asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his estimates of the cost of collection of television licence fees and of the detection of licence evasion, in the current year.

It is estimated that the cost of collecting television licence fees and enforcing the television licensing system will amount to about £24 million in the current financial year.

Is the Minister aware of the growing anger that is felt, particularly by pensioners, at the 36 per cent. increase in the licence fee? Does he not believe that it will mean at least 1 million cases of licence evasion in 1980? Does he propose to increase the already hefty expenditure to which he referred in his answer?

I do not accept that the increase in the licence fee was unreasonable. The previous Administration allowed the BBC to go substantially into the red because they were reluctant to put the licence fee up to the level that was required.. It is a slur on old-age pensioners to suggest that because of the increase there will be massive evasion next year.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that he can get rid of that burden on the nation by refusing to grant the next franchise to the BBC and giving it to commercial companies? If that diminishes the influence of the brontosaurus-like BBC, that will be a good thing, and if by doing that it stops some viewing that also will be a good thing.

We are not considering that option, nor should we do so. Despite the BBC's faults—and every institution has faults—it is performing an extremely valuable broadcasting service.

Can my hon. and learned Friend say what percentage of moneys collected are received in payment for licences for black and white television? If it is a minimal amount, could not old-age pensioners be allowed, in the near future, to have black and white sets without paying for a licence?

During last Thursday's debate I envisaged that over a period of time that might be a direction in which we could move to solve a problem that we all understand and appreciate. However, that cannot be done in the near future.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the Williams committee report on obscenity and film censorship.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report of the Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship chaired by Professor Bernard Williams.

The Williams committee has put forward comprehensive proposals for the reform of the laws relating to obscenity and film censorship. The Government will wish to examine the proposals carefully and to take full account of parliamentary and public opinion.

While welcoming my right hon. Friend's words, may I remind him that the committee has sat for two years and that there have been more than five Bills since 1959 on that subject? Since the committee admits that the law is in a mess, the nation requires an urgent answer from the Government to the recommendations that have received such widespread approval.

My hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate that it is a question not only for the Government but for the House and for public opinion. The Government should not proceed without a wide measure of public agreement. That is why we wish to hear the views of the House and of people throughout the country. In the meantime, as my hon. Friend knows, a Private Members' Bill is going forward. There may be doubts about how successful that Bill will be, but if it has some success, and if the House feels that it should go forward, the Home Office will certainly not try to stop it.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Williams committee made certain relevant proposals to protect both adults and children from seeing hard porn and from being exploited by it. It also made proposals to put the blue-film clubs out of business, and that cannot be bad. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will resist the hysterical comments that were made by some people who criticised the report even before it had been published and before they could possibly have read it?

I noticed that some people made a number of comments about the report before they had read it, and after reading it some felt that they had to retract some of those comments. I fully appreciate that point, and we ought to consider very carefully what the Williams committee actually said, rather than what some people thought that it might have said.

After Members have had time fully to study the Williams report, may we look forward to an occasion—perhaps early in the new year, and certainly before Easter—when there will be a debate in the House so that the Government can be told what the House thinks about the Williams report?

I can only say that that must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman to make representations to his right hon. Friend to bring this matter to the House for consideration? In the meantime, will he seek the views of local authorities, which at the end of the day have a difficult task to perform in relation to film censorship, and so on? Has he so far received representations on the matter from authorities?

I cannot say offhand whether I have received any representations, but I can say that I shall wish to take all those that I do receive into careful account. As for a debate, I shall, of course, speak to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Such a debate would be very welcome, but there are many pressures on Parliament's time.

Does the Home Secretary realise that it would be unfortunate if he and the Government were to delay consideration of this matter during the passage of Private Members' legislation through the House, particularly as we have gone beyond the stage at which the issue of principle can be considered? Will he therefore respond to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Fins bury (Mr. Cunningham) that the House should be given an opportunity to consider this issue before Easter?

The hon. Gentleman seeks by a side wind to push me into saying something which he and I know I should not say. I shall add only that I shall speak to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Be bold.

If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to be bold, he should remember that I was once Leader of the House, and I deeply resented those of my colleagues who were bold then. I had better not be bold now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make proposals for the reform of the system governing the pay and conditions of service of court staffs.

