asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the will make a statement about the future of the urban aid programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the urban aid programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the urban aid programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the urban aid programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the urban aid programme.

There is public expenditure provision for continuing grantaid on existing urban programme projects and on some limited amounts of new expenditure.

I remind the House that when Questions are grouped together, I call first of all those Members whose Questions are being answered.

Is the Minister aware that no matter how he or the Government juggle the figures, the plain fact is that aid for urban areas is cut in real terms? Is he aware that his deplorable answer goes against everything that the Government have been saying over the last two years about these matters? Do the Government now really care a hoot about the grave problems of our cities?

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great heat, but as usual he succeeds in throwing very little light on the subject. All of us recognise—not least, I should have thought, Opposition Members—the grave limitations on public expenditure at present. There is a Ministerial Committee, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, one of whose tasks is to examine the future of urban aid. We recognise its importance, but the constraints on public expenditure mean that careful consideration must be given to the nature and type of aid and the areas to which it is devoted.

Does the Minister realise that the first requirement is that the Government should speak truthfully about the catastrophic situation now developing in large towns and cities as a consequence of the failure of the Government's economic policy? Will he acknowledge that in talking of the problems of the inner areas it is also necessary to take account of the situation in the outer wards of large towns and cities? Because of the transfer of population and other factors, many of the problems spill over into those areas. Will the Minister assure the House that the working group will take account of that development?

If the hon. Gentleman imagines that the problems of inner cities have arisen only in the last three years he is grossly mistaken, and shows a complete lack of understanding not only of the problem in general but of its application to his own city of Birmingham. No one pretends that problems of deprivation are geographically linked, to the exclusion of all other areas. What the Committee is considering is the problem of the inner cities and the problems of all other deprived areas, and it is trying to devise a future for the programme which takes account of the problems and of our resources, and best fashions future policy to deal with the problems.

Will the Minister persuade local authorities not to take the lion's share of the urban aid programme but to look more sympathetically upon the voluntary organisations and community groups in urban areas which are being deprived of urban aid funds because local authorities are putting their own requests first? If he cannot do that, will he persuade the Voluntary Service Unit to give some of its £1 million that has been unspent this year to small local community groups and not go on financing national voluntary organisations?

No doubt at a suitable time the hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of national voluntary organisations, will explain to the Government why the Voluntary Service Unit ought to spend some of its money for their purposes. We believe that local initiative and a local sieving process, such as local authorities give, is necessary to see what projects should be supported in an area. I am not unmindful, nor am I critical, of the work of the voluntary organisations in this effort. In fact, they get about one-third of the total number of projects under urban aid. Voluntary efforts form a very great and useful part of the urban aid programme.

There are many areas of great social deprivation in inner London in which unemployment is now as high as it is on Tyneside and Merseyside. Will the Minister ensure that a proper coordination exists between his Department, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Employment to deal with these problems? Interdepartmental committees of civil servants of junior Ministers are not adequate to deal with them.

Co-ordination is vital, as the hon. Gentleman says. He will know, from his experience in Government, of the departmental problems that exist and that need to be minimised, where that is possible. He certainly does not need to urge upon me an awareness of the scale of problems in the inner cities. It is perhaps the scale of the problems rather than the nature of the deprivation that marks out the inner cities from other deprived areas in Britain.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to define urban areas and that many of the older and smaller towns, particularly in Lancashire, need assistance just as much as the major cities?

As I tried to say earlier, I accept that a purely geographical concept of deprivation does not assist us greatly in tackling these problems. That is why the ministerial committee is meeting to look at these matters carefully.

Will the Minister pay particular regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) said? Is he aware that many small voluntary organisations feel strongly that they are hamstrung by a long bureaucratic process before they can get any of the grants—in some cases comparatively small ones which would do a great deal of good? I hope that the Home Office will carefully consider the possibility of giving grants straight to voluntary organisations, particularly small ones, rather than making them go through the long process of many of the local authority social service departments.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act of 1969 ties such aid to local authorities, so that legislative amendment would be needed before his suggestion could be adopted. We are conscious of the value of the voluntary organisations, as I hope I have shown. The numbers of urban aid projects supported by local authorities represent a significant fraction of the total urban aid projects. But the value of the urban aid programme is its flexibility—its ability to support local authority projects at one stage and those of voluntary organisations at another. It is because that flexibility would be lacking if a set percentage were given to voluntary organisations that I do not think that that would be valuable.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on another occasion.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it will be raised again on Question No. 15.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Urban Aid Programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Urban Aid Programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Urban Aid Programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Urban Aid Programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Urban Aid Programme.

