Brown asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received about the number of armed robberies which took place in the last year: and if he will make a statement.

In 1977 the police in England and Wales recorded 1,234 robberies in which firearms were reported to have been used. Information for 1978 is not yet available. I shall continue to support the firm action taken by chief officers to deal with armed robbery.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. It indicates, does it not, that some armed robberies are probably resulting in considerable numbers of deaths? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance—bearing in mind the decision that the House took last week, for better or worse, in the face of public opinion—that when trigger-happy criminals are involved punishment will fit the crime, particularly for armed robberies?

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, a person found guilty of robbery, or of assault with intent to rob, is liable to imprisonment for life.

Is the Home Secretary aware of any figures of the number of firearms held, either legally or illegally?

I accept that there is a serious problem. I would not necessarily endorse the hon. Gentleman's figures. I should need to look into them in order to give him an accurate response. I accept that there is a duty on me to look into this matter and to consider what action ought to be taken.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that only a negligible proportion of these crimes involve weapons that are legally registered? Will he say what steps are being taken to prevent the bringing of hand weapons into this country from abroad?

I agree with my hon. Friend that very few of these crimes involve the use of legally held weapons. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, there is an important need to make sure that the custody of legally held weapons is properly secured. I believe that the interests concerned are ready to cooperate in that activity, and I shall be closely in touch with them about it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had and with whom in relation to the introduction of a residential or secure care order for juveniles.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had and with whom in relation to the introduction of a residential or secure care order for juveniles.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the procedures for the detention and treatment of juvenile offenders.

The Government are pressing ahead with considering how best to strengthen the powers of the courts in relation to young offenders. We shall carry out appropriate consultations as soon as we are ready to do so.

Does the Minister agree with the local authority associations' view that, with their assessment facilities, they are best equipped to decide the needs of the young person for a residential place, fostering with a family, and that sort of thing? How would residential care orders and secure orders be varied during their operation if it became obvious that, either for the needs of the community or those of the young person, they needed to be varied?

The way in which any orders would be varied is a detailed point that we are still considering and on which we shall be interested to hear the views of the bodies concerned when we proceed to consultations. The general question whether there is room for a residential care order has a wide degree of support in the country.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

As no court has the power to determine the precise custodial conditions for adults, why do the Government consider it important that the courts should have more power over schoolchildren, particularly as more than 70 per cent. of young people living in institutions re-offend? Would it not be a more constructive approach to the problem of juvenile crime to emphasise the value of alternatives to custody rather than to embark upon a lengthy and expensive custodial programme?

I agree with the importance of alternatives to custody, and the Government's massive support for the recent conference on intermediate treatment showed that they appreciate that to the full. On the other hand, I think that there is room also for a residential care order. The contrast that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw between adults and juveniles is not valid, because courts have power to order custody for adults, whereas at present the law is somewhat different for juveniles.

What representations has the Minister received from, or what consultations has he had with, magistrates in juvenile courts? He will be aware that magistrates have great difficulty in finding suitable places for young offenders, and therefore in passing what they consider to be suitable sentences. Incidentally, I applaud most of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks today.

As I indicated in my earlier answer, the process of consultation has not yet begun.

Will my hon. and learned Friend set up an inquiry into the early release from Her Majesty's prisons of criminals who have served but a fraction of their sentence?

I should certainly be interested in any information that my hon. Friend has on this matter, but it does not relate to the question of a care order or residential care order for juveniles.

Will the Minister bear in mind that under the previous Government a code of conduct was drawn up between magistrates and social services departments for handling these care orders? Will he ask for a report on how that code of conduct has operated, before he goes any further with this matter?

I certainly regard the code of conduct to which the hon. Lady referred as a most constructive and useful development. When considering how to go further we shall want to take account of the effects of that code.

Will the Minister accept that any change such as transferring powers from social services to magistrates would mean a large increase in the number of secure care and residential orders? How would that fit in with the shortage of accommodation and the need for the Government to spend large sums of money to create more places, which would go against their policy of cutting public expenditure?

The hon. and learned Gentleman's assessment of the effect of a change of the kind that he mentioned must necessarily be somewhat speculative. I do not think that one can draw the conclusions that he has drawn from the change, the precise nature of which has not yet been worked out, still less announced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give details of his proposals for a new regime of short, sharp custodial experience in a number of detention centres.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give details of his proposals for a severe regime in detention centres for persistent and serious young offenders.