The pay and conditions of service of magistrates' courts staff in England and Wales outside inner London are under review by the Clegg Commission, and the pay and negotiating machinery for the staff in inner London are under review by the staff and their employers in a joint working party. I think we should wait for those reviews to be completed before considering in consultation with those concerned whether any changes in the present negotiating arrangements are desirable.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the recent strike of court staff in London revealed the utter confusion that exists in this area, with responsibility being shared between the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Magistrate and goodness knows who? Will he make proposals to rationalise this state of affairs as soon as possible after the matters that he has mentioned have been concluded?

The recent strike has led us to think about whether the present arrangements are the most sensible. I think that it would be wise to wait until the outcome of the consideration that is taking place before coming forward with any firm proposals. When we do, we shall obviously have to consult all concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present procedure for the prosecution of owners of vehicles which do not carry a road fund licence whilst on a public road; and what proposals he has to simplify and speed up this procedure.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has responsibility for enforcing prosecution of the offence of using a motor vehicle whilst on a public road without a valid licence. In a writteen answer on 30 November he announced the Government's intention to retain vehicle excise duty and to increase the enforcement effort. The separate offence of failing to display a valid vehicle excise licence is dealt with either by normal prosecutions in the courts or by the fixed penalty procedure, at the discretion of chief officers of police.

Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that if someone does not display a road fund licence on his vehicle he is told that he is a naughty boy and that he should buy one, whereas if he does not have a television licence he is fined? Why the difference?

He can be fined on both occasions. It is just a question of enforcement. It is true that if he does not have a licence on his vehicle, that is an offence that can be dealt with either by prosecution or by the fixed penalty procedure. However, it is an offence.

The hon. and learned Gentleman may not be aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport indicated in a letter to me recently that there was some degree of confusion between the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport over this problem. Will the Minister enter into talks with the Ministry of Transport in order to decide how best this evasion can be curtailed?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to send me a copy of the correspondence, I shall consider the matter.

Is it not a fact that if a vehicle does not have a road fund licence, automatically it is not insured, and therefore if any claims are made in respect of an accident there is no possibility of getting compensation?

It would be most unwise of me to give off-the-cuff legal advice of that kind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend section 83 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, to make it obligatory that meetings held free of charge in school premises to further the candidatures of nominated persons for local government office shall in fact be public and not private or ticket meetings.

We are reviewing the law on election meetings in the context of the Government's general examination of public order legislation.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the summer of this year, during the course of a local government by-election in the Eastville ward of my constituency, a public meeting held by an extremist organisation—the National Front—was heavily guarded by police, and members of the public, including the headmistress of the school, were excluded from it? Is he also aware that the chief constable and the solicitor to the Avon education authority have expressed to me their concern about the present state of the law?

I can understand the concern about the present state of the law, and it is exactly for that reason that we are reviewing it. The position is that only if it is possible to have a generally acceptable watertight definition of what is a public meeting will it be possible to make any change. I think that it is right to consider that in the context of other changes in public order legislation.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman inform local authorities that there is no obligation to let schools to the National Front, or to any other political organisation, if the meetings are to be all-ticket or private, because for election purposes they must be public meetings? If, therefore, there is an indication that such meetings will be private or all-ticket, no local authority needs to grant the use of a school to the National Front in the first place.

Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act 1949 deals with that point, in that it entitles a candidate at a local government election to use a suitable room free of charge in a publicly maintained school, but only for what is a public meeting of which reasonable notice has been given and which does not interfere with the use of the premises for educational purposes. I am sure that local authorities will heed that limitation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the costs to public funds involved in the Labour Party and Trades Union Congress march in London on 28 November; and if he will make the report available.

No, Sir. As I said in my reply on 3 December to questions by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), the cost could be calculated only at disproportionate expense.

If organised groups indulge in activities of the sort that require a massive police presence—be they political rent-a-mobs or Manchester United—does not my right hon. Friend think that the organisers and not the taxpayers should be asked to pay the bill? As more than 4,000 police were on duty on that occasion, does not my right hon. Friend at least think that Transport House should make some contribution towards the public purse?

I can see the attraction of that proposal, but it is important to appreciate that one cannot say that the responsibility for any disorder always lies in the first instance with those who organise or participate in the event. That is an important point which one must accept. At the same time, I should like to add that I appreciate that that particular demonstration was organised very well, that it required a lot of police, but that it went off peacefully. That is to the credit of those who organised it.

