asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to ensure that more places are available for young people under 21 years of age in open institutions, so that the number of such persons in closed prisons and Borstal may be reduced.

More borstal places are planned, including more open places, but all those currently sentenced to borstal training who are suitable for open conditions are already sent to open borstals. Few persons under the age of 21 serving sentences of imprisonment are suitable for open conditions.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assurance. However, does he not agree that the incarceration in closed institutions of people under 21 should be regarded as a last resort? Will he not promote an investigation to see whether there are boys, and girls in some instances, who are in closed institutions, but who in fact would be suitable for keeping in open borstals, or other open institutions?

Out of the 6,544 young people now in borstal some 2,133 are in open borstals. Every individual sent to borstal first goes to an allocation centre where it is decided which is the most suitable borstal for him. I remind the hon. Member that many are found not suitable for open prisons because of their instability and their likelihood to abscond, but within those terms I agree with him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to make himself responsible for determining the pay of police officers.

It is already my responsibility. But I see no reason for altering the statutory provision which obliges me first to consult the Police Council.

Have not the police been extremely patient in their pay negotiations? In view of his powers, will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to speed up consideration of the police pay claim so that these excellent citizens may get proper remuneration for their invaluable work and so that the crime rate may start to go down?

I entirely agree both about their patience and about the contribution of the police to the country. However, the negotiations ought to proceed on the basis which in the long run will be in the interests of everyone concerned.

When are the police to have a satisfactory answer? My right hon. Friend rightly says that he is getting on with it, but does he not appreciate that the House of Commons wants good rates of pay and good conditions for the police and a jolly good police force, without which we cannot survive?

I entirely agree. What is important is that whatever is determined will be back-dated to September, 1970.

It must be a big pay rise.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman concede that as the net increase in the number of police officers in England and Wales this year is unlikely to be more than half the average achieved annually over the last five years, only a very substantial increase in pay can change these circumstances and that it is up to him to use his good offices with the Police Council in this connection?

As the hon. Member has raised the point, let me say that the figures for last year, 1970, were very much better than those for 1968 or 1969. The problem is wastage and I am well aware of the difficulties involved in that.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a matter not just of the cost of living or recruitment but of law and order?

That is so. The Government are totally committed to strengthening the police force and I take it as one of my main responsibilities to ensure that that is done.

We all like the Home Secretary's kind words, but cash is better than kind words. As the Government seem happy to give 66·2 per cent. rises to judges and the highest-paid civil servants, why cannot the Home Secretary give a similar sum to the police? Would not that resolve the recruiting and other problems?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is anticipating a later Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement on the progress of negotiations over police pay.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement on the progress of negotiations on police pay.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further announcement regarding current negotiations on police pay and terms of engagement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police pay.

Negotiations are continuing. The agreed date of the next formal meeting between the two sides of the Police Council is 11th February.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that very many of us are anxious to see the most generous settlement possible consistent with the Government's general economic policy?

I am well aware from my postbag of that feeling, which I share.

Is the Minister aware that urgency in dealing with any negotiations is also very important? There is a feeling of frustration growing in the police forces, when they see the way in which claims of other public servants are dealt with. It is very important from the point of view of morale that this claim be dealt with not only generously but expeditiously.

I am afraid that I cannot accept that. The offer made to the police gives them a 10 per cent. increase plus an examination of what is needed to deal with the very real problem of wastage. It is understood on both sides that this is the right way in which to handle the problem.

Will the right hon. Gentleman define "national interest" in respect of police pay? Is he aware that prior to the election, his party put in the forefront of public comment and controversy the whole question of law and order? Law and order depend upon an effective, contented police force. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police force now is frustrated, that a serious situation is developing, and that it is in the national interest that this pay claim be settled at the earliest possible opportunity without any intervention by the Government's repressive policies on public services?

The Government are involved because we are parties to the negotiations. I am represented on the Police Council. The Government have made it clear that we regard the strengthening of the police force as one of the objectives to which we are committed.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the very serious undermanning of the police in many areas—I have in mind my own county of Essex—is being taken into account by the Home Office in reaching a realistic settlement?