We shall announce our proposals for a more vigorous regime in certain detention centres as soon as we are ready to do so.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that he will not be ready to do so during the recess and that he will make this announcement to Parliament before the experimental regimes are instituted? There is considerable opposition to these harsh new regimes, particularly among people with long experience of working with young offenders.

I recognise that the announcement of the details of these regimes will not be wholly free from controversy. However, I assure the hon. Lady that it will not be possible to commence the operation of any such regime before the recess is concluded.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that though there might be considerable criticism of these regimes there is also considerable public support for the idea? Many of us hope that he will proceed with them at the earliest possible opportunity.

I am aware of, and welcome, that support. I assure my hon. Friend that we are proceeding as rapidly as possible to give reality to the idea of these regimes.

Does the Minister agree that the only short, sharp custodial treatment that makes any sense is one that lasts for not more than 48 hours, because after that institutionalisation sets in, followed by recidivism, followed by an increase in the crime rate, ad nauseam?

I agree that a short sentence is probably more beneficial for this purpose, but the idea that 48 hours is the appropriate period is a gross exaggeration.

Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the genuine concern that some of us feel about these proposals? Will he also bear in mind that similar experiments in the 1960s were not only an abject failure but showed that there was substantial resistance among those in charge of young people to adopting the necessary disciplinarian attitudes? What makes my hon. and learned Friend think that it would be any different this time?

I do not accept that what occurred in the past was a failure, and to the extent that the changes in the regime have come about since those days, that was largely because the wrong people were sent to those regimes. I am surprised that those whom one would assume would regard it as sensible to provide the right sort of treatment for the right sort of people should find that to be so humorous a proposition. In all seriousness, it is important to ensure that a regime of this kind is made available for the right sort of person—the person who is most likely to respond. They are people who, early in their criminal careers, have committed a rather serious offence of violence, vandalism, or something of that character. I believe that for those people a regime of this nature has a useful and, indeed, important contribution to make to our penal policies.

As the Minister admitted in an earlier answer to me that there was no evidence to support the notion that short, sharp sentences would be effective, why is he proceeding with the proposal?

I made no such admission.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will refuse entry to the United Kingdom to any emissary of the Ku Klux Klan or other American racist organisations.

Yes, Sir, provided the person concerned is subject to immigration control and his background and purpose in coming here are known to the immigration officer at the port.

Is the Minister aware of the visit paid by John Tyndall to the United States last month as a guest of the Ku Klux Klan and some of the most virulently racist organisations in the world? Will he let Mr. Tyndall, and all others in this country so involved, know that on any return visit members of the Ku Klux Klan will not only be deported but will be stopped by whatever lawful means are at his disposal?

I was not aware of the visit to the United States of John Tyndall, but it is our policy to refuse admission to known members of the Ku Klux Klan.

Will the Minister avoid confining non-admission to racists from the United States? In the spirit of the question that was asked, would it not be right for there to be similar prohibitions on anti-Chinese racists who might come here from Vietnam, on anti-Asian racists who might come here from Uganda, and, indeed, on anti-Jewish racists who occasionally come here from Russia?

I certainly offer no support to racism of any kind, but that is another matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the future of local radio and cable television.

I have received representations on the future development of local radio from many organisations and individuals, most of whom were responding to an initiative by the Home Office local radio working party. These representations are discussed in the working party's second report, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House yesterday.

As the working party is now looking at the future of local radio, will it also look at the state of local radio that we already have? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread concern, on both sides of the House, at the progressive restriction of BBC local radio? Will he say to the Corporation that a Radio 2 with opt-outs will not be local radio, will not sound like local radio, and will serve neither the neighbourhood nor the community in the way that the BBC intends?

As someone who has always previously supported the place of BBC local radio alongside independent local radio in the whole set-up, I shall naturally take that on board. I am discussing the whole question of the BBC's future, as well as its charter and finances, with the BBC, and I shall take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion into account.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us did not support the previous Government's unwillingness to allow the BBC to raise the licence fee, which is now one of the reasons being given by the BBC for having to curtail local radio services? Has my right hon. Friend anything to say in that regard?

Not today.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am disappointed that he has nothing to say about that today? Does he appreciate that unless the BBC's finances are properly reorganised it will be unable to provide local services on the scale that it requires and which I think the public desire?

