asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of children in pornographic material.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to introduce legislation prohibiting the use of young children in pornographic films.

I share the revulsion of most people at the use of children in pornography. Although the Williams Committee is already reviewing the laws on obscenity, I am looking at the particular problem of child pornography to see whether there are any aspects in which the law needs to be strengthened before the Committee reports. I should add that my information so far does not seem to reveal a significant problem with which the law is powerless to deal.

As there is widespread public anxiety about the long-term effects upon a child of corrupt sexual practices, and as, equally, one such example of that is the exploitation of children in the production of pornographic material, does the Home Secretary agree that this is an area in which he himself can take urgent and immediate action rather than refer it to the laborious procedures of the Williams Committee, which was established to review the laws on obscenity?

That is precisely what I said. The Williams Committee is the long-term approach, but I am prepared to look at the matter again. I am advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions that offences which might not be caught by existing legislation rarely occur and that in the small number in which there are difficulties, at which I am now looking, there are real difficulties of definition. I am advised that if legislation is not properly drawn up—it is not just a question of definition—it would catch a parent taking a picture of his child on the rug in front of the fire when it was a few months old. How on earth one draws up a Bill which exempts normal pictures of that kind is, I am told, a rather difficult matter.

Is it not clear that even those of us who take a fairly liberal view of what people may see and do in private feel that there is a special responsibility to protect minors in this loathsome trade? On the question of parents, is it not clear that the need for us to extend protection very often stems from the fact that children are put into such pornographic films and literature with the approval of the parents?

I think that the last point is right. I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point about liberality, but I have no liberality in this matter. It is wrong and ought to be dealt with.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the level of psychiatric treatment available in prisons in cases where people are sentenced for this ghastly activity?

I shall check on that. When I have made inquiries previously, I have found that there is a problem of people in prison who are mentally ill. That is a problem about which we ought to do something, but that is a wider issue. I have no reason to believe that there is a problem in respect of the issue raised by my hon. Friend but I shall look at the matter.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there will be widespread support throughout the House for his decision that if action has to be taken it will be taken in advance of the report of the Williams Committee? Does he further appreciate that if he finds it necessary to make an amendment to the law the House will be ready to support him, and to do so quickly?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that. He has it absolutely right about the short and the long term. With regard to the short term, I sometimes receive letters from people who, I think, miss the point. It they have an example of pornography, from a shop or elsewhere, they should go to the police with it. The police are the agents for dealing with this matter under the law. They act in different parts of the country in different ways, because this is a matter for decision by the chief constable concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase in percentage terms in violent crimes in Wales compared with England since 1960.

The percentage increase in indictable offences of violence against the person recorded as known to the police between 1960 and 1976 was about 520 per cent. in Wales and about 390 per cent. in England. It is not possible to be more precise because the figures are affected by changes in the law and in recording practice over this period.

I am sure that the Minister, the whole House and the people of Wales will be shocked by that enormous increase in violent crime, especially compared with England. The English figure presumably includes the London metropolitan area. Can the Minister give any explanation? Could he possibly attribute this to the low recruitment to the police force?

As to the last question, over the same period there has been an increase in recruitment in Wales of 86 per cent. It is somewhat difficult to attribute any steady reason for the disproportionate increase. For example, in the period 1975–76 the rise in crimes of violence in Wales was less than in England.

Assuming that the devolution proposals go through the House successfully, will they have any effect upon the disproportionate amount of crime in Wales as compared with that in England?

Not unless my right hon. Friend, in a fit of rage, hits me with the Wales Bill.

Is the Minister aware that in the past two months there have been 46 attacks on police officers in the Cardiff area? Is it not time to take the very strongest counter-measures, not least to bring the police up to full establishment, perhaps by raising their rates of pay suitably?

My right hon. Friend has already dealt with police pay, but the hon. Gentleman displays an ignorance that is shared by a number of hon. Members as to what is the role of the Home Office and what is the role of the courts in this matter. It is for the Home Office to provide laws that lay down the penalties which magistrates can impose. It is for the courts to decide what penalties are imposed according to the facts before them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call a conference of chief constables to discuss with them the possibility of adopting a common policy regarding prosecution in cases of shoplifting.

No. Sir. Decisions about prosecutions are within the responsibility of chief officers of police and not of my right hon. Friend.