Certainly. The problem is not so much recruitment as wastage. It is a very special problem to which we are giving much attention.

While appreciating my right hon. Friend's difficulties, may I press him further on the point of expedition? I remind him that the heart grows sick with hope deferred, and that there is real dissatisfaction among our police at present.

I get the impression that the police force understands that we are trying to provide a framework within which we can have a stronger and more efficient police force.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the greatest problems arising from this delay concerns experienced officers who will be able to retire in the next couple of years? At all costs, must not these officers be encouraged to stay in the service, and is not that why the matter is of extreme urgency in the interests of law and order?

Yes, Sir. That problem is very much in our minds.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that he will not allow any general economic considerations to override the dominant consideration of law and order?

The Government's duty is two-fold: to have regard both to our undertakings about the economic situation, which is fundamental, and to our equally important undertakings about strengthening the police force.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree, apart from a straight pay increase, that one of the most important tests of any new agreement must be whether it provides better incentives for long service and for promotion? In both respects at the moment the police pay structure is quite inadequate.

Once again, I agree that those important factors are very much in our minds.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will send a circular to all magistrates' courts and juvenile courts, recommending that, in all cases where a custodial sentence is capable of being imposed, whether or not such sentence might be suspended, the court should expressly draw to the attention of the accused his entitlement to apply for legal aid.

Courts have been advised on the giving of information to defendants about facilities for legal aid. My right hon. Friend is considering whether any further guidance is called for.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. May we be told when the Home Secretary is likely to complete his deliberations on that point? Would he also bear in mind the present total inadequacy of charge sheets as regards any reference to legal aid? Whereas in other respects the charge sheet specifically headlines issues, it does not do so in respect of legal aid.

Circulars were sent to justices' clerks in 1968 and as recently as last October a circular went to the courts about the Children and Young Persons Act reminding them of legal aid within those terms. We are considering whether any further guidance is called for, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know the result of our considerations. I am by no means certain at this stage that guidance is needed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers to ban the battery method of breeding dogs.

I have no evidence that such methods are used for breeding dogs.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that a recent investigation by the Daily Mirror disclosed that there was a big business in the battery breeding of dogs? Bitches are kept in intolerable conditions, in old hen houses and railway carriages with holes in the roofs and walls, especially for the purpose of breeding litter after litter. Puppies are subjected to long train journeys crated in orange boxes without food and water. Is that the sort of treatment that the Minister condones?

I repeat that the Home Office has no evidence that battery methods of breeding dogs exist. But if there is evidence of cruelty or neglect in breeding establishments, that is already an offence under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. It is open to any individual to initiate proceedings if he believes that unnecessary suffering has been caused. I will look at any evidence which the hon. Gentleman wishes to send me.

The hon. Gentleman surely knows that battery methods are used for animals other than dogs. Would he equally condemn those methods and try to make the lot of the animals involved more Christianlike?

With respect, the Question specifically refers to dogs.

Yes, I know.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that battery methods, be they in kennels or on farms, are a cruel and insane way of proceeding? Should not they be abolished?

I speak for the whole House when I say that we are all opposed to cruelty to animals. The present provisions of the law are largely adequate to deal with cruelty when it is found.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he will investigate the evidence brought out in the Daily Mirror article to which my hon. Friend referred?

And the T.V.

Certainly. I will look at any evidence which the hon. Gentelman or his hon. Friend care to send to the Home Office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an inquiry into the admission of au pair girls into the United Kingdom, with particular reference to the employment of such girls who are under the age of 17 years.

No, Sir. Foreign girls under the age of 17 are not admitted into the United Kingdom for au pair arrangements.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in one specific case which I drew expressly to his attention and to which I referred in the Adjournment debate on 4th December, a young Iranian girl aged 15 was working as an au pair? How does he reconcile that with his statement? How many au pair girls are working here? Are not a large number treated as a source of cheap labour by people anxious to obtain their services?

The case to which the hon. Gentleman refers was that of a young lady who was admitted here as a short-term visitor. She was well under the age of 17. When her parents returned to their own country she took a job as an au pair. She would not have been admitted here as an au pair. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question on the total number involved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of Asians in East Africa likely to immigrate into the United Kingdom during 1971.