Does the Minister agree that it is a vital right of the individual to march and protest, preferably in the peaceful and organised way in which this march took place? I was on that march, and I marched side by side with the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). He made an important speech against the Abortion Bill from the plinth in Trafalgar Square, and it went down very well.

Far be it for me to comment on a speech that I did not hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) about the Abortion Bill. Of course the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Everybody has the right to protest—it is an essential part of our freedom. However, those who march must appreciate what their action means for the police. They are using massive police resources and removing police from many other areas where, no doubt, they could be employed dealing with criminals and looking after people's property.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Barbarians rugby team came to this country from South Africa that cost the rugby authorities several thousands of pounds, the local authorities several tens of thousands of pounds and Mr. Peter Hain absolutely nothing except the cost of his train fare? As Mr. Peter Hain set out with the intention of disruption, will my right hon. Friend comment on whether people like him should be forced to pay for some of the disruption that they cause?

One gets into difficult country when one starts arguing about who should pay. We should all accept that when we put a major responsibility on the police in a given area they are employed there and not in other areas where many of us feel that they would be of more use.

Accepting the universal view that the right to demonstrate is vital in this country, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the march that has been referred to 4,000 policemen were employed who need not have been? It was a judgment that quite properly had to be taken, just in case. If all marches were carried out in the way that this one was, there would be no need for 4,000 policemen.

Like myself, the right hon. Gentleman has had considerable responsibility in this area. He appreciates that the Commissioner has to make a judgment. He will be the first to agree that the Commissioner cannot afford to take any risks. He must provide the police in case something goes wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the manner in which chief constables carry out their duties under the Police Act 1964; and whether he has any proposals to change the powers vested in chief constables under this legislation.

I am satisfied as to the efficiency of the police forces in England and Wales and their chief constables and I believe that the functions assigned by the Police Act 1964 to chief constables remain appropriate.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the growing concern about how remote chief constables are becoming from the people whom they serve? There is particular concern about the fact that they seem accountable to nobody—neither to the Home Secretary nor to their police authority. Concern is being expressed that they are entering the political arena, making political speeches and even becoming cult figures of the Right.

It would represent a major change in the policy of the country if chief constables were in any way responsible to the Home Secretary. That would bring us close to having a national police force, which I believe the House would strongly resist. It would also interfere with local operational control, which would be unsatisfactory. Chief constables are responsible in their areas for the operational control and direction of their forces. Of course, they are generally accountable to their police authorities for the efficiency of their operations. Whether or not I agree with their comments, I believe that chief constables are entitled to make them from their own experience. I read them and listen to them, but I do not have to accept them.

As the police authority for London, will the Home Secretary take a close personal interest in Operation Countryman? There are serious reports that the corruption and criminality of some officers is being concealed by senior officers. That is a worrying situation for any law-abiding citizen.

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is "Yes, Sir".

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the increase in the television licence fee, he will now take action greatly to reduce the amount charged to senior citizens.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister realise that the granting of free television licences to elderly people living in homes under varying housing accommodation complexes is causing enmity and jealousy between them and other elderly people who live close by and who have to pay the full £34. Surely that is unfair and unjust. Will the Minister reduce the price and make it more reasonable for senior citizens?

I realise that the existence of the old persons' home licence causes feelings of resentment among those who feel that they are in a broadly comparable position. However. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want it to be taken away. The cost of providing free television licences for all pensioner households would be between £145 million and £160 million. I do not know whether hon. Members who argue for that would wish it to be raised by an increase in taxation or by putting up the colour television licence to £50, which is what would be required.

Will my hon. and learned Friend look sympathetically at the proposition that the deaf should get a concession on television licences?

I will look into that matter.

Why do the Government hand out substantial sums of money to the richest members of the community and yet deny to pensioners who live in their own homes an elementary form of justice, namely, that they should not have to pay on a small income the same amount for the television licence fee as the rest of the community pays?

I do not accept that the parallel the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw is in any way valid.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had on his proposal to establish an independent local radio station in Ayr.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend announced his approval in principle of further local radio stations, including an independent local radio station in Ayr, on 15 November. Before reaching that decision we received expressions of general support for the Ayr proposal from the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Education Department, three district councils in the area and from the hon. Gentleman himself.