Would not it be better for the police to decide in each individual case—bearing in mind all the personal circumstances—whether prosecutions were justified rather than leave it to some stores to pursue an indiscriminate policy of prosecution in order to provide for the fact that their own security arrangements are sometimes extremely defective?

The hon. Gentleman has raised a different matter about the right of stores to undertake private prosecutions. On the original Question, chief officers of police have recently studied their practice in prosecuting for shoplifting and have agreed on some standard procedures that are designed to lead to greater uniformity of practice. The Home Office research unit will be studying the reasons for, and the extent of, variations in prosecution for shoplifting.

Is not the Minister aware that an increasing number of people in the police force, magistrates and probation officers are concerned that the trading methods of some stores are responsible for the spiralling number of allegations of shoplifting? Can she do something towards helping those of us who are interested in the problem to find out how many people who come up on these offences are on a serious criminal charge for the first time in their lives?

The research unit is looking into shops, police and the courts and will find out the statistics that the hon. Member has requested. But it is a difficult thing for which to find accurate statistics.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what administrative arrangements exist within his Department for dealing with urban problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what administrative arrangements exist within his Department for dealing with urban deprivations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what administrative arrangements exist within his Department for dealing with urban deprivation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what administrative arrangements exist within his Department for dealing with urban deprivation.

As announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6th April this year, responsibility for the urban programme and associated work has been transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

My Department maintains close liaison with the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office over those aspects of inner city policy which bear upon race relations and other matters for which my right hon. Friend has a responsibility.

Does the Minister realise that all that is left of the community development project which was set up by the Prime Minister when he was Home Secretary in 1968, and which has spent £5 million in research into urban problems, is a part-time lady selling booklets in his Department? Will he tell the House what recommendations of the community development project, if any, he is proposing to implement?

The definition of a part-time lady would probably defy statutory analysis. The community development projects have been completed and their results made known. That is what my Department is now considering. That experience has shown that a different approach is probably needed to deal with the problems of urban deprivation. The fact that the previous projects have had a negative result is none the less valuable, because they teach us what not to do, if not what to do.

Does the Minister know that the comprehensive community programme set up by his Department was supposed to run a multi-million pound experiment in Wirral but that no one has ever heard of it? Can he explain what happened, what is now happening, and what is the connection between the comprehensive community programme and the recent statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment that Wirral is to become a partnership authority?

The decision to initiate any CCP project was to be taken with the agreement of the local authority concerned. At the stage to which the hon. Member referred we chose to do one pilot programme before entering into a wider area. A CCP-type of approach, whether or not it is so called, is inherent in the inner city programme. Therefore, the partnership approach which the hon. Gentleman mentioned as being dealt with by my right hon. Friend will be adopted in dealing with the partnership agreement.

Does the Minister agree that what he described in his answer is little more than a comic operation? Will he confirm that he will pass anything that is left of it over to the Department of the Environment, because people in urban areas are becoming very worried that the Government are all talk and no go on this matter?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is talking about in referring to a comic operation. Is it the part-time lady, or is it the CCP project as a whole? The hon. Gentleman must understand that the Government have devoted a considerable amount of study to the inner city problems this year, and my right hon. Friend will not take lightly the genuine problems of the inner city areas, of which we are aware.

Can my hon. Friend say whether he or our right hon. Friend intends to hold discussions with members of London borough councils which have not been included in the pairing arrangements in relation to certain aspects of urban deprivation? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that they were not included, but he agreed that they had special problems and said that he was prepared to discuss these with them. May we have an assurance from my hon. Friend that his Department also will be involved?

Whenever my right hon. Friend is involved in the discussions, my Department will be involved in relation to race relations and other matters for which it is responsible.

Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest problems of the urban areas is the acceptance of mass immigration? In that connection, will he comment on the remarks made yesterday by Lord Scarman, first, that there is a risk that in seeking to do justice to those who are disadvantaged we run the risk of doing injustice to others, and—secondly, that the race relations legislation should be only temporary?

In my experience, with the exception of a very few antique Acts, there are not many measures that can be called permanent, so all legislation is temporary in that sense. We believe that the Race Relations Act is an absolutely necessary step to protect minorities in the community from disadvantage and discrimination on the ground of their colour or their race. I hope that that commands general acceptance in the House. To blame immigrants for all the problems of the inner cities is a grotesque travesty which does no credit to the hon. Gentleman and does no good in finding a solution of the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the Fire Brigades Union.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have told representatives of both sides of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades that we are ready to meet them at any time.