With my officials I have entered into discussions with the BBC on its future financing and various programmes. It is important that these should be discussed closely and considered carefully before coming to a decision.

We are glad to note that the second report has been published. Bearing in mind that this is the responsibility of the BBC, may we be told what is happening about local radio, because there are disturbing reports about the number of hours that are being cut in each area? It would be valuable to know about this from the right hon. Gentleman rather than from the newspapers.

Decisions on local radio are matters for the BBC. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a detailed answer.

asked the Secretary tary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the considerable contribution made to the police service by police cadet courses, he will take steps to restore the position for admission of cadets which existed prior to the October 1976 cuts introduced by the previous Government.

Cadets are a useful aid to police recruitment and resources are available for an increase in strengths. It is, however, a matter for local decision how much of the money available to the police should be spent on cadets, taking into account the need to augment recruitment of police officers by this method.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the wastage rate among cadets going into the police force is authoritatively estimated to be about one in 100, whereas the wastage rate for adult entry is as now as low as one in three? Is he aware also that in my own county of Hertfordshire, where the possible intake of cadets is 60, since the cuts by the previous Government the number of cadets coming into the force was as low as six in the first quarter of this year? Can he give some assurance that the Government will repair the damage that was inflicted on cadet training forces by the cuts imposed by the previous Administration?

It is fair to say that the restrictions on cadets and civilians were partly lifted during 1978–79, so the public expenditure plans for 1979–80 make provision for the level of cadets to rise to 4,000. On 31 March this year there were 3,145 cadets. Therefore, within the scope of what is anticipated there is room for a substantial increase in cadet numbers. However, they are expensive compared with direct recruitment, and a working party of the police advisory board is being set up to study the whole system.

Is the Minister aware that, contrary to the implication in this question, the previous Government gave full support to cadet courses? If the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) wants to make this kind of implication in his question the Minister will have to face the fact that between the last year of the Conservative Government in 1973 and the last year of the Labour Government there was a dramatic improvement in police recruitment.

I am not answering for the previous Labour Government or even for the previous Conservative Government. I have tried to answer the question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines exist for the circumstances under which chief police officers may charge for the attendance of the constabulary.

The practice of charging for the attendance of police officers is governed by section 15 of the Police Act 1964, which provides that a charge may be made by the police authority if the chief officer of police has been requested to provide, and has provided, special services at any place.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that on several occasions police cover in my constituency has been severely reduced by the need to send support to major cities to provide protection for the public—persons and property—against organised marches and demonstrators? Will he consider whether it might be advisable to allow chief officers to charge those responsible for such demonstrations and marches for the police services provided and to recompense police officers who are injured in the execution of those duties?

I am extremely sympathetic to the thinking behind what my hon. Friend has said. At present, charges can be made only for what are described as "special police services", which are services which would not normally be provided in pursuance of the general duty of the police to preserve law and order. The sort of police activity that my hon. Friend has described is onerous, expensive and can lead to casualties, but it is within the ordinary course of the work of the police in the sense that it is for the purpose of preserving law and order. Therefore, at present charges cannot be made. However, I think that the case for the extension of the right to make charges deserves serious consideration.

Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether there is any possibility of presenting a bill for police attendance to protect the public and small shops when football supporters go on the rampage?

I do not think that is possible at the moment.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman believes that the organisers of marches should pay a charge for police services, does he think that that might be extended to people who run racecourses such as Ascot, where the police have to deploy many men to deal with traffic and other problems?

The difficulty, and the matter that causes justified anxiety and concern, is that people who run events of that kind pay for police services inside the place of activity, whereas others do not. I think that there is a case for looking afresh at the whole question of police charges.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men have left the Metropolitan police special patrol group since 1 April as a result of (a) their own request or resignation and (b) decisions of their superiors.

I understand from the Commisioner of Police of the Metropolis that since 1 April eight officers have left the group at their own request, two have resigned from the force and five have been transferred to other duties.

Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the merits of the general British system of policing is that local policemen deal with local matters and have to live with the consequences of their actions? Does he accept that the special patrol group represents a concept that is wholly alien to that basic merit of the British system, in that it frequently moves into an area, causes a great deal of trouble and, whatever chief officers of police or the Police Federation may say, causes a great deal of discontent among local policemen, who have to live with the consequences of the actions of the SPG?