I refer to the reply I gave earlier to Questions by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) and others.

Is the Minister aware that the reply which he gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) was astonishingly inadequate and showed an appalling ignorance of the developing nature of this problem? In recent years the inner city area problem has been moving out to the fringes of the areas, and those areas and the new council housing estates are taking the strain. Will the hon. Gentleman think about this matter again? In particular, will he give more consideration to giving specific help to those voluntary organisations that have been very effective?

All that the hon. Gentleman succeeds in doing is to show me that he has not understood the place of the urban programme within the total Government programme to overcome the problem of deprivation. The main thrust of the programme against urban deprivation and deprivation generally must be for the main spending programmes of the Government Departments. The urban programme is designed to produce a variety of measures that will help to alleviate the situation, but nobody pretends that in isolation they form a total strategy against this sort of decay.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the existence of the inner city working party. In view of the serious nature of the problems that the cities face, will he say, first, what the working party is looking into, secondly, when it will report, and, thirdly, how long thereafter the Government will take to implement its recommendations?

The timetable of my right hon. Friend's group is not a matter for me. All I can say is that it will consider the matter carefully and with as much expedition as possible.

To get this matter into proper perspective, will my hon. Friend consider publishing, in the Official Report or in some other way, the number of urban aid programmes already in operation? We in Lambeth have been treated quite generously. It would help to clear the air if we knew how much was going on.

I should be happy to respond to my hon. Friend's question. I echo his tribute in respect of what is being done. It does us no good to be seen to be denigrating the urban aid programme when in many parts of the country it has brought projects of benefit to people living in the most deprived areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for more effective fine enforcement.

Since the effectiveness of fine enforcement depends mainly on the manpower resources available to the courts and the police, it can be increased only by adding to those resources. In the present economic situation, the extent to which this can be done is limited. Where, however, particular local problems have arisen, the magistrates' courts committees, with whom the primary responsibility for the staffing of the courts rests, have ordinarily been able to find a solution.

But is the Minister aware that in three magistrates' divisions in North-East London alone the fines outstanding now total £750,000? Does he not agree that when outstanding fines reach that level disrespect for the courts may be induced? Would an increased number of fine enforcement officers not more than earn their keep by boosting public revenues?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers to the divisions of Havering, Newham and Waltham Forest. If so, I can tell him that there is a letter in the post from me informing him that there is no Home Office objection to the appointment of fine enforcement officers in those divisions and that the Magistrates' Committee has been so informed.

Does the Minister agree that the work and time involved in the present system of enforcing fines is not very satisfactory? Will he take the opportunity afforded by the Criminal Law Bill to give the courts power, when imposing a fine, to state a day by which it must be paid and to say that if it is not paid by then the offender must go to court and say why it has not been paid?

Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's concern at the working of the existing system, his suggested formula seems no more precise than the present one. I am certainly prepared to look at any matter which will help to improve the fine enforcement procedure, but it is not by any means so simple a matter that it can be encapsulated in a few words.

In view of what the Minister said about the difficulty of finding resources to improve the collection of fines, does he think that the higher penalties to be imposed under the Criminal Law Bill will simply lead to a greater volume of unpaid fines?

If the hon. Gentleman were to study the percentage of unpaid fines on any date, including, because of statistical conventions, fines which have not fallen due—fines which have been imposed but the time for payment of which has not expired—he will not find such an alarming increase as he supposes. I have no reason to believe that there will be a significant percentage increase in unpaid fines.

Will the Minister confirm that this is a serious problem? In many cases—there are far too many—if a fine is not enforced the sting is taken out and the sanction removed from what should, in appropriate cases, be one of the most useful and painful of sentences? As my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has just referred to the Criminal Law Bill, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that a serious attempt must be made to solve what up to now has been an intractable problem?