Is the Home Secretary aware that in my constituency, in the last two months, two firemen have been killed and two have been awarded bravery honours for rescuing somebody from the River Thames? I talked to the picket lines late last night. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that they are looking for some way out of this dilemma? Can he not make some small offer, such as the 2½ per cent. that Ford workers were given, so that negotiations can begin and we can get this strike over?

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting to me—we are not negotiating here—that 2½ per cent. over the 10 per cent. would settle the dispute. I do not think that he is speaking on behalf of the Fire Brigades Union in that sense. It is easy to suggest ways in which it can be done, and I am not at the moment going into the merits of the 10 per cent. guideline which I think are basically important to the future of this country. There is more than that to the discussions which have been taking place.

Of course, the Government are concerned about the matter, but, according to the negotiating procedures which are laid down, the local authorities and the Fire Brigades Union are talking together, and to suggest these ways of doing it as though, if only I would think of them, the dispute would be over is to ignore the realities of the situation.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that there is deep and spreading sympathy in the general public for this patient and orderly body of men, and that it is an increasing wish among our people that some major concession should be made to them?

I should be the last to say that the work of the firemen was not held in very high regard. But I had a message last night from other unions that said bluntly "If you give to the Fire Brigades Union, you will give to us as well." Talking about special cases, if my hon. Friend could tell me that every other trade union would say that the Fire Brigades Union was a special case and that it would not be called in aid in any other dispute, that might be a different matter. But that is not the situation.

Everyone hopes that this strike will be settled. When the Home Secretary next meets the Fire Brigades Union, will he emphasise the fundamental constitutional importance of the distinction between the exercise of the right to strike, which, though deplorable and regrettable, is legitimate, and the exercise of a power which it is now using to deprive those authorised by Her Majesty's Government to use Her Majesty's property and to obstruct the use of that property by those authorised by means of the illegal use of transmitters?

On the last point, blocking the use of transmitters is evil. Who is doing it is not known, and I think it would be wrong to suggest that it was a member of the Fire Brigades Union. On the other matters, the soldiers are not trained to use the sophisticated equipment, and it is idle to pretend that they are. We have been considering the use of the masks. People cannot learn to use them just by coming in one morning and using them; they are very complicated. We have a small group of trained Service men who can be protected in that way, and they will be used as appropriate. The general approach of the hon. Gentleman that this equipment is not being used because of a block imposed by the Fire Brigades Union is not true.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me as someone who is not putting forward the special case principle but who believes that the 10 per cent. rule is a hazard to free collective bargaining and must be removed that it will cost the Government, through the NJC or any other body, a lot more money as long as the strike persists? Will the Home Secretary also acknowledge that he can give a nudge, a nod and a wink to the NJC, even though principally it is a Tory-controlled body, to ensure that renegotiations may start? Would not 18 per cent., the amount which the Royal Family got, be a good starting point?

There is one aspect of the 10 per cent. guideline in the current situation which is being forgotten. On a wage of £70, that is £7 a week. We are not talking about small sums of money, because 10 per cent. is a largish amount of money on anybody's salary or pay, and it is an important factor to take into account in this stage of moving on and developing pay policy. When analogies are made with anybody else in the community or with the Royal Family, I say on behalf of the Government that 10 per cent. is the basis on which to move. The discussions on the 42-hour week are a major breakthrough, and the benchmark for the future is something that the Fire Brigades Union has been talking about for a long time. In my view, it is on this basis and through discussions with the NJC that we shall find a solution.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the lives of Service men are being put at stake by their being required to enter blazing premises and dense smoke without the proper equipment? Furthermore, the lives of the public are being put at risk because foam appliances are not available, and in certain cases sufficient fire-fighting equipment is not available. Even accepting the Home Secretary's premise that certain of the equipment is too specialised for Service men to use, I ask him now to give his authority that the people's fire tenders, equipment and breathing apparatus can be made available to the Service men who are fighting the blazes.

No, I shall not do that, because they are not trained to use them. There are occasions, as one has seen from the newspapers, when no fire officer would send soldiers into a blaze or into a smoke-filled building.