You have my support for the establishment of a radio station in Ayr. I wonder if you could indicate—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister ensure that the transmitter for the radio station is positioned so that all parts of South Ayrshire receive the signal from Radio Ayr? Radio Clyde is received in the north of the county but not in the south. It is imperative that the new transmitter signal is received in the south of the county.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you and I are both grateful for the hon. Gentleman's thanks. It is primarily a matter for the IBA to decide on the positioning of the transmitter. However, we shall certainly look into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring into operation the power of the courts to impose partly suspended sentences of imprisonment under section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

We propose to consider this further in the light of the progress which I hope to see made in reducing the prison population following the May committee's report.

What is the difficulty in bringing this measure in immediately? Would it not be a useful, if minor, way of reducing the prison population, and is it not a weapon that the judges want?

I am in favour of the provision in principle, and I hope that it will be possible to introduce it. The difficulty in introducing the measure immediately is that it is difficult to know the impact that it would have on the prison population. Even if accurate forecasts of the overall impact cannot be obtained, there is reason to believe that it would increase the number of prisoners detained for short periods. Therefore, it is wise to examine the May report recommendations before implementing the proposals, which I fully support.

Is the Minister aware that this provision became law as a result of a weak Labour Government's capitulation to a Conservative new clause in Committee and that I was the only member of the Committee who opposed the alleged reform? Is it not right to say that the only effect of bringing this into law, and the reason why it has so far not been brought into law, is that it will further overcrowd our overcrowded prisons, and would be a retrograde step from the point of view of any penal reform?

I do not accept that view either of the consequences or of the history of this provision. I regard the provision rather as the view of a Committee of the House which, even in the last Parliament, was wise enough to accept and endorse the recommendations put forward by my hon. Friends.

How soon may we expect the Government to increase the powers of the juvenile courts to deal with persistent juvenile offenders by amending the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, as promised?

It will be done, but I am afraid that we cannot do it this Session.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconstitute the Civil Defence Corps.

We have no such intention at present.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if reconstituted, the corps could help in the event of a non-nuclear war, and could also help to maintain the necessities of life, such as food, water and fuel, in the event of disruptive industrial action?

It is important not to confuse the organised training and use of volunteers and civil defence for war emergencies with contingency planning to protect the public against the effects of strikes. Those are different matters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for a sample census in each region of England and Wales to ascertain how many daughters of parents of British nationality were born outside the United Kingdom.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that many British Service men whose children were born abroad because they were serving abroad, other public servants whose children were born abroad because their service took them abroad, and many other catgories of people, are deeply dismayed and resentful at the immigration rules proposed by the Government? Will he take steps to cut out from those rules the sexist and racist discriminatory elements in them?

As was indicated in the debate on 4 December, the Government have agreed to a change in their proposals for girls born overseas to parents who happened to be abroad at the time. They will be able to bring in their husbands or fiances provided that the main purpose of the marriage is not the immigration of the husband, and provided that the woman is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, one of whose parents was born here. In other cases we shall, of course, consider the circumstances very carefully and contemplate whether to exercise discretion.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that more generous support should be given to the idea of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) who is trying to discover the number of people involved? Is not that exactly the theory behind the register to which the Tory Party is committed in its election manifesto?

My hon. Friend is raising another question.

Has the Minister looked at the figures that were produced from the 1971 census, which indicate that about half of the Indian girls in this country of marriageable age were born here? If the Minister went over to the only sensible defence of this proposal—I doubt whether even that is sensible—and if he were to restrict entry to husbands of patrial wives, would not he actually achieve all that he desires?

I have, of course, looked at the figures given in the 1971 census. I accept that point. At that time there were in Great Britain about 267,000 females, 141,000 of them single, who had been born outside the United Kingdom, but one or both of whose parents had been born in the British Isles. Not all of them will necessarily be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

With respect, will my hon. Friend consider the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley)? Is not this the kind of question that it would be relevant and useful to answer in the decennial census in 1981?

There are some difficulties about the proposed questions covering the origin of people to be tested by the 1980–81 census. We are thinking about that very carefully.

When does the Minister expect the new revised rules to be put before the House? In view of the extreme criticisms mounted from all quarters in the House on some aspects of the draft rules in the White Paper, may we have an assurance that the text of the revised regulations will be available to the House before the rules are tabled?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the Prison Officers' Association regarding outstanding problems at Her Majesty's Prison at Liverpool, Hornby Road.