The present rate of entry is about 6,000 a year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need on humanity and other grounds for an increase in the number of permits granted to United Kingdom citizens from East Africa, even if that has to be associated with a further reduction in the level of immigration from other Commonwealth countries?

I am very much aware of the importance of the problem and the difficulty that it presents to this country. I cannot make any further statement today.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that immigrants tend to crowd into a few densely populated areas? Will he take that into account when he comes to decide how many more to allow into the country?

Yes, Sir, certainly. The problems here are the very great problem of community relations and our obligations to United Kingdom citizens in East Africa.

I apologise, first, for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I think that he has already indicated the reason. Would not it be possible to alleviate the difficulty by looking at the distribution of employment vouchers to Commonwealth citizens? East African Asians, who have been entitled to them from the beginning, find that the present allocation does not meet their needs. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it would be possible to do this without increasing the overall number of employment vouchers available for people to come here?

I am happy to consider any suggestion for dealing with this difficult problem. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

May we have an indication of the number of Asians in East Africa who would like to come here and so escape from policies of racial discrimination which we would find unacceptable and intolerable?

I cannot give any meaningful numbers of those involved, whether they would like to come here or to go to India. Any figures would be pure speculation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that existing regulations on outdoor advertising by cinemas prevent the display of photographs likely to cause offence to members of the general public; and if he will make a statement.

There are safeguards in the general law covering obscenity and indecent display, and in the conditions which can be included in cinema licences; and the film industry itself operates a voluntary censorship. My right hon. Friend is not persuaded on present information that further powers are needed but he is keeping the position under review.

My hon. Friend may talk about safeguards, but is he aware that many ordinary, decent people are shocked and disgusted by the photographs which appear outside so many cinemas, in the West End, the suburbs and the provincial cities and towns, showing sexual intimacy, both normal and perverse, including sadism, which in my opinion constitute a major public offence?

The type of display which a licensed cinema may have outside the cinema may be covered by a term of the licence. I think that what are concerning my hon. Friend are club cinemas, where the licensing provisions do not apply.

No.

The law which covers club cinemas is the Obscene Publications Act, and club cinemas are not covered by licensing conditions.

Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary draw the attention of the Metropolitan Police to the existing common law of England, whereby anything which is flaunted in the face of the public and regarded by the public as obscene is a criminal offence? Will he further consider whether the statute law needs to be strengthened, having regard to the inadequacy of the present laws on public nuisance?

Of course my right hon. Friend will draw the attention of the Metropolitan Police to the law on obscene publications. I can only repeat that even stronger controls by the licensing authorities apply to normal cinemas. It is the recommendation of the Home Office in one of their model licensing conditions that where licensing authorities have given notice in writing to the licensee of premises objecting to an advertisement because it is offensive to public feeling, that advertisement should not be displayed on the premises except with the consent in writing of the licensing authority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the Prison Officers Association; and whether he has any plans to do so.

Three days ago.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that because of conditions beyond their control many prison officers are working in difficult circumstances? Does he also agree that morale, which is of such great significance, can be increased by methods which do not involve finance, and will he investigate that suggestion?

In the short time in which I have been in this office I have been struck by the difficulties of the work of prison officers and how well they carry out their duties. I have had discussions with them recently on this sort of point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the working of the Parole Board system; and if he will make a statement.

Between April, 1968 and December, 1970 over 5,100 prisoners were released on parole. 258 were recalled to prison during their period on licence. These figures show that the scheme has made an encouraging start. I have recently decided to establish additional panels of the Parole Board at Birmingham and Manchester, and shall continue to keep the scope of the scheme under review.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about paragraph 120 of the last Parole Board Annual Report? Will he also clarify his reply? Are Parole Boards local review bodies, or is the central Parole Board split into several parts?

If the hon. Member will study my reply, he will see that I said that

"additional panels of the Parole Board,"

would be established in Birmingham and Manchester. In relation to the whole scheme, the Home Secretary is faced with great problems in deciding to allow the release of people on parole, but it is absolutely right to carry on with this scheme, which is a humane and sensible one. I pay particular tribute to the work of the Parole Board, which is voluntary, detailed and extremely hard. The board does it extremely well.