They are going in.

The marginal cases are happening, as can happen in any instance, but Service men are not there to deal with fires for which they are not trained and which they do not have the equipment to deal with.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to bring forward legislation to remove the power of magistrates to threaten witnesses with imprisonment by binding them over to keep the peace.

We have no plans to introduce legislation on these lines. The power to bind over witnesses called by the prosecution in a case brought by the police is rarely used, as far as we are aware, but sometimes serves a useful preventive purpose, and we should not lightly discard it. In view of the concern expressed following a recent case, we are, however, keeping the position under review.

Whether or not it is rarely used, is it not entirely unacceptable that people who have never been charged with any offence may go to prison?

They do so only if they disobey the binding-over order of the magistrates. It is often a great saving in public time and expense in the courts if, for example, neighbours, one of whom is the defendant and another is the witness in a case, can both be bound over so that their long-running feud need not smoulder in the courts every fortnight or so.

Is not one of the injustices of this ancient power which is vested in magistrates the fact that they can impose this obligation upon the complainant as well as the defendant, so that a complainant may well find himself penalised for a perfectly proper and public-spirited action and in those circumstances will not accept a binding over because he has a sense of right and justice and, therefore, is sent to prison quite wrongfully?

In the case which has been referred to, the person concerned was a witness and not a complainant. But even in the case of complainants the hon. Gentleman will know that people feel very strongly about their legal rights and what they believe is due to them. It is the job of courts to resolve these matters in a way which satisfies the public at large. Sometimes that is not done best by giving to the complainant all that he thinks is due.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to issue a White Paper on the Government's proposals on the future constitution, structure and organisation of broadcasting in the United Kingdom.

I hope to be able to present a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for the future constitution, structure and organisation of broadcasting in the new year.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for the assurance that it is coming soon. There have been reports recently that in the meantime he will have to consider extending the BBC Charter and IBA Licence. Can he reassure the House that, when he considers that, he will require of the BBC reconsideration of its misconceived plans to realign frequencies in its radio spectrum, particularly for Radio 3 and Radio 4?

The Annan Report was published in the middle part of the year. There have been many suggestions put to me, but there is only one way to deal with the problem, and that is to produce a White Paper. Legislative proposals will eventually be put forward which will affect broadcasting for the next 15 years. I do not accept suggestions about delay. We shall have to see what the White Paper says. In view of the date of renewal of the BBC Charter and the extension of the life of the IBA, there may well be a time—it depends on the legislative programme—when we shall have to deal in different ways with the Authority and the Corporation for a time. It would not be appropriate to deal with the question of broadcasting wavelengths in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

While we await the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend assure those who do such tremendous work in BBC local radio stations, such as Radio Leicester, that their future is assured and that they will continue to receive resources sufficient to enable them not only to maintain but to extend those services?

Obviously, until the White Paper with the Government's first proposals is published it would be wrong for me to give my thinking on that matter. However, as regards Radio Leicester and also the excellent station in Leeds, if I may say so I am very interested in what they do. I know that the BBC, too, is very interested in what goes on in Radio Leeds.

When drawing up his White Paper, will the Home Secretary bear in mind the considerable ill-feeling in Cardiff because, when the Annan Committee was established, it robbed Cardiff of its right, as the twentieth station in the IBA network, to have its own independent radio station?

I am not sure about the "robbing" part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but, whatever eventually happens, there will be an extension of local broadcasting. The Government must ask the House to decide the way in which that will be done. There is no doubt that local broadcasting will expand in the years to come. Since it is a new development, the decision on the structure through which it will work is another matter. Whether Cardiff should have a BBC or independent station is also another matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet representatives of the Police Federation for further discussions on pay and conditions of police officers.

Following my meeting with representatives of the Police Federations on 27th October, agreement was reached on an immediate increase of 10 per cent. in pay and an independent inquiry into pay and other matters. I have no plans at present for further discussions but am, of course, ready to meet the federations again should the need arise.

I thank the Home Secretary for that reply and I appreciate that, in view of the inquiry which is now commencing, it is difficult for him to answer specific points. However, may I ask him to be tentative, provisional and speculative and to agree that, at long last, the case for a premium for police officers in the Metropolitan area is established and proven by all the extra work that police officers have to do in the Greater London area? I refer to demonstrations, extra traffic duty, lobbies, emergency duties and all the rest. Is there not now an overwhelming case for extra premium pay?