I do not think that the problem is intractable. While the amount of fines outstanding is a matter for concern, the scale of escalation is not alarming or unusual. Certainly the problem is difficult; that is why solutions are not as easy as some people think. I am prepared to review any lines urged on me by hon. Members, but I warn them that the solution may be somewhat more difficult than the statement of the concern.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the recruitment to the Metropolitan Police.

In the first 11 months of this year the Metropolitan Police had a net gain of 966 officers, bringing the strength at the end of November to 22,193. I hope this favourable trend will continue.

Following the Old Bailey corruption trial, should we not recognise that nearly 40 policemen a day are injured protecting our society from violence and that the number of policemen who are willing to risk their lives and limbs to protect us is infinitely greater than the number of policemen who have been corrupted? Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep dissatisfaction in the police about the way in which their pay claims have been handled and of their concern about what they see as lack of support from the present Parliament? When will the Home Secretary give the police the support they deserve?

On the last point, the hon. Member should bear in mind the Government's pay policy, which I support, and the very special transitional arrangements which were made for the police in 1975, when they received 30 per cent. instead of £6 a week. The free market argument is that the level of recruitment is related to the amount of pay, but the level of police recruitment at the moment belies that argument. There is more to the numbers of recruits attracted than simply the pay that is offered. There is full support for the police in that respect. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the corruption aspect. Such things do the police no good when they are bandied around in the Press, but it has happened, and it is right that it should be investigated. However, none of that should colour the fact that the police perform a vital job extraordinarily well for our society. I and the Government, and, I believe, the whole House, give them our support for the work they do.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that recruitment depends on morale and that many of us feel that the morale of the Metropolitan Police has been raised by the bringing to justice of the policemen in the case that ended yesterday and my right hon. Friend's appointment of a new Commissioner, who has some knowledge of really independent prosecuting procedures in Scotland? Is he further aware that morale depends also on confidence that the Judges' Rules will be followed? Has he yet received the Fisher Report? If not, will he promise to act on it when he does?

I take my hon. Friend's view about morale; he is absolutely right. The police themselves accept that when any of their colleagues is found to have done wrong he should be dealt with in this way. To that degree, morale is not affected. The House knows that general problems arise with the changing modes of modern society and the acceptance of the police in society. I should be foolish if I denied that there was a problem. But these are not factors which can be clearly related to aspects of pay or even to other points to which my hon. Friend has referred. As soon as I get the Fisher Report, I shall consider it.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the Opposition support him strongly when he says that Parliament must be behind our police force in the duties they carry out. I am sure that that is the wish of the whole House. With that in mind, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will as quickly as posible get on with the discussions that he has promised with the Police Federation to achieve an early solution to the present unfortunate dispute?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. I should have known that I had his support in this even if he had not expressed it. I have spoken several times to the Police Federation about the current dispute. There is a basic problem about the 6 per cent. We have had some discussions, and other discussions are to follow on matters raised by the police. There are aspects underlying the problems we are asked to discuss which might lead to the formation of a national police force, or at least a movement in that direction. They are all aspects that we have to watch carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the screening procedures in operation for members of Her Majesty's Prison Service.

Yes, Sir.

Did my right hon. Friend see the Press reports of 14th and 15th November about the large-scale activity by National Front cells and other groups to the right of the National Front in several of Her Majesty's prisons? Is he aware that 70 out of 300 prison staff in one prison are said to be members of the National Front and to wear National Front insignia and tie-pins with their uniforms? In view of the delicate nature of the Prison Service, the security aspects involved and the need to have good relations in our prisons as everywhere else, will my right hon. Friend have these matters investigated?

As background, I should tell my hon. Friend that the National Front is not a proscribed body. There are thus no grounds for not employing staff who are members of it or for placing any restrictions on them because of their membership. I stick firmly to that principle. If I were to get involved in the political motivation of civil servants at that level, I should move into very difficult waters. It is a different matter where there is evidence that the political views of the staff affect their attitudes to prisoners, whatever maybe those political views. It is that with which I am concerned. If prison staff wear insignia and so on, that is a matter for the governor, and I am confident that it will be dealt with. What I need, as I have said to my hon. Friends who have spoken to me, is evidence that membership of, say, the National Front affects the way in which prison staff treat prisoners. If I have evidence of that kind—I realise the difficulty—I shall act on it.

May I appeal to the House for shorter supplementary questions and shorter replies?