The principle of local police is a right and proper one, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, I believe that the SPG has made an extremely valuable contribution to the effective use of the force's scarce manpower resources. The evidence of what it has done, and the way in which it has dealt with crime in different areas, has been very valuable indeed.

Does my right hon. Friend not see a discrepancy between his ability to give an answer to question 8, concerning the time that has passed since April, and his inability, in reply to question 1, to give the figures for armed robberies seven months ago? Is it not time that the Home Office began to look into the procedures by which the assessment of figures can be speeded up? At a time of increasing crime it is ridiculous that we cannot produce figures that are more up to date than seven months ago.

I note my hon. Friend's point. It is important to realise the enormous expenditure of resources to provide all the statistics, both for the House and for the country. It cannot be done quickly without a considerable expansion of resources.

Will the Home Secretary take note that since the brutal murder of Blair Peach a large number of people throughout the country are very much afraid of the special patrol group, especially if they have seen it in action, as I have, repeatedly? Would he not expect the best elements of the special patrol group to leave en masse in view of what has just happened and the fact that we all know that a whitewash is on the agenda after that murder?

It would be quite wrong of me to follow the hon. Gentleman in some of his accusations. Commander Cass's report went to the Director of Public Prosecutions on 16 July. The coroner's inquest has been adjourned until 11 October. In those circumstances, I cannot possibly comment, but I do not for one moment accept some of the hon. Gentleman's strictures.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were deported from the United Kingdom during 1978.

A total of 767, Sir.

Does the Minister agree that, to judge from the evidence since 3 May this year, those figures are likely to double in the coming 12 months, and that the country now has the most formidable and strict system of immigration control anywhere in the world? Does he accept that all those who are about to be deported, either by order of the court or order of the Home Secretary, should have the right of appeal in this country, particularly when they have been payers for a long time of national insurance contributions and income tax?

My Department is determined to take firm action against all those who disregard the immigration laws. We believe that that is essential. We also believe, however, that the system for reviewing deportation matters is extremely careful and thorough. During May and June this year the numbers deported were below those deported during the equivalent months last year.

There is one matter about the working of administrative deportation that perhaps I may ask the Minister to examine. I found—and I started to have the matter looked at—that someone can be locked up for a long period, purely by administrative order. I ask the Home Office to keep looking at that, because it should not happen in this country unless we are sure that it is necessary and that the procedures are right. I was beginning to question that.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I am prepared to look at that matter.

Is the Minister willing to have one more look at the case of Mr. Savvas Christophi, my constituent, who is due to be deported this weekend? If he is deported there will be a large amount of unemployment in South-East London, because he is an immigrant who has been here for seven years and has worked hard and built up a thriving business, which now, owing to the action of the Minister's Department, will be taken to pieces.

I do not think that it is appropriate to deal here with individual cases.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce the proposed changes in the immigration rules.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated when replying to questions on 17 July, we intend to announce these changes soon after the Summer Recess.

Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern throughout the country about the proposed changes? Will he give an undertaking to have the fullest possible consultations with immigrant groups and others before he announces the changes?

I am aware that there is considerable discussion about the changes, which we hope to bring forward as soon as is feasible. There is plenty of chance for representations to be made, and they are being made to my Department.

My community relations council in Peterborough recently announced that it was receiving a flood of applications from people living in my constituency who were seeking British citizenship prior to the introduction of the legislation. Will the legislation have any effect on people living here who are seeking to become naturalised British citizens in advance of its being enacted?

The original question relates to the immigration rules. I think that my hon. Friend's point is to do with the nationality laws, which are another matter.

Will the Minister accept that great resentment is felt throughout the country by British wives whose foreign husbands or fiancés will probably be affected by the proposed changes in the immigration rules? They feel that it is sex discrimination, apart from anything else, and that under the present Government they are likely to be faced with permanent separation from their husbands and fiancés.

I must ask the hon. Lady to await our announcement about the changes in the immigration laws.

Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the fiancé racket? Is he aware that some Indians who genuinely lobbied for young men to come from the Indian subcontinent to marry their daughters here are now lobbying their Members of Parliament and the authorities for the same young men to be deported, because they have used the marriages as marriages of convenience and deserted the daughters?

One of the factors behind whatever policy changes we announce is bound to be attention to the kind of racket that my hon. Friend has described.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the package of measures to be announced will be debated at some length? Some of the measures can be introduced in a debate lasting an hour and a half late at night. There is considerable concern, both in the House and outside, about their content.