I think that it would be wrong, given the developments that have taken place, to go into that. Lord Edmund-Davies' inquiry will consider the matter. As matters stand, there is a Metropolitan allowance and a larger rent allowance, which is effectively tax-free. As I have said, it is a matter for the inquiry.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the most disturbing aspect of the matter is the substantial increase in the number of qualified police officers who leave the force earlier than their normal full retirement age? Does that not underline the urgency of the Edmund-Davies Report?

There is a problem not so much of recruitment but of wastage. I cannot make a definite statement now, but I hope to announce the other members of the Lord Edmund-Davies inquiry next week.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with his Department's contingency plans and measures for dealing with terrorist activity.

These are kept under continuous review in the light of intelligence and other information regarding terrorist activities and incidents.

Will the Home Secretary consider having talks with representatives of the media to seek to establish a voluntary code of conduct about the way in which terrorist episodes are sometimes publicised? Is he aware that the whole of the recent German commando rescue operation at Mogadishu could have been put seriously at risk by the deplorable decision by two British newspapers to publish advance information about the commando unit's movements, in defiance of a request by the German Government? Can steps be taken to ensure that that does not happen here?

There is no doubt that when such an incident occurs problems arise from the media in general. However, all I should say on this matter is, yes. I cannot say that I will consider doing what the hon. Gentleman suggests, because the matter is already in hand.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about his recent meetings with the other Ministers of the Interior of the European Economic Community? Is it correct that these Ministers meet regularly, and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the degree of harmonisation of administrative measures, as well as that of the signature and ratification of the conventions, to deal with this urgent problem?

There are various methods of co-operation between countries, particularly those within the EEC. I chaired a meeting earlier in the year when we talked about what should be done. A variety of panels—not Ministers—are discussing various aspects of this problem, and all the matters quite properly mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman are considered.

While this is basically necessary, any schemes that one has prepared must be sufficiently flexible to deal with those incidents which might not arise in the way that the exercises that we hold anticipate.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that he has the gratitude of most people in this country for making sure that members of the biggest terrorist organisation that the world has known for many years have been deported from the country?

One problem that arose is that two of the now three people arrived in this country before I knew of the publication of the book and that aspect of their visit.

From the information I now have, I believe that two arrived before I made the orders. One person has gone back, and another is shortly to go. The third who appeared is shortly to be on his way too.

Does not the Home Secretary agree that there is likely to be continued anxiety over the case of Zohair Akache, who was deported from this country, then allowed to re-enter the country, was suspected of committing in broad daylight the murder of three prominent North Yemenis, was then able to leave the country again and is now suspected of being responsible for the hijacking which ended in Mogadishu?

Does not the Home Secretary agree that it is extraordinary that, after all this time has passed, it is still not possible for him to confirm or deny that this man Akache, who entered and left the country in those circumstances, is in fact none other than the Captain Mahmoud responsible for the Lufthansa hijacking?

If I were basing my information on the newspapers, and only on them, I would be able to confirm that. But it is not my business to confirm a story when the police do not have the basic information on which I can be absolutely sure.

On the other issue, what the hon. Gentleman says is right. I see in the newspapers from time to time that I am accused of being devious about it, but there is no clever stuff behind the events. The man came into the country and went out again. He was using a false passport and so on, and I have the details. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to say it, a mistake was made, but it certainly was not by design. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to run around all the time saying that an error was made—well, I have said it now, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to regulate the procedure to be followed on public marches.

I am considering arrangements for control of processions and meetings as part of my examination of the Public Order Act 1936 and other relevant law.

Will the Home Secretary, in his review, consider that it is necessary that there should be advance warning of public marches and that chief constables should have power to control the routes? Does he not feel that it should lie within his responsibility, rather than with the chief constable, to decide on an absolute ban of a party political march

Certainly one of the matters to consider is advance knowledge, and that I am considering. The control of the route is in the hands of the chief constable or the Commissioner.