I realise the difficulties of moving in this sensitive area, but does my right hon. Friend accept that, whilst the majority of prison officers do a very good job in extremely difficult circumstances, it is totally inappropriate for members of Right-wing racialist organisations to have control over black and coloured prisoners who are, by the nature of their situation, in an extremely vulnerable position? Will my right hon. Friend make strenuous efforts to ensure that no discrimination is practised by prison officers against black and coloured prisoners?

I shall certainly continue to watch the last point. It is the only one with which I can concern myself.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any further plans to liberalise prison rules.

Prison regulations and standing orders are being examined with a view to making them less paternalistic and restrictive in some respects, whilst still safeguarding the interests of both staff and prisoners.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is great disappointment about the Home Secretary's statement on disciplinary procedures? Does he not think it proper that the functions of boards of visitors should be separated between, on the one hand, their disciplinary function and, on the other hand, their advocacy of prisoners' interests and the hearing of prisoners' grievances? Will he and his right hon. Friend look again at this matter?

My right hon. Friend has looked at it and has announced the Government's attitude. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed with it.

Does not the Minister of State consider that much of the utter hopelessness of our prison system would be reduced by an extension of work regimes in prisons? What have the Government done in the recent past to extend work régimes for prisoners, and what do they proposed to do in future?

The hon. Gentleman will know the difficulty of getting suitable work régimes, especially with the constraints in public expenditure. The Government are prepared to consider any constructive scheme to make prisons into places capable of reforming people's attitudes rather than places of mere incarceration which simply provide a period outside society.

Does the Minister realise that a large section of British society considers that a term of imprisonment should be regarded as a punishment, and that over-liberalisation does not provide what it believes to be the proper and necessary form of punishment to deter prisoners from committing further crimes and returning to prison?

I feel that I should not intrude on what is developing into a private quarrel between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on this subject. It highlights a dichotomy in British society, and we have to decide whether we are aiming at harshness or constructive treatment. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, over-liberalisation is harmful, the very fact that he uses that phrase automatically means that it is harmful. We seek a proper measure of liberalisation which will safeguard the interests of both staff and prisoners. If the hon. Gentleman had visited prisons, he would have no doubt that they were fairly stern places.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give his attention to a complaint from Mr. Malcolm Gregory of 16 Mereland Way, St. Helens, about his claim against his Department regarding non-return of a passport on the grounds of neglect of departmental duties in providing a public service; if he will specify the correspondence and documents received by his Department from both the hon. Member for St. Helens and his constituent, Mr. Malcolm Gregory; and whether he has replied.

Mr. Gregory has written twice and answers have been sent, but I very much regret that on the first of these occasions there was delay within the Department. Mr. Gregory in his second letter says he was put to extra expense as a result, and we have said that we shall be prepared to consider paying him compensation if he will produce appropriate documents to substantiate the amount claimed.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that Mr. Gregory, on behalf of his guest, a young girl from Poland, applied for the return of the passport two weeks before the date of the girl's flight back home to Warsaw? As he did not receive the passport in time, the young girl had to overstay as the ticket was no longer valid after a particular date. In view of what my hon. Friend said, I do not propose to take the matter further until I hear from my constituent.

I very much regret the inconvenience that was caused to the young lady. At the time, an unprecedented number of passports had been received in the Immigration and Nationality Department—double the normal number. Far from there being an increase in the staff of that Department to cope with this extra work, there has been an 8 per cent. reduction in the past year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about Great Britain's defences against chemical warfare weapons.

Defence against weapons of war is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's concern is with civil defence, and the nature of possible protective measures is kept under regular review.

Does not recent information show that the Russians have enormous stocks of chemical warfare weapons and the rockets with which to deliver them to this country? Is it not therefore unwise for the Government to disband the chemical defence establishment in Cornwall, thus reducing our capacity to defend ourselves against these weapons? Will the Home Office, with the Defence Department, look again at this matter?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is constant liaison between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence on this matter. It is believed that the likely use of those weapons is in localised warfare and that an attack on the civil population with chemical weapons is less likely than an attack with nuclear weapons. However, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, we are involved in research of a defensive nature to protect the civil population if necessary.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only defence against such weapons is an international agreement to abolish them?