I understand that, following the special delegate conference held last week by the Prison Officers Association, the national executive of the association will be making approaches on a number of issues arising from the May committee's report, including the Liverpool claim, and discussions will then be arranged as soon as practicable.

May I welcome the statement made by the Home Secretary? As there is a real problem in Liverpool prison, within the overall problem, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me that reply?

If I may respond in the same manner to the hon. Gentleman, he has been particularly helpful over the problems in that prison. I am very grateful for his co-operation in seeking to solve them sensibly in the future.

Will my right hon. Friend consider having discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in connection with the May report?

Order. The hon. Gentleman should be careful, as the subject of the question is Liverpool.

Can the Home Secretary say why he is continuing to allow prison officers to deny the legal right of free access by Mr. Rod Morganat, a member of the board of visitors, to Pucklechurch remand centre, and why he is insisting on the resignation of Jonathan Pollitzer and Kay Douglas-Scott as voluntary workers at Wormwood Scrubs?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is in the same category as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). The question is about Liverpool prison.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Points of order are taken after questions.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is taking up Question Time. I understood that he was asking a question about Pucklechurch. We were dealing with Hornby Road, Liverpool. The question was about the standing problems of Liverpool.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the Southall events during April since he made his last statement to the House; and if he will now consider a public judicial inquiry.

Since my statement on 27 June I have received representations from some 40 hon. Members and 143 individuals or organisations, including the national executive committee of the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. As it seems that the position is still wide open, pending the completion of the coroner's inquest on the death of Mr. Blair Peach, does he agree that there is still considerable, widespread concern and a determination in most quarters to ensure that such an event never occurs again? Has he under active consideration the proposals of the Ealing community relations council which is seeking to write into the Public Order Act references to the Race Relations Act, which prevents a meeting from taking place at election time which has the intention of stirring up race hatred?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, whose interest and concern in, and help with, this matter has been considerable, may I say, first, that I should not wish to comment on anything to do with a review of the public order legislation. It is important that we should examine the problems and the representations made in that context. Of course I appreciate that there is concern, and I understand the problems, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment before the completion of the judicial proceedings.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one representation of the events in Southall that did no good to anyone was the BBC's "Open Door" programme, which contained some totally mendacious allegations against those who could not answer back? I accept that my right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the content of television programmes, but does he agree that it is no part of the BBC's charter to make unfounded allegations against those who are unable to reply?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I must not comment on BBC programmes. I can, however, say this. I understand that the principle of the "Open Door" series, organised by the BBC, is that people on both sides of any controversy can produce and put forward their own programmes. Those who wish to argue a particular case can do so on that programme.

While fully accepting that the Secretary of State will not want to say much before the result of the inquest is known, may I again appeal to him not to close his mind to the possibility of a public inquiry on this issue? This could be as much in the interests of the police as of other people.

The essence of not making any comment until after judicial proceedings have been completed is not to make any comment until they have been completed.

While both the National Front and the Anti-Nazi League acted provocatively in April, are they not as bad as each other? Do we really need another public judicial inquiry to show that both these bodies have some responsibility for the fact that this episode ended in tears?

I told the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) that I will not comment, and I must make the same reply to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present powers and duties of chief constables and police authorities.

Yes, Sir. I believe that the Police Act 1964 continues to provide the right framework.

Is the Home Secretary aware that when his predecessor, Henry Brooke, introduced the Police Bill in 1963 he said that its aim was to make chief constables fully accountable for what they did. In practice, this has not worked. There is now an unsatisfactory relationship between some police authorities and their chief constables. Will the Home Secretary look carefully at the Police Authorities (Powers) Bill that I am sponsoring in the House? It aims to give police authorities more power in respect of general policing policies, without interfering with the rightful discretion of chief constables over day-to-day operational matters.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his last remarks. The operational independence of chief constables is extremely important. It is a principle that I hope the House will fully support. There are, of course, arguments about the relationship between chief constables and police authorities. Arguments in our national life, at all levels and in many different fields, are not unusual. Arguments in this field are equally not unusual. I should not wish to change the present procedure which, on balance, works well throughout the country.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his interest and concern in the matter in the past, but is he sure that the West Yorkshire police authority has sufficient powers and resources to catch the Yorkshire Ripper?