On the hon. Gentleman's last comment, I ask him to beware. At the moment my rôle in this matter is extremely limited. The initiation comes from the Commissioner or the chief constable on the grounds of public order and whether the police estimate that they can keep public order. If that is changed and the decision is taken by me on straight political grounds on the basis of whether I approve of the views of the people in the marches, we should, in my view, be moving in the wrong direction. The direction to look at in considering this aspect is, I suggest, in the area of race relations. But I do not want the power. There would be no question of taking advice from anybody. It would be a question of whether the march should take place as the Home Secretary says that it should not because he does not like the views of the people marching. I should not want that power.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country has a longstanding tradition of peaceful demonstration and peaceful processions in our High Streets which should not be impaired, but that the central provocation at the moment is the efforts made by a handful of people who base themselves on the barbarities of the German Nazis and seek to stimulate race hatred in this country? Does not that call for the activating of that part of the Race Relations Act which seeks to outlaw the stimulation of race hatred?

That part of the legislation which was passed earlier this year and came into force on 13th June has been activated. I want to gain evidence of how that legislation is working and to see whether this is the right way forward. That part of the legislation has been activated and I think that that is the direction in which to think, especially in this review.

Would not the enthusiasm of those who seek to express their political convictions in this way be somewhat diminished if they had to make a contribution roughly proportional to the cost of the additional police who have to be allocated to their portection?

That raises a much wider issue in all parts of the country, namely, the question of additional police required for various matters. It is a dangerous thought—not a dangerous one, but one at which we should look carefully—because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) said, we have a tradition of marching on the basis of a political view. I suggest that people have a right to do that. It is a traditional way in which views are expressed.

My right hon. Friend is refusing to accept political responsibility, but does he not accept the overriding right of ethnic minorities not to be insulted, harassed and made objects of incitement to violence as against the question of free speech? On the question of the Manchester march, does my right hon. Friend agree that the cost to the public was £250,000, that he kept the march secret, and that in doing so he acted in conjunction with the Chief Constable of Manchester?

I assure my hon. Friend, on the last part of his supplementary question, that I certainly did not keep the march secret, because it is none of my business to do the job of a chief constable. If the Home Secretary did so, he would be overstepping the mark. The Chief Constable of Manchester decided to act in that way. I went up to see him afterwards. In my view, it was the right thing to do because otherwise the trouble would have been far worse. But it illustrates the nature of the problem of decision-making by the police in this respect.

Of course, on the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, it is implicit that the new communities here—the immigrant communities, or the people who are born here but whose parents came from abroad—have a right to live here without being abused. That is, I suggest, what we are talking about.

rose—

Mr. Christopher Price. Question No. 16.

As the Member for Lewisham, West, I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, to ask a supplementary question on Question No. 15. However, I pass to Question No. 16.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now received the report by Sir Henry Fisher into the Confait case; and when he intends to publish it.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I have received Sir Henry Fisher's report, and we propose to publish it in full as soon as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement that he is willing to publish not merely the findings, as he had promised, but the full report. Is he aware that it is now five years since this miscarriage of justice took place under which three of my constituents were sentenced for a murder which they did not commit and that they are still waiting for their compensation? That is a very long period. Is he aware that it is four months since he announced the setting up of the Royal Commission into pre-trial procedures and that he has not yet announced the names of either the Chairman or the members of that Royal Commission? Will he tell us when we shall have those names?

On the last point, although I should like to do that quickly, there are problems in appointing members to Royal Commissions which make it difficult to move quickly. All I can say on the first part of the question is that I intend to publish it. I know the part that my hon. Friend has played in this matter, and I know that when the report is published he will not complain in any way about the content of it.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Reigate.

I have at present no plans to do so.

When the Prime Minister does come down our way, will he travel by British Rail, second class, in rush-hour conditions that he would not inflict on an animal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Do you?"]—yes—and explain to my commuter constituents why, after the so-called efficiency drives, they are being asked to pay a 16 per cent. rise in fares at the same time as they are being asked to restrict their own earnings to the region of 6 to 7 per cent.?

I have not been into this question in detail, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a Question to the Secretary of State for Transport. What is quite clear is that the railways as a whole, like other nationalised industries, will be restricting their increases to the level of inflation. That makes it doubly important that we should keep down the level of inflation.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many of my constituents work in Reigate? [Interruption.] What is coming is not funny. In the light of the present firemen's strike, my constituents would very much like to know whether the Prime Minister now regrets his gross irresponsibility in backing the miners all the way throughout February 1974 in order to bring down the Conservative Government. Was it not from that time that there flowed three years of appeasement to the big unions from which the smaller unions, such as the firemen's, have suffered so much?