Changes in the immigration rules have to be brought before the House. It is possible for them to come before the House by prayer, but the length of the debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present level of fire cover in the Greater London area.

Under section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947 it is the responsibility of the Greater London Council to maintain a fire brigade of sufficient strength to meet efficiently all normal requirements. I have no reason to believe that the council is failing to discharge this statutory requirement.

But is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that there is widespread concern in Greenwich and other parts of London about the current position? Is he aware that the Greater London Council is hiding behind what it describes as interim arrangements in order to cut the fire service? How long must we wait for a real tragedy before the Home Office does something about this?

I do not accept for one moment that the GLC is hiding in any way, as the hon. Gentleman described. The fact is that Home Office responsibilities lie in the area of approving or not approving changes in establishment put forward by the GLC. It has put forward no such request as yet, although it is expected that it will do so. It is a responsible body, bound by the law to comply with its statutory obligations under the Act. It is the council's responsibility. I have no reason to believe that it is not fully aware of the great duty that lies upon it or that it is not discharging it.

Is it not the case that under the 1947 and 1959 Fire Services Acts it is not only establishment that is covered but the closing of a fire station and reducing the number of whole-time and part-time members, and that approval must be obtained from the Home Secretary before that is done? Certainly no approval was sought from me. May we be told whether approval has been sought under that legislation yet?

It has not, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the law to enable fund-raising organisations to have bottle stalls at their charity events.

I do not expect there to be an early opportunity for Government legislation on this subject.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the law is being interpreted differently in different areas? In some areas local fetes and other activities to raise funds for parent-teacher associations and senior citizens are being prevented from having even a bottle of sherry as a prize for a tombola or raffle? Is that seriously what the law was intended to do?

I am aware of the problems and of the fact that there are varia- tions, but how the law is interpreted is a matter for the courts.

Has my hon. Friend considered by letter on that matter, which is not a party political issue? Will he consider encouraging a single-clause Private Member's Bill to try to straighten things out?

I am tempted to say to my hon. Friend that it is very much a party political matter because the political parties are greatly affected by it. If private Member's legislation is brought forward, we shall give careful and sympathetic consideration to it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will allow automatic access by solicitors to prisoners held in the United Kingdom under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, following the Government's acceptance of the Bennett report.

I have no present plans to do so. The recommendations of the Bennett committee related to the interrogation of people suspected of offences listed in the schedule to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. The special provisions of that Act do not apply to Great Britain. The general question of access to solicitors is being examined by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure.

Is it not the case that thousands of people who are arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the United Kingdom, other than in Northern Ireland, are not able to see a solicitor for a long time after their arrest, and that the vast majority of these people are innocent of any crime and are subsequently released by the police? Is the Home Secretary aware of the widespread concern about the use of the Act—the way in which people are held in custody and their denial of access to a solicitor? Will he urge immediate action to rectify that dangerous precedent?

The hon. Gentleman has made wide accusations about the number of people who have been denied access. If he has such evidence, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have it. I have no such evidence. I have followed the procedures under the Prevention of Terrorism Act as carried out under my predecessor. That Act has done great good for the country, and it is carefully and sympathetically administered by Home Secretaries of all parties.

Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee access, even if there is not to be automatic access? We are in agreement across the Floor of the House over our concern that where there is denial of access to legal representatives for those under questioning difficulties do arise.

The hon. Gentleman has a considerable record of work in Northern Ireland and understands these problems. If he has any evidence, I shall be grateful to have it and will consider it most sympathetically.

Will the Secretary of State recognise that the change in practice in Northern Ireland is relevant to practice in England and Wales? In Scotland there is a statutory right of access to a solicitor under section 19 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act. In Northern Ireland there is a right of access by practice to a solicitor for terrorist arrestees, but not for others. In England and Wales there is no right of access to a solicitor. Will the Secretary of State refer the change of practice in Northern Ireland to the Royal Commission on pre-trial procedure so that it can take that into account along with the other factors when considering what changes in practice need to be adopted in England and Wales?

I shall certainly see that the exchanges in the House this afternoon are brought to the attention of the Royal Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the document submitted to him on shoplifting by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington entitled "Take It or Leave It".