The latest British initiative is the tabling of a draft convention on the comprehensive prohibition of chemical weapons in the Geneva Disarmament Conference. There already exists the Geneva Gas Protocol 1925, by which various countries undertake not to be the first to use chemical weapons.

Is the Minister aware of the enormous Russian build-up in the stockpile of nerve gases? Will she assure the House that the Ministry of Defence has told her about the size and scale of the operation which the Russians can mount?

As I have said, we are in constant co-operation with the Ministry of Defence on this subject, but chemical weapons are not and have never been regarded as suitable for strategic use, and there is no intelligence to suggest that their strategic use is contemplated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost per head of treating offenders who are made the subject of senior attendance centre orders.

For the financial year 1975–76 the cost was about £3 per offender for a session of two hours' attendance. Attendance centre orders are for a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 24 hours.

I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Does not the figure he has given confirm that this is a much more economical way of dealing with offenders in the 17 to 21 age group than sending them to a prison establishment and also perhaps is more effective than imposing a fine that is not paid? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for increasing the number of senior attendance centres, the number of which for many years has remained at two throughout the country?

As I told the hon. Gentleman recently in answer to a Question, in 1974 the Advisory Council on the Penal System recommended closure of the centres, believing that more constructive treatment could be afforded by community service. We are considering that in the light and context of all the other proposals of the advisory council for the treatment of offenders between the ages of 17 and 21.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the maximum length of time of detention at the Harmondsworth Centre near Heathrow Airport of any disputed immigrant or visitor to the United Kingdom during a recent stated period.

During the quarter ended 30th September 1976 a woman who had previously gained admission with a forged passport was detained at Harmondsworth as an illegal entrant for 85 days before being transferred to Holloway Prison. There was thought to be a substantial risk of her disappearing if she were released. This unusually long period of detention arose partly from the complexity of the case and partly from the need to consider representations made on her behalf.

Does my hon. Friend agree that other cases which do not quite fit into that pattern involving people who have come to this country simply as visitors are taking much too long to resolve? For some people it has been a case not of "Welcome to Britain", as is stated over the tunnel exit from Heathrow Airport, but of a three-week or four-week look at the interior of Harmondsworth detention block and leaving this country without ever really setting eyes on it.

My hon. Friend has simply described what happens under the Immigration Act. The average number of people detained overnight in Harmondsworth in the past couple of months is 27. A person can be detained under the Immigration Act pending his examination and pending a decision to give or refuse him leave to enter, or if he is a person who has been refused leave to enter and is detained pending removal.

Will the hon. Lady accept that I have a lot of experience of these cases, both in the centre and at Heathrow installations as a whole, and that by and large the service is very well run? The hard-pressed immigration officers have an enormous task to perform, being inundated with people all the time, and they do is very fairly and efficiently. The public as a whole in this country, including immigrants, want severe controls to be exercised; that is overwhelmingly self-evident. I know of immigrants who have praised the conduct and efficiency of the officers.

I acknowledge that the people concerned at Heathrow and Harmondsworth are doing a responsible job, often in very difficult conditions. Having visited Harmondsworth myself, I can assure the House that the conditions there are as good as can be expected in the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders he has served in the last six months.

Statistics are recorded by reference not to deportation orders served but to orders enforced. During the six months ended 30th November 1976, 149 orders were enforced against persons who had become liable to deportation by virtue of Section 3(5) or (6) of the Immigration Act 1971.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in dealing with deportation orders justice should be not only done but seen to be done, and that that principle is one of the best safeguards we can have for national security? In the case of Philip Agee and Mark Hosenball, will he consider instituting some form of public hearing, if the accused want such a hearing, instead of their being tried by a secret kangaroo court?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I hope that he will not think that the deportations that I have mentioned are to do with national security. They cover a wide variety of matters, and, in view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I shall not go into them. There have been no security cases.

The orders in the cases which are now the subject of public discussion have not yet been carried out. It is not a question of a kangaroo court. Given all the difficulties relating to the 1971 Act, it would be wrong for the information which was given to me to become public knowledge. It is within that limit that the three very eminent men, who are not under my control in any way, will look at the information that I have had put to me.

Would it be true to say that the Home Secretary sees fit to deport those who have abused our hospitality? In those circumstances, having regard to the later Question on the Order Paper in my name, does he in general deport people guilty of crimes of violence?