In view of the outstanding success of the scheme under the enlightened chairmanship of Lord Hunt, will the Home Secretary consider extending it to cover all prisoners?

That is going a little further. So far the scheme is working well, thanks, as my hon. Friend said, to Lord Hunt and his colleagues. I should like a little further time, and I shall keep it always under review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants were refused legal aid in the city of Birmingham during the period June, 1969, to June, 1970; and what this figure represents as a percentage of all applications.

In 1969, the latest year for which statistics are available, the number of applications refused by the Birmingham City Magistrates' Court was 1,317, or 26·4 per cent. and the number refused by Birmingham Quarter Sessions was four, or 1·6 per cent.

I thank the Minister for his reply and the letter which I have received from him on the same subject. Will he investigate the abnormally high refusal rate, one person who has been refused being a constituent of mine about whom we have been in correspondence?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the magistrates have granted every application for legal aid where the case went to quarter sessions either for trial or sentence, and the vast majority, all but 11, of the committal proceedings. I can only repeat what I said in the Adjournment debate, that the figures in summary proceedings vary because of the different local conditions in different parts of the country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to improve the salary and working conditions of prison officers.

A pay review is now due. It will be effective from the beginning of the year. As regards conditions of service, all prison officers will be conditioned to a five-day week by May.

While noting the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I am sure he is aware of the resignations from the prison service in recent years and the lack of recruits. This is an indication of the great concern felt by prison officers. Will he assure the House that on the two points referred to in my Question the prison officers and their association will receive the fullest support from his Department?

As I said in reply to an earlier Question, I very much appreciate the work done by prison officers. Their pay arrangements are similar to those in other Civil Service grades and are linked to them, and a review is now due.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the recruitment of more prison officers is the most effective way of improving the conditions within the service and that the introduction of modern devices in prisons to prevent repetitive work would go a long way to helping the staff more effectively to carry out their duties? This cannot be done without the expenditure of money. Es he prepared to spend that money?

There is a great deal in what the hon. Lady says.

Will the Minister explain why every obstacle is put in the way of lower-paid State servants, whatever their classification, getting a reasonable salary increase, whereas increases of 66 per cent., back-dated, are granted immediately to the very well paid? He dodged my last supplementary question; will he answer this one?

The hon. Gentleman is still trying to anticipate a Question which appers later in the Order Paper.

I am still getting no answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what caused the unexpected increase in new arrivals of immigrant children who have entered Birmingham schools since June 1970;

(2) what reply he has given to the Birmingham Education Authority to help in their investigation into the cause of the increase in child immigration.

For the year ended 30th September, 1970, there was a reduction of about 10 per cent. In registrations for school places by immigrant children in Birmingham. While there was a marked increase in the July to September quarter of 1970 this trend has not since been maintained, and no cause can be assigned to it. The national trend of entry of Commonwealth children has been steeply down.

The position has been discussed with Chief Officers of the Birmingham Corporation and my right hon. Friend will continue to keep it under close review.

Is the Minister aware that suddenly, apparently from nowhere, came an extra 400 immigrant children into the schools in Birmingham who could not be accommodated? This is not, as his right hon. Friend said, a matter only of community relations but of providing the buildings.

I appreciate that in the July-September quarter there was a sudden increase in the number of children coming in, but the number has now returned to the normal level. What is needed is a warning to local authorities in areas where the number of children coming in is likely to increase. We have that under review.

Is not the simple answer to this stupid question a publicly unacceptable but straightforward Anglo-Saxon expression?

Will the Minister advise his hon. Friends and bear closely in mind that the constant use of the term "immigrant children" for children born in this country is offensive? Such children are not immigrant children. We should refer to children being immigrant children only when they are coming to this country and not when they have been born here.

My hon. Friend's Question referred to "immigrant children" they are the children coming into this country and my answer referred to them.