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sending me a copy of his report on shoplifting. We shall let him have our comments when we have had time to study the report in detail.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his interest in the matter. Is he aware that the authors, including myself, have had a widespread reaction from people all over the country who are increasingly concerned about the fact that the self-service method of trading is resulting in an increase in shoplifting? If the Home Office is interested in preventing crime, will it begin to look seriously at those whose trading methods are resulting in an increase in crime?

The Home Office is interested in stopping crime in every way. At the same time, I think my hon. Friend will be the first to agree that many of the proposals put forward by the Home Office working party on shoplifting in 1973 are the responsibility of the stores concerned, and they should be encouraged to fulfil those requirements and carry out the necessary precautions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to returning officers at parliamentary and local government elections about the desirability of permitting candidates' tellers to be accommodated within schools and similar buildings where there are polling stations.

None, Sir, but we shall consider the need for guidance on this matter in the future.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that it is right that some candidates' tellers should be forced to stand outside in the driving rain and snow, as happened at some polling stations in my constituency on 3 May, when there is adequate room in corridors where they could play their part without interfering in the electoral process?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. It is open to acting returning officers to designate as a polling station only part of a building, in which case tellers would have the right to sit or stand in the corridor if that was so desired. We shall be providing a comprehensive memorandum of guidance to acting returning officers, as was issued in 1974. When doing so we shall bear that point in mind.

asked The Prime Minister when last she met the TUC.

I met the economic committee of the TUC on 25 June.

Will The Prime Minister sit in with the Chancellor of the Exchequer this evening when he has discussions with the TUC and listen carefully to what the TUC has to say about the dangers of the cuts on the scale that she envisages? Those who are dependent upon public services, such as places in old people's homes and meals on wheels, will be hit hard. Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that areas such as North-East Lancashire, which she has deprived of intermediate area status, will be doubly hard hit?

We are trying to contain public expenditure to the level of expenditure this year. To do otherwise would be to impose extra taxation and rates on people who are already overtaxed and over-rated. The hon. and learned Member obviously wishes that we had more resources to spend, and there are many areas in which I should like to increase spending. The best way to get more resources is to encourage the TUC to urge its members to increase output per person. Until we do that we shall not be able to increase our standard of living, either privately or publicly.

When the Prime Minister meets the members of the TUC, will she tell them of the encouraging results of the Geneva conference on refugees, which she initiated? Will she confirm that the nations attending the conference have promised resettlement places in their countries to no fewer than 260,000 refugees, and will she tell the House how many of those refugees will be taken from the transit camps of Hong Kong, which hold more than 66,000 refugees?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the refugee conference in Geneva was a great success, in that it managed to get many more promises for resettlement and a lot more money than we should have had without it. It also managed to persuade the Vietnamese to stem the flow of people being forced to leave Vietnam, so it was a tremendous success.

When the right hon. Lady met the economic committee of the TUC, did she give it any advice to pass on to ordinary working people about what to do when they receive their 85p tax reduction? After they have paid the increases in rent and rates, VAT, petrol, school milk, school dinners and prescription charges, should they use the remaining 5p to buy their council house or to buy British Aerospace shares from themselves?

Strangely enough, I did not encounter any complaints from the TUC about reductions in taxation on earnings. That reduction gives everyone the opportunity to earn more in order to do the very things that the hon. Gentleman enumerated.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, perhaps she can ask it to tell its members that if they want to avoid the biggest inflationary increase that this country is likely to see in the next year, when the Labour Party puts its subscription up from £1·20 to £5 they can leave it?

I am sure that is sound advice.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the human effect of the public spending cuts that she is introducing, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) was right in saying that the real cost falls on those who can least bear it because in areas such as Leicestershire the authorities are already proposing to close children's homes, old people's homes, convalescent homes, and to cut domiciliary care and those services which people desperately need who cannot cope without them?

I repeat that public expenditure for this year is being contained at the level it was last year. Therefore, people are having to pay the same amount in taxes and rates, in a different pattern, and we are also having to borrow very heavily. Those who wish to spend more on the public sector have three choices—to tax more, to borrow more, or to encourage people to produce more.

asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Bath.

I have no plans to do so.

I thank my right hon. Friend for what is, I hope, a temporarily discouraging reply. Will she make it clear when she visits other constituencies that cuts in public spending should fall just as much on those who administer public services as on the services they administer and on the contracts they place with private industry? Can she also make clear what steps she will take to see that that happens, for example, by setting up a special unit in No. 10 Downing Street or the Cabinet Office to monitor it?