That is basically a matter for the operational control of the chief constable of West Yorkshire. I visited the West Yorkshire police recently and spoke to the chief constable and the chairman of the police authority. On their own initiative they asked someone from the Metropolitan Police to investigate the situation. I fully support the work that they are doing. I looked into their work and saw what they were doing. The House can only hope that their considerable efforts will lead to some success.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman disturbed at the recent remark of Mr. James Anderton, the chief constable of the Manchester area, that he so disapproves of the Sex Discrimination Act that, if necessary, he would disobey it? Contrary to what Mr. Anderton says, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that extending the powers of police authorities is in no way seeking political control over the police but is, rather, seeking democratic accountability of the police, including chief officers, which at present is almost wholly lacking?

I do not accept that the accountability of chief constables to their police authorities is wholly lacking. As regards the comments of particular chief constables, I would only say this: thank goodness it is a matter for which I am not responsible and on which I do not have to reply.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he appears to have rejected out of hand guidelines for improved disciplinary procedures for chief officers put forward by his immediate predecessor?

I do not think that I have done so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to meet the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

I met the chairman of the authority on Monday 3 December. I have no immediate plans for a further meeting.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the authority, will he tell him that if there is a divergence between the views that the right hon. Gentleman expressed at Cambridge about the shape of the fourth television channel and those now being put out by the IBA, it is the view originally expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that should prevail.

It would be rather absurd if, at this stage, I were to renege on my views. I have no intention of doing so.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.

This morning I was present at the departure of President Tolbert of Liberia and later presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Has my right hon. Friend found time to read the opinion poll in yesterday's issue of The Sun, which shows that 67 per cent. of all trade unionists and 61 per cent. of Labour trade unionists support the modest proposals in the Government's Employment Bill? Who does she think that Mr. Len Murray and the Labour Party are representing in their hysterical opposition to these proposals?

I am satisfied that in bringing forward these modest measures of trade union legislation the Government are representing the overwhelming majority of people and trade unionists, and long may that remain so.

Will the Prime Minister give urgent attention today to the grave situation developing in the Northern region, particularly in County Durham, as a result of the announcement of the steel closure at Consett? Is she aware that what really amounts to the destruction of the fabric of community life that has been built up over 100 years is producing cynicism and despair the like of which I have not known since the 'thirties?

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is very concerned, but, as he knows, we cannot sell the steel that we are producing at the price and quality at which we are producing it. I appreciate that any closure will cause grave concern in his area, but I must ask him to pursue the matter with the British Steel Corporation.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many of my hon. Friends will be disappointed that she has answered question Q1 on its own? [Hon. Members: "Reading".] I have to read, because I had to jot down the numbers. There are many questions on the Order Paper today, such as question Q10, which have bright original thinking behind them. The rest of the stuff asks my right hon. Friend what she is doing today. She has told us. Will she therefore, please take steps to answer questions Q3, Q10, Q14, Q17, Q27, Q28, Q30, Q31, Q34, Q36, Q38 and Q40? They total only 12 out of the 41 listed. In particular, will she answer question Q10?

I assure my hon. Friend that I would welcome some variety in the questions. I am not responsible for the questions; only for the answers. I must tell my hon. Friend that I have never transferred an oral question. If he can get nearer to the top of the list, good luck to him.

Now that we are approaching the festive season, will the Prime Minister say whether she will be sending out her Christmas cards today? Will they bear the inscription "A Merry Christmas and an Idle New Year"? That will be the fate of many people in South Wales as a result of the policies of her Government towards the steel industry.

With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope that some of the cards have already gone. We shall be very behind hand if they have not.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 13 December.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a moment ago.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will have time today to look at the report on page 4 of The Times that Southwark council has decided not to go ahead with its extravagant proposal for building a town hall. Would she like to add her congratulations to the council and pass the same message on to other local authorities with similarly extravagant plans? Will she also comment on the gin palace and swimming baths that it is intended to put across the road at a time of economic difficulties?

I am sure that Southwark council was wise not to embark on that expensive capital project at the present time.