Local authorities in many areas have no machinery for finding out that local employers have attracted into their area people with children, of whatever colour. With its expertise in this matter, will not the Home Office have words with the Department of Education and Science? Wherever children come from, it is a bad thing if, when they go to school in September, there are no places available for their education.

Yes, but the difficulty is in anticipating the number of children who will be coming in at a particular time. Arrangements are made by the High Commission Office for labels to be attached to passports which may be detached as the children come into the country, but the difficulty is that the local authorities receive that information only after the children have arrived.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to legalise pools not involving skill conducted by societies established and conducted wholly or mainly for charitable purposes in support of athletic sports or games or cultural activities or other purposes which are not those of private gain or any commercial undertaking.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to a Question by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).—[Vol. 809, c. 301.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that considerable perturbation was caused by the recent court decision which made such pools illegal? In view of the precarious finances of cricket clubs, will he ensure that something is done as quickly as possible to remedy this situation?

If the hon. Gentleman will read the Answer given yesterday he will see that it answers his question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision on this matter, which marches with the principle of my Private Member's Bill, will be warmly welcomed by the Spastic Society, the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases and many other worthy organisations? Could he confirm that he will keep closely in touch with these organisations in considering future legislation?

Yes, certainly I will. This is a very complicated problem and it will take a little time to work it out. We thought that the right measures were announced yesterday.

In view of the considerable anxiety aroused, particularly in the Spastics Society, could the Home Secretary say, since he used in his reply the word "shortly", when he hopes the legislation will appear?

"Shortly", I am afraid, is the only answer. As I have said, this is a complicated problem, and in the meantime the position of existing pools is preserved.

Would the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the great shadow looming over the Catholic church in my constituency because of the doubtful legal position of other games of chance on which they depend to a great extent for raising funds? Would he bear in mind that in making these legal he will be helping them in their school-building activities which are gravely under threat at the moment?

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could give me more details, perhaps in correspondence, about that problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to remove the fetters on the judicial discretion in sentencing young offenders imposed by paragraph 3 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961.

The Advisory Council on the Penal System is considering the sentencing powers of the courts in the course of its current review of the treatment of young offenders.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when he has the report of the Advisory Council, the fact that judges find it invidious to sentence young people to three years' imprisonment when they think that perhaps 12 or 18 months is adequate, because the present law forces them to choose between a sentence of not more than six months or at least three years?

I am quite sure the Advisory Council will be fully aware of the criticisms which many of the judiciary have made about Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from chief constables as to the steps they are taking to encourage police forces throughout the country to establish dog-catching units to deal with stray and neglected animals.

The police do what they can, consistently with their other duties, to enforce the law relating to stray dogs. My right hon. Friend sees no scope for extending their responsibilities in this regard.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will cause very much concern both in Leeds and throughout the country since people are worried about the increasing numbers of stray and neglected animals wandering about singly and in pairs? Is he also aware that, apart from the nuisance involved, these animals present constant hazards to motorists and often are a menace to the general public? Could he assure the House that, in the light of the information available, he is prepared to reconsider the matter so as to reassure the public?

No, Sir. The main onus is on those who callously abandon their dogs.

Could the hon. Gentleman give a direction to chief constables to inform neighbouring forces so that when a dog is caught, say, in Bradford and its owner is in Leeds, the owner could make an inquiry at Bradford police station and would know that the dog had strayed to Leeds, because at present there is no provision for owners to be so informed?

Bearing in mind all the other problems which the police have at present, the suggestion might present some difficulties.

Is not the real problem the fact that people can purchase dogs without giving adequate consideration to the responsibility involved and the problems which can arise from ownership of an animal? Would it not be possible to consider the possibility of people having to acquire a licence before they acquire a dog?

The problem to a certain extent is compounded by people who acquire dogs without having given adequate thought to it, and the onus for the appalling cruelty involved falls very largely upon them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to increase to 18 years the age below which it is an offence to sell cigarettes to young persons.

I will consider this proposal.

Is it not an anomaly that a young person under 18 may not buy or consume a glass of beer in a public house yet, far more seriously, may undermine his health by smoking his head off?