This is a long and complicated matter about which I should be happy to have a word with the hon. Gentleman. In the main, people are deported on the recommendation of a criminal court, and undoubtedly violence is one part of that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the number of immigrants from the new Commonwealth who will be admitted for settlement in 1976.

I estimate the number of citizens of New Commonwealth countries who will be accepted for settlement on arrival in 1976 to be about 29,000.

Since that figure is higher than the figure for 1975, will the hon. Lady tell us whether her policies are going to lead to a prospective reduction or a prospective increase in the number admitted?

The estimated increase over the figure for 1975 is about 1,000. The bulk of the increase so far this year, as compared with last year, results from the steps that the Government have taken to speed up the rate of entry clearances for entitled dependants from the Indian sub-continent. It represents not an easing of the control but a slight improvement in the rate at which dependants are entitled to come here—an improvement which I am sure hon. Members opposite would support.

Does the hon. Lady consider that the annual figure for 1976, of about 58,000 a year, is an acceptable level of immigration, or would she wish to see it reduced?

The only way to reduce it is to make radical changes in present commitments—commitments which I understand hon. Members support—contained in our pledges to United Kingdom passport holders, wives and children of those already here, and people who were admitted in a temporary capacity, were resident here before the Act came into operation, have been here for five years, and are now immune from removal.

What action are the Government taking to implement the resolution which the Labour Party conference carried, calling for a dramatic relaxation in the immigration rules?

I think that there has been some misunderstanding of the exact nature and meaning behind that resolution, but I am confident that the immigration policy which the Government are now carrying out has the full support of most people in the country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is practically open-ended immigration from other member States of the Common Market?

That may be the theory, but it is not the practice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet decided to deport Mohamed Ronndi, Hassan Shailon and Mustapha Amnsor, all citizens of Morocco, convicted in October of raping a 21-year-old girl.

These youths, aged between 14 and 17, come from families who have been settled here for several years. The court, which had power to recommend deportation only for offenders aged 17 or over, made no recommendation for the deportation of any of the youths. They are currently serving custodial sentences and I shall consider their situation nearer the dates of their possible release from custody.

Is it not clear that these horrible men have abused the hospitality of the country? Are we not entitled to say that we can dispense with their company?

That was not the view of the court. I shall consider the situation at the appropriate time, when I have details of when they are likely to be released. They came here with their parents when they were younger, and their parents are settled here. It is in that context that I have to consider the case of these Moroccan youths.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Blennerhassett Committee on drinking and driving.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on 1st December 1976.

Would the hon. Gentleman like to add to that reply? In this season of good will it is important that we should consider these matters very carefully, and it is high time that we had a more clearly considered view from the Government.

We have a clear-cut view of the Blennerhassett Report, which I hope the hon. Gentleman supports, as I think he does. We want to introduce legislation as soon as reasonably practicable, but that is not an early possibility.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23rd December.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 23rd December.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 23rd December 1976.

My official engagements today comprise answering these Questions and certain meetings with ministerial colleagues and with you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Prime Minister accept our best wishes for a happy and peaceful Christmas, and also take the opportunity today of giving the British people some good cheer by announcing that in view of the disastrous and deteriorating record of his Government and the damaging legislation which has forced the resignation of one of his Cabinet colleagues, he will announce a General Election early in the new year?

In the same spirit, may I respond to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, go a little further, and say that the disinterested work that lie does for the disabled is recognised in many quarters?

As for giving some good cheer, it has not been my practice to try to falsify the position. I suppose that during these last nine months I have given a lot of bad cheer, but, I hope, a lot of realistic indicators to the House.

But I do not think that we should depart for Christmas altogether assuming that everything is black. There is a break in the clouds—for example, the situation in the oil industry. I understand that there have been 12 new discoveries in 1976 in the North Sea, that seven of the 14 commercial fields are on stream, that we are pumping oil at the rate of 400 barrels a day, or 20 million tons a year, and that next year it is expected that we shall reach the target of between 35 million and 45 million tons. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be signing participation agreements with both Shell and Esso that will benefit the British people.

In addition, manufacturing industry investment trends are up——

Too long.

It may be too long for the hon. Gentleman, but it is not too long for the British people to hear a little good news—and, as hon. Members will be aware, the CBI survey shows that the trends in terms of orders for exports in manufacturing industry and our domestic production are up.