I do not believe that what I said in Aberdare in 1974 arises out of a possible visit to Reigate in the future. But I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he takes the following factors into account. First, he should read the whole of that speech, which I have done with great care. Secondly, he should recall that at that time the rate of inflation under a Conservative Government was beginning to soar. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was it?"] That, too, is contained in the speech at that time. Thirdly, Lord Barber had allowed the money supply to get wholly out of control. That, too, was contained in the speech. Finally, I objected very strongly to the miners being called "extremists", and it was against that background that I said that the former Prime Minister had little chance of succeeding.

But does the Prime Minister recollect that he actually referred to the rate of inflation in that speech and complained about it as being 12 per cent? This Government have now been in power for as long since 1970 as the Conservative Government. When has the rate of inflation been as low as 12 per cent. under a Labour Government?

I recall this very well. That was the point against which I was saying that inflation was steadily going up under the Conservative Government, and it continued to rise very steadily. Now, of course, the background is that inflation is steadily coming down. This makes a great deal of difference to the psychology and background of wage claims.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Employment.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 8th November.

Is not unemployment the fatal electoral dagger at the heart of the Government? [Interruption.] It is no laughing matter. Is not the crude political reality of "Back to Work with Labour" that in February 1974 550,000 people were unemployed in this country, and that now there are 1·4 million out of work?

Whether or not it is an electoral dagger, it is a figure that is totally unacceptable to any Member in this House or anyone in this country —and that goes far wider than electoral considerations. That is why the Government's policies, both internally and internationally, are directed towards trying to get action that will reduce these figures. Internally, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken a great many measures that have had the effect, even at the present time, of saving more than 300,000 jobs.

I would say in conclusion that, with respect, it does not lie in the mouths of the Opposition Front Bench to attack us on matters of this kind when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) says that all rescues and all subsidies do great harm, because if that policy were adopted the unemployment figure would be a lot higher.

May I, in complete opposition to the question asked by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), ask my right hon. Friend to convey the thanks of the Government and Back Benchers to the Secretary of State for Employment and his Department for the way in which, quietly and determinedly, for 12 months he has dealt with the Grunwick dispute, and, secondly, to thank him on behalf of the people in the area for the efforts he has made to cool down and conciliate a very difficult situation?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has done a great deal in everything that he has tackled in relation to the Grunwick dispute to try to get a fair and reasonable settlement of it. I think that what he has done commands the support of nearly everybody in the country, except, perhaps, some prejudiced Opposition Members.

How does the Prime Minister reconcile his statements now about increases in wages of over 10 per cent. leading to increasing unemployment with the reality of 1974–75 when wages were going up by 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. and when, apparently, according to the Government, that had nothing to do with the rate of unemployment?

That is not what has ever been argued on this matter.

I recognise that the Prime Minister is right in saying that the present level of unemployment is unacceptable, but does he recognise that there is a mood of defeatism about the level of unemployment throughout the Western economies? Has he considered President Carter's proposals for changing welfare and unemployment benefits, which would mean that the Government would pay people to work rather than for unemployment? Does he recognise that the Governments of Western economies, including the British economy, have to become the employer of last resort if unemployment is to be defeated?

I think it is the case that the leaders of the industrialised Western countries do not yet have a clear view of how to overcome the problem of 16 million unemployed, which I think is to a large extent caused by having large OPEC surpluses combined with a large and rapidly increasing Japanese surplus, both of which are having a seriously deflationary effect in the Western world. It is a problem to which we have to turn our attention, but it is easier to analyse than to prescribe a solution.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government side—most of us, I think—feel that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has done a first-class job within the limits of the policy of the Government in relation to these matters, and that my right hon. Friend, through the imaginative schemes for job creation and so on, has helped considerably to put people to work but that, nevertheless, that in itself is not enough? Can my right hon. Friend indicate what further steps the Government intend to take to bring down the levels of unemployment?

Give him a job.