We have tried to ensure that the cuts fall more on the administrators than on the services themselves. It was with that in mind that we have a 3 per cent. cut in the Civil Service and a ban on recruitment for three months. After that, the amount of administration should be contained in the budget for each Department. We are also to cut one level of administration from the National Health Service. I believe that the best way to cut administration is to have a strict budget and to leave it to Government Departments and the local authorities to make cuts in administration and not in the services.

asked the Prime Minister if she will visit North-East Lancashire.

I hope to do so during the recess.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be extremely difficult for Members who represent North-East Lancashire constituencies to explain to their constituents why there should be increases in telephone charges when the Post Office last year made a profit of £375 million? Does she also agree that it will be more difficult for us to explain the increases in postal charges when those of us who come from North-East Lancashire are still receiving letters from our constituents asking us to vote for or against the reintroduction of capital punishment, the Abortion Bill, and the legislation to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory?

I think that my hon. Friend has voiced the feelings of many people that the standard of service is not as high as the charges in either the telephone or the postal service. It is difficult when there is a monopoly service to make comparisons. There is no standard of comparison. There is no substitute for competition. When there is a monopoly there is no competition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is considering the structure of the Post Office and the monopoly itself.

When the right hon. Lady visits Lancashire will she attempt to explain how her policy of closing hospitals and old people's homes will increase output per man?

I hope that those who can increase output per person will do so now that they have been given the incentives.

When my right hon. Friend visits North-East Lancashire, she will receive a very warm welcome. Will she take the opportunity to explain to the people there—who understand these things better than do the people in some areas—that there are now great opportunities for an industrial policy that will get this country moving forward again?

There are great opportunities. Taxation is lower, there are fewer controls, and opportunities are very much greater. For the first time industries can go ahead in a way that they have not been able to do for many years. It is often said that if one gives people increased responsibility some of them fear it, and that is so.

Who said that?

Bernard Shaw. He said

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."

asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her recent official visit to Scotland.

I was glad to be able to visit Edinburgh on 11 July and to see at first hand the effective work that is being done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his departments. I visited a medical supplies factory, a hospital, police headquarters and a fisheries protection vessel as well as St. Andrew's House, where I had useful discussions with my right hon. Friend and his staff; I also called on the Lord Provost of Edinburgh.

Now that the statute book has been wiped clean of the Scotland Act and the Wales Act, what further plans has my right hon. Friend for that type of devolution on which the Government were elected—devolution from an over-large State to the individual citizen?

There is, of course, a great deal of administrative devolution already in Scotland. One thing that impressed me was that 8,000 people administer Scotland in Scotland and only 60 in Whitehall, so administrative devolution is very much in being. My hon. Friend asked about real devolution, that is, giving power back to the people. We hope to continue the cuts in taxation. We hope also substantially to reduce the number of controls on local authorities and on industry. That is real devolution.

Does the right hon. Lady recall that during the previous Parliament the Tory Opposition campaigned vigorously for the dispersal of Civil Service jobs to Scotland? Will she undertake that those jobs will still go to Scotland in the numbers planned by the Labour Government? When does she think that unemployment in Scotland will, as a direct result of her policies, increase to 300,000 or 400,000?

A statement on dispersal will be made within a few minutes. It would be better if I were not to trespass on that. I hope that the ultimate result of our policies will be to increase genuine employment.

Not only my right hon. Friend's recent visit to Edinburgh but her previous visits to Scotland in general have been appreciated. Will she confirm that Scotland provides a marvellous environment in which both to live and to work, not only for civil servants but for science-based industries, which would find an admirable quality of staff in Scotland?

I hope to visit more science-based industries in Scotland and to make other visits. I hope also to spend part of my holidays there.

When the right hon. Lady and her ministerial colleagues refer to devolution in Scotland, will they leave out, in that context, discussion of the proposed Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Is she aware that we had one such Committee before and that it was not a riotous success?

I did not include it in my reply.

Since the Tory vote in the referendum was influenced by the advice of Lord Home to vote "No" on the ground that he would see that a better Bill was produced than the Scotland Act, what representations has the right hon. Lady had from the noble Lord which would indicate that he has any intention of carrying out his promise?

I am in quite frequent touch with my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Home. His advice is always excellent. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will consult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about future talks on devolution.