I must press the right hon. Lady on the social and economic effects of the closures that are taking place as a result of the failure to sell steel. Do the Government accept any responsibility for the welfare of the areas involved? Is the right hon. Lady aware of the devastation that will be caused? Apart from hon. Members taking up individual closures with the BSC, what are the Government's policy and attitude towards thousands of coal miners and steel workers who will be thrown out of work and will see no prospect of getting any other job?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we tried to carry out some remedial measures at Shotton and made it a special development area. We accept that there will have to be remedial measures in the other areas, but I do not see any possibility of obviating the need for some closures. The BSC poured a great deal of investment into the steel industry, but it has lost a large share of the home market. The way to get back that market is to reduce restrictive practices and to operate the new equipment and machinery as efficiently as possible.

That is not an answer to the question that I asked. I repeat it. What social responsibility do the Government accept for the fact that areas such as South Wales and, to some extent, Durham are to be plunged into heavier unemployment than we have seen since the 1930s? It is no use saying that there must be negotiations with BSC. Do the Government intend to take any measures to see that those men have an opportunity to get back to work?

I dealt with that at the beginning of my reply to the right hon. Gentleman's previous question. We expect that there will have to be remedial measures in those areas, but the sooner that we can get out of loss-making industries and have the possibility of turning over to new, expanding businesses, the better. The first stage is to get out of the loss-making industries. If the right hon. Gentleman and his Government had faced the realities earlier, we should have been in a better position today.

I am not sure what the Prime Minister means by that last remark, because in my constituency more than 3,000 men lost their jobs as a result of a steel closure that took place in an attempt to deal with the matter in a regulated way, rather than by the sort of surgery and butchery that is taking place at present.

I say again that the Government accept that certain remedial measures will be needed, but the right hon. Gentleman is the last person to ask me to take responsibility for the steel losses of the past five years.

Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy day to reflect on the decision taken on Tuesday by the National Union of Students to organise a national squatting campaign against the proposed Housing Bill? Does she agree that the short hold provisions in the Bill will produce rented accommodation and not cause the drying up of private rented accommodation which resulted from the previous Government's Housing Act?

The new short hold provisions are designed, as my hon. Friend says, to bring more rented accommodation on to the market. The sooner that we can get the Bill introduced and passed, the better.

Will the right hon. Lady find time today to discuss with the Home Secretary the case of Gias Uddin, the 18year-old waiter, who, it was decided yesterday, should suffer immediate deportation? Will she consider the representations made to her by the Archbishop and Bishop of Liverpool and the further representations of Merseyside Members and my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel)?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. Representations must be made to my right hon. Friend, who has just finished answering questions.

asked the Prime Minister if she intends to meet representatives of organised religions.

I have already met representatives of a number of denominations, and hope to continue to do so.

In that case, the right hon. Lady will be aware that the Churches are extremely worried about the damage that education cuts will cause to children and their futures, and that Roman Catholics are fearful about the closures of their schools as the result of transport cuts provided for in the Education (No. 2) Bill.

I am aware of the representations on this matter. Local authorities often give priority to the transport needs of Roman Catholic children in particular, sending them to schools well outside the 3-mile statutory limit. That depends not upon any legal provision but on the policy decisions of the local authority. I have no reason to think that they will be any less generous now. Church schools were part of the 1944 Act religious settlement, and I think that they are extremely good schools.

Will my right on. Friend confirm that she recently met the leaders of the British Council of Churches, who, as I know from experience, are not tremendous supporters of the Conservative Party, that she had a very good meeting and that she twice asked them to come again?

I have met a number of religious leaders and today is the first time that I have heard anyone suggest that Christianity is confined to one party. I refer not to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) but to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart).

In view of reports that schools in deprived areas of Glasgow are having to ask schools in better parts of the city for clothing for their children, will the Prime Minister consult the Churches on how they are to take up again their nineteenth century role of giving charity to the poor, in order to make up for the deprivation that will result from the Government's economic policies?

It seems that we are having a theological session. To me, Christianity and theology depend not so much on collective action, as on what individuals are prepared to do themselves.

That is not what Christ said.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the tendency of the British Council of Churches to make off-the-cuff remarks about such highly secular topics as the entry of fiances and the siting of nuclear missiles? Does she agree that the historic duties of members of the Christian priesthood are to devote themselves to the redemption of the soul and not to seek to determine the date on which such pleasures may fall due?

I shall have to offer this quarter of an hour to the noble Lord the Archbishop of Canterbury. He could probably answer the questions better than I. I am aware that some of the Churches' resolutions have hit out at nuclear weapons and various other things, but I hope that many of them will remember that those weapons are designed to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religious worship in this country.