rejects that programme?

The right hon. Lady will be satisfied in due course—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—when the programme and policy of the Labour Party is published in full and the electorate is asked to decide on it. Until then, I suggest that the right hon. Lady waits in patience.

Why does not the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? As he is Leader of the Labour Party, presumably that is his programme, unless he repudiates it. Does he repudiate it?

The issues on which the election will be fought in due course—indeed, it seems to me that in some ways it has already started—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—will undoubtedly appear, be printed and be discussed. I am bound to say that for anyone who believes in a mixed economy—as I imagine a number of us do on the Government side of the House but not on the Opposition side—the one phrase that caught the imagination of the people of this country—and which has undoubtedly influenced their attitude to public ownership—was what the former Leader of the Conservative Opposition said about the unacceptable face of capitalism

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 6th April.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be meeting Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary General of the United Nations. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Will my right hon. Friend give high priority to securing an expansion of world trade through a concerted and planned reflation in the industrialised economies of the West? Does he agree that that is a much more sensible solution to our economic problems than the sort of high profit/low tax panacea offered by the Leader of the Opposition?

The expansion of world trade is one of the major factors that is concerning the leaders of the industrialised world at present—as to how far it can be stimulated and what part various countries can play in it. In my view there will undoubtedly be growth in the world economy this year. This is of very great importance to Britain because about 21 per cent. of our gross national product is represented by foreign trade. Therefore, if other countries are not growing economically our prospects for exports are to that extent diminished, and we want them improved.

Will the Prime Minister take time off today to examine the disgraceful episode that occurred on Monday of this week when a group of 20 managing directors and trade unionists, representing the knitwear industry in Scotland, attended a meeting in Glasgow which was not attended by two senior civil servants, who gave as their excuse for not turning up the fact that they did not know that there was a train service between London and Glasgow which took only five hours? In view of their ignorance and the fact that the Government have failed to provide employment in Scotland to merit the needs of the Scottish people, will the Prime Minister promote an amendment to the Scotland Bill to provide that economic and industrial powers are put into the hands of the Scottish Assembly?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will look into these complaints if, indeed, they are realistic, and will give the hon. Gentleman an answer in due course. I do not propose to investigate it myself.

In his conversation with Dr. Waldheim, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that this country could not tolerate any attempt by the Israelis in South Lebanon which might prevent the 100,000 refugees who have been driven out of that part of the world from returning to their homes and taking up their shattered lives?

I hope to have discussions with Dr. Waldheim about the position of the United Nations force in the Lebanon, and I shall certainly represent to him the need to ensure as far as possible that there is no contact between the PLO and the guerrillas and the Israeli border. It is important that there should be a clear separation. From then on, I hope that negotiations will be resumed quickly between Egypt and Israel.