Whether or not it is an anomaly, there is one major difference and that is the difficulty of enforcement as between the two regulations.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind also that cigarette-vending machines make it possible for young people of any age to acquire cigarettes, and that therefore this proposed legislation would not alter that situation?

I fully appreciate the hon. Lady's point. It confirms the difficulty of enforcing realistically any proposals of this kind, but we are looking at the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to recruit more staff for Gartree Prison, Leicestershire, in order to reduce the hours at present being worked.

Prison officers are recruited on a national basis and their allocation has to have regard to the relative needs of all establishments. The needs of Gartree prison will not be overlooked in the allocation of recruits now under training.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that overtime is regularly being worked at Gartree Prison by the staff amounting to 40 hours a week, and in some cases to over 60 hours a week, and would he not agree that this is an intolerable burden which can lead only to stall discontent and a lack of efficiency?

In regard to the figures the average overtime worked at Gartree Prison within recent weeks has dropped to between 14 to 18 hours a week. The highest peak it ever reached was 28 hours per week early in October. I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to do all we can to increase the staff available at Gartree and other prisons.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the increase in the number of pornographic titles produced recently, he will introduce early legislation to amend the law relating to obscenity.

No, Sir.

May I make it plain that my Question refers to the book trade and not to the other place. In view of the Government's concern for the environment, would it not be appropriate for the Home Office to direct attention to this particular form of moral pollution, about which the patience both of the public and of hon. Members is just about exhausted?

Although I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, I would remind him that he of all people has considerable knowledge of the history of this matter and of the real difficulty involved in finding a proper definition to take the place of that which at the moment exists in the Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964.

In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about the difficulty of defining obscenity, does he not agree that, if there is to be a change in the law, it should be towards making it more liberal and that, because the lawyers cannot define what obscenity is there ought to be more freedom?

No, Sir, I do not agree.

Has my hon. Friend observed Early Day Motion No. 10 which has been on the Order Paper for many months? That Motion was signed by 85 Members of his own party, including myself. Would it not be a good idea if my hon. Friend were guided from time to time by the wishes of his own party?

I thought that I had made it clear that the present Government have no intention of going the way we were asked to go by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) in the last supplementary question, but the fact still remains that it is difficult to find any suitable definition. The Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964 were based on the recommendations of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. The Government at this stage do not feel any justification for amending them.

In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I ask leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce the necessary legislation to give him the authority to relieve the Departments concerned of the time and costs involved in prosecutions for the offences of not having the necessary vehicle documents, by enabling him to instruct the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to impound vehicles which do not show the current road fund licence, and to ensure that these vehicles are not released from the pound until the production of all relevant documents and licences and a set impoundage fee.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that there are some 20 per cent. of vehicles left on the roads without road fund licences, roadworthiness certificates or certificates of insurance? Since the police move away properly licensed vehicles because they wait for a few moments on a yellow band, would my suggestion not be a good way of ensuring that we get safety on the road and helping to ease congestion? Surely if the police took away one-fifth of the vehicles which are not licensed it would help to free the roads.

The right to impound a vehicle which does not bear a road licence is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I doubt whether Parliament would be agreeable to vehicles being towed away and impounded for this offence.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on industrial relations made to London Young Conservatives on 5th December on government policy.

I have been asked to reply.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave last Tuesday to similar Questions from the hon. Members for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) and Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).—[Vol. 809, c. 717–719.]

Would the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister that the language of the battlefield is not helpful in any human relations, quite apart from industrial relations, and that there are far too many battle cries in that speech?

I will convey that to my right hon. Friend. I doubt whether he will agree. I seem to remember in speeches of the previous Prime Minister evocations of Dunkirk.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to visit the headquarters of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

One matter that the Prime Minister may wish to discuss with G.A.T.T. is the opinion of his hon. Friends that certain import tariffs should be reduced to introduce foreign competition into goods by comparison with what is produced in this country. Has the Prime Minister now decided against this?

No, not at all. Successive Governments have always pursued the belief, which I am sure is right, that this country's economic interests lie in the freest possible exchange of goods internationally. In fact, the more competition the better, because this country can thrive on competition.

asked the Prime Minister if he will end negotiations for entry into the Common Market, in view of evidence contained in the report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, a copy of which has been sent to him.