Whilst we look at the bad news, let us remember the rifts in the clouds—[Interruption]—and the Opposition—and in these circumstances let the whole House go forward steadfastly in 1977, putting thoughts of elections behind it, to the improved situation of 1978.

Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation about alleged delays in the deliveries of Christmas mail? Although most Post Office employees are working very hard, is it not intolerable that the recruitment of extra staff should be severely limited, especially when we have 1½ million unemployed and the Post Office is expected to make a profit of about £400 million this year? Finally, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his Christmas card, which the Post Office has managed to deliver in good time? May I wish him and Audrey a very happy Christmas?

I thank my hon. Friend for his good will. If things go on like this, I shall not be frightened of coming to the House, as I normally am. I was getting a little worried about the delivery of my Christmas cards and asked someone to be in touch with the Post Office this morning. I am told that all the packages and all the Christmas cards posted by the last dates announced will be delivered by Christmas Day, so I hope that those who have not yet received my Christmas card will get it before long.

As to the financial situation of the Post Office, it is quite true, as my hon. Friend says, that it has made a substantial profit this year. I was very pleased when the Post Office announced yesterday its intention to freeze all its telecommunication charges, including telephone charges, until 31st March 1978. That will mean a period of two and a half years altogether since the last increase.

Will the Prime Minister set aside half an hour in order to study the resignation speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice)? Will the Prime Minister study in particular the passage in which his right hon. Friend said that the choice of the recent economic measures was designed to avoid a situation in which the Government had to rely on Labour Members to carry through a Labour Government's legislation?

Does the Prime Minister agree that a Government who cannot command the support of their own party in the carrying of measures fundamental to the nation's welfare have lost all moral justification for continuing in office?

I do not need look to the hon. Gentleman for justifications of morality. When the Government cannot command the support of their followers they will not be the Government. That is quite clear. I have made that clear consistently throughout the whole period. The Opposition have got to beat us first. They have not done that yet, and it will be a long time before they do.

As to the views of hon. Members, I shall study all these speeches, including that of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), which contains his account of his differences with the Conservative Front Bench. I shall see whether I can do anything to promote some healing of the split between those two views.

I understand that the Prime Minister has no official engagements on 25th December and for several days to come but, casting his mind into the future, does he not agree that the return of a Tory Government is too horrific to contemplate, and that the standing of our movement will depend upon our ability to fight the menace of unemployment? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be precisely on that basis that we shall sustain the unity of our movement?

Unemployment is of very great concern to the Government and, I hope, to everybody in this country. I cannot promise much consolation on this aspect, and never have done—and this applies to 1977. That is why I have asked that every effort should be made by all our representatives at international organisations to try to achieve an international consensus on how world trade can be improved during next year. The Government intend to stand fast by their policy of inducing healthy growth through getting greater export orders. That demands a high level of world trade. That is why we are focusing our attention on this matter.

Although everyone, of course, should welcome good news for the sake of the nation as a whole, will the Prime Minister, in giving his side of the good cheer—I do not grudge him that, and certainly add my good will—reflect on the fact that because his Government failed to take earlier and firmer action on the economic front he is today presiding over the highest Christmas unemployment figure since the war?

It is true that the figure of unemployment is, sadly, higher than at any time for many years, but the right hon. Gentleman, even in the spirit of good will, cannot escape his share of responsibility. [Interruption.] Let me try to elucidate this for the benefit of Conservative Members who do not appear to understand these matters.

In November 1973, the increase in money supply of this country stood at a figure of 28·9 per cent.—a disgracefully high figure. The effect of this was working through the economy for the first 18 months at least after the Labour Government took office, or indeed longer. To indicate the contrast, I point out that in November 1976 the figure was 13·7 per cent. I do not mind being told that that is too high—perhaps it is—but it does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to say that to me.

Returning to thoughts of good will, will the Prime Minister reflect on the wisdom or unwisdom of the strange proposal we had from the broadcasting authorities that party political broadcasts should not be transmitted during the Christmas period? The one that I propose to make is apparently to be the last. With this apparent abundance of good things to tell the country, does not the Prime Minister feel that the New Year would not be a bad time at which to do it?