No, that would not do it either—hardly at all. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about the work of the Secretary of State for Employment. The Secretary of State for Employment has done a remarkable job. Indeed, the new training schemes have aroused a great deal of interest in other Western industrialised countries, especially the scheme to provide for young people to have either further training or further education. We shall continue to do what we can as regards the future levels of unemployment. As my hon. Friend knows, there has been an addition of public expenditure—with which I assume the Tory Party would not agree —of £400 million to help the construction industry. We shall continue to take whatever measures are necessary, consistent with reducing the rate of inflation.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements on 17th November.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Bearing in mind the tragic deaths of which we have learned today, and bearing in mind, too, the chaotic and inadequate state of our firefighting services, will the Prime Minister spend a little time today considering whether he is still satisfied that the Home Secretary is capable of producing a quick and satisfactory solution to the negotiations with the firemen's union?

Negotiations with the Fire Brigades Union are being conducted by the local authorities, not by my right hon. Friend. They are acting within the pay guidelines which the Government have prescribed. Clearly, that is one of their difficulties. But I do not believe that all the figures about pay have yet got across, or, indeed, the figures of what would be received in gross pay by a number of firemen. That will have to be publicised pretty soon so that we have a better indication of how firemen compare with other industrial workers.

Will my right hon. Friend, on his way back to Downing Street, call at the European Movement in Whitehall Place and tell it that its statement last year that the historic decision for direct elections represents the first step towards the creation of a United States of Europe is incorrect? Although he said that the Assembly would have the same powers as it has now, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it has increased powers since July over the budget and, therefore, his statement of last summer is perhaps not as correct as it might have been?

No, Sir; I do not intend to call at Whitehall Place on my way back to No. 10. I have a rather busy schedule. As regards the statements about the development of the European Community, I think that I have made my position clear, including the statement I made at the Lord Mayor's Banquet last Monday.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to read the evidence of the TUC to the Energy Commission disapproving of the over-rapid depletion of the offshore oil resources? Will he, as a consequence and in view of the remarks in that evidence, call a meeting with the Secretaries of State for Industry and for Energy to discuss the possibilities of using oil for petrochemical investment, since the international oil companies do not seem to be investing much in that direction at present?

The question of depletion is an important national question, and the Government have given a lot of consideration to the proper rate of depletion. For the first few years during which the oil will be flowing, the rate of depletion will be governed by agreements with the oil companies. That will take us up to a level of perhaps 100 million tons a year. After those first few years, it will be possible for us to review the rate of depletion and see whether it is better to keep more of the oil under the North Sea and import more, or whether we should seek to be self-sufficient or, indeed, over-self-sufficient. All these questions come up for decision during the discussions that we shall have during, I hope, the next few months. For the first two or three years, however, we are bound by the agreements already made.

Reverting to the firemen's strike, if, alas, the strike is not settled by the negotiations, as I am sure that the House very much hopes it will be, will the Prime Minister discuss with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary again the position of the equipment available to the troops? They are being asked to undertake a very dangerous and difficult job. We accept what the Home Secretary has said—that certain parts of the equipment probably cannot be used without training—but we question whether that goes for all the equipment, in particular the, breathing equipment. Will the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary look very carefully at this matter again?

Yes, Sir, most certainly. In fact, the Home Secretary and I and other Ministers have had discussions on this matter. There seems to be a difference of view about the breathing apparatus, because the information we have is that it is not easy to use without proper training. But, as regards other apparatus, we would have to balance two considerations. One is that the best equipment that is available in the fire stations should be used to stop an outbreak of fire or to bring it under control. On the other hand, if it seemed likely that we were on the edge—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—of a negotiated settlement, and the use of that equipment was likely to start the whole of the friction—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition do not agree with that, but that at least would be my view about it. Perhaps they will allow me to state my view, whether Members of the Opposition agree or not. If we were on the edge of a negotiated settlement and rushing into fire stations and taking out a lot of equipment were to set back that settlement by two or three weeks, it would simply not be worth it. The Government must judge the matter on the basis of getting the best use out of the apparatus and getting a negotiated settlement.

While I would not wish to argue with the Prime Minister about anything that might make the settlement of the strike more difficult, I wish to return to one point about the breathing equipment. There is no difference of opinion. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he and the Home Secretary will look again at the matter to make absolutely certain that the breathing equipment cannot be used. If it is proved that it cannot be used, we ought to know, but our troops deserve every possible protection that can be given.

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman about that. I will certainly have another look at it with the Home Secretary to see whether breathing apparatus can be used by untrained soldiers. If it can, they should have it.