I have been asked to reply.

No, Sir. The article referred to is not a report of the Institute, but the work of three of its members published under the auspices of the Institute, which made it clear that the authors were answerable for their own ideas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Institute, which has been making economic forecasts and analyses, does not publish work in its columns unless the Institute is satisfied that the work is soundly based? Does he recognise that the work amounts to a statistical denunciation of the whole proposition on which the Government wish to make application to join the Common Market, and will he withdraw it?

I do not think that is true. So far as I understand the situation, the Institute will not publish anything unless it is a scholarly work based on research. The Institute makes it clear that it does not necessarily accept the conclusions of any work which it publishes.

In view of the fact that it is a scholarly work based on research, and comes to the conclusion that to accept the heavy burden of impact effects—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am paraphrasing the conclusion by reference to the document. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I am in your hands. It is a close paraphrase.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in my hands. I hope that he will be brief.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that to assume the impact effects in order to achieve the dynamic effects would be a triumph of hope over experience? Would not my right hon. Friend think that this calls for a fresh assessment of the economic effects of entry so that hopes can be tempered by the realism of experience?

I had the impression that precisely this was going on at present in the course of our debates.

Would the Home Secretary kindly draw the Prime Minister's attention to the article in the Financial Times by Mr. Samuel Brittan, who is not a supporter of British entry into the Common Market, which casts severe doubt on the validity of the conclusion drawn in the National Institute article?

I think we all read Mr. Samuel Brittan with considerable interest, though not always with agreement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is possible in a scholarly work based on research nevertheless to reach nonsensical conclusions, and that that is the view of many respected economists about this work?

I have seldom known a scholarly work based on research to command the agreement of other scholars.

asked the Prime Minister whether during the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, he discussed with the Australian Prime Minister the effect upon Australia of Great Britain entering the Common Market.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

I have been asked to reply.

I would ask my hon. Friends to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making on his return.

In the meantime, is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposals which the Government have put to the Common Market about phasing out Australia from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement were greeted with absolute dismay in Australia, not only because of the effect on Queensland but because of the effect on the world sugar market system, particularly the International Sugar Agreement? Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again?

It would be quite wrong to deal with these important matters in Question and Answer when they are entirely germane to the two-day debate which is taking place.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the dismay described by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is likely to turn into a marked political antipathy resulting in severe commercial disadvantages to this country?

Once again, I think that these considerations fall very much within the ambit of the debate now taking place.

asked the Prime Minister if he will establish closer co-ordination between the Ministers concerned with unemployment.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend is satisfied with the existing arrangements.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take careful note of American experience, which indicates that high unemployment has no effect in reducing inflation? Will he, therefore, assure us that every effort will be made by all relevant Government Departments to take urgent action to reduce the present disturbing trend of unemployment?

We always follow American experience very closely. There is a good deal of room for argument about the extent to which American experience bears out what was said by the hon. Gentleman, and conditions in our two countries are very different in these matters.

Is it not a most damaging remark for the right hon. Gentleman to say that his right hon. Friend is very satisfied? Is it not the case that everybody is now seriously alarmed about the under-use of resources, slackness in investment, falling cash flows, and the fact that, however many strikes there may be, the loss of employment through unemployment is more serious than the loss through strikes? Is it not time that the Government took steps to encourage expansion?

My Answer, strangely enough, referred to the Question, which relates to closer co-ordination between Ministers. With that, my right hon. Friend is satisfied.

Is not one of the present difficulties in our industrial relations system that no trade union has specific responsibility to represent the unemployed and that that responsibility falls upon the Government of the day which, in the case of the last Govern- ment, did so much to create unemployment?

There is a great deal in what my right hon. and learned Friend says.

Even if the right hon Gentleman is satisfied with the arrangements between Ministers, may I ask him to tell us what measures he proposes to deal with the level of unemployment announced today? The right hon. Gentleman will recall the indignation which some of his right hon. Friends purported to feel when we published figures 100,000 to 150,000 lower than those published today. Are we not now in a position in which we have the strongest balance of payments in the Western world, the highest rates of interest, and a very high and dangerously rising level of unemployment?