If I can help by writing the hon. Gentleman's script for him I shall be very happy for him to deliver it on New Year's Eve. But I have never believed in having broadcasting vans outside football matches on a Saturday afternoon, and I very much doubt whether people are anxious to listen to political messages on New Year's Eve or Christmas Day.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Bwlch.

I have at present no plans to do so.

It is a pity that the Prime Minister will not be visiting this nice Welsh hamlet near Brecon. If he went there, he would see some of the 600,000 young people under 25 who are unemployed. Does he realise that the rates of pay under the job creation scheme are nearly double those paid in private industry and that if they were reduced more young people would have work created for them—or does he not care too much about the 600,000 young people?

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have not only been to Bwlch, but I can pronounce it.

Wrong!

I understand that there is a difference on these matters of pronunciation between scholars from North Wales and South Wales. But I know this village in Powys, lying on the main road between Crickhowell and Brecon, and I have been through it many times.

Although the hon. Gentleman's question is serious, I do not think that it particularly relates to this village. Since the hon. Gentleman put down the Question I have had inquiries made. In the Brecon travel-to-work area, which includes this village, the unemployment rate, at 5 per cent., is one of the lowest in Wales. I know that the hon. Gentleman, from the Bills that he introduces but seemingly never prints, is concerned with ways in which we might overcome some of these difficulties. The problem is a very serious one, and it has been referred to in the most recent series of questions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the bases of good cheer for the unemployed at present is the fact that the market seems to have received the Government's economic policy rather better than it has been received by the Opposition or the Press and that as a result the exchange rate of the pound in recent weeks has gone up from $1·55 to $1·68? Does my right hon. Fried agree that in the coming year one of the further actions that will help the pound will be to deal with the problem of the sterling balances? Is it the Government's view that the sterling balances should be phased out and that sterling should cease to be a reserve currency?

There is no doubt that sterling has been strengthened by the recent Government measures and, of course, by the IMF loan which has now been agreed. As to the future of the sterling balances, I have my own views about that, as the House will know. Others will have to enter into an international agreement if the sterling balances are to be phased out, and that might take a considerable period of time. However, shorter-term arrangements for ensuring that sudden withdrawals of sterling balances do not put a false value on sterling are now being considered and will, I hope, be brought to a conclusion.

If the Prime Minister will not be visiting the village the name of which I would not dare to pronounce, will he, with the Secretary of State for Employment, go to the Rubery Owen factory during the recess? The situation there is desperately serious and is having a very bad effect on plants such as Chrysler at Dunstable, and British Leyland. Does he agree that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service ought to send a special unit to the factory for three or four months to help the company sort out its industrial relations, as 1976 has been a terrible year in that factory?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that this problem ought to be solved. The general industrial situation, which is so much better, is due to the fact that both sides of industry—both management and the workers in the factories—have been co-operating to a great degree. I regret to say that that has not been true of the Rubery Owen factory.

I would prefer not to comment on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion but I shall convey it to the Secretary of State for Industry, who is taking a close day-by-day interest in the matter. Indeed, he had meetings on it yesterday and will do so again today. It is a situation that I should like to see solved. In general, I can see nothing in the situation at the factory that a little good will and common sense could not resolve.

rose—

Mr. Norman Buchanan—I am sorry, Mr. Norman Buchan.

That was almost as bad a pronunciation as "Bwlch", Mr. Speaker.

While on the question of unemployment, it would be churlish of us on the Clyde not to thank the Prime Minister for his Christmas card and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the form of their action with regard to Marathon shipyard, where the men have fought for so long to preserve their jobs.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we do not necessarily want to see everyone kept in employment? I hope it is not too late for my right hon. Friend to send a Christmas card, in the shape of a dismissal notice, to the House of Lords so that we can get the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill through.

We in Wales are internationalists and we welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend into our affairs.

The Government have taken a decision with regard to Marathon, which should maintain employment. We believe that is a reasonable decision to take with public money because there may well be a future opportunity for these jack-up rigs. These are not the same as oil platforms, which must be built for specialised purposes. We believe that it would be wrong to allow Marathon to disappear at this moment when there are prospects for the future.

With regard to the House of Lords, let us preserve it until the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is through. In the light of the present circumstances and developments in the shipbuilding industry, I believe that the House of Lords would be well advised to get on with the Bill so that the industry can have an assured future.