The fact is that unemployment, as we have often said, will inevitably follow and must result from a high rate of cost inflation, and an unprecedentedly high rate of cost inflation was the main feature of our inheritance from the Labour Party.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister that one of the dangers of the postal strike is that many firms will be forced to lay off workers because they cannot get letters and orders?

I think that that is undeniable.

To reduce unemployment, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor the advisability of reverting to investment grants to assist firms new to regions, such as Wales, to develop and to encourage firms outside the regions to come in and start up and thus reduce unemployment?

I understand the importance of that question. Our view is that the Government's measures maintain the differential for the regions and, concerning industry as a whole, maintain the cash flow for investment purposes.

Since a big element in the increase in unemployment today, now nearly 700,000, is not due to strikes, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question which I put to the Prime Minister before Christmas: how much of the increase in unemployment in these areas is affected by the change of investment grants? Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question which I put to the Prime Minister: how many firms intending to establish new or expanded units in development areas have pulled out because of the withdrawal of investment grants, of which there are a number? Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many?

Considering the time that it takes to build a factory and to provide employment, the change could not have had any practical effect on unemployment.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the questions, of which he has had adequate notice because it was put to the Prime Minister, who said that he would look into it. How many firms have withdrawn their intention to build new factories, which is the only hope of reducing unemployment, as a result of the withdrawal of investment grants? Does not the right hon. Gentleman know? If he does, will he tell us?

I had notice. I was given information about firms which had withdrawn their intentions. But, as I said, intentions to build factories do not affect jobs now.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on wage inflation on 5th December, 1970, at Sale represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Sale, Cheshire, on 5th December on wage inflation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

I have been asked to reply.

Yes, Sir.

In view of today's unemployment figures, which are the highest for seven years, should not the Chancellor consider changing both his speeches and policies? If not, are we to assume that the unemployment figures were expected by the Government, or, if that is not the case, are we to take it that the plan is deliberately to increase unemployment?

My right hon. Friend said in November that over the next six months he expected the growth in demand to be broadly in line with the growth in productive capacity. To this forecast, my right hon. Friend still adheres.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the speech was irresponsible to the extent of its unfairness as no reputable economist in this country is prepared to blame workpeople for the increase in inflation?

It is not a question of blaming workpeople. The fact is that the biggest single contribution to inflation in this country is the growth of money incomes. That cannot be denied by anybody. If we merely look at the facts, the purchasing power involved in the growth of incomes is the underlying factor of all inflationary problems at the moment.

In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that it is the policy of the Government to keep growth in demand in line with the growth in productive capacity, does not that imply that there will be no reduction in unemployment? Is this the result that the Government wish to see?

That was from the standpoint of 5th November when my right hon. Friend was speaking. The major problem now is to get under control the inflation which we inherited, which is a bigger danger to this country's economy than anything we have seen in this sphere for a very long time.

On Tuesday this week the Home Secretary was generous enough to reveal to the House that the Government had a policy for both prices and incomes, and he suggested that they had been successful. If that be so, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us to what other factor he attributes the steep rise in unemployment and whether it comes as a surprise to the Government or was expected?

I think that the monthly figure is higher than we expected; but, as the Leader of the Opposition often said in the past, one should not put too much weight on one month's figures alone. My right hon. Friend gave his forecast for the six months from November. We must come back to the fundamental point. If we are facing cost inflation of very serious dimensions, this can, in modern conditions, be accompanied by a relatively high level of unemployment. We cannot solve the unemployment problem unless we can also solve the problem of cost inflation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that an increase in unemployment is likely to help solve the problem of cost inflation?

No, I did not say that. I said, what the Government have said time and again, that if cost inflation continues at the present level a danger of increasing unemployment will arise. All who are involved in wage negotiations must recognise that.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to address the next meeting of the National Research Development Corporation.

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that not entirely unexpected reply. In the absence of a visit, will he urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a public statement on the subject of Government-backed research and development, instead of making announcements from time to time of cuts in this vital section of the British economy?

My right hon. Friend said on 14th December that he was considering this matter and would make a statement.