asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether officials of his Department have met recently the Governors of the Walcot Educational Trust.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Lady aware that if she or her officials meet the Governors of the Walcot Educational Trust the Governors will say that they do not wish to see the valuable social work done by the Lady Margaret Hall Settlement jeopardised by its being turned into a bail hostel, which they think would be entirely unsuitable? As the trust is the landlord, will the hon. Lady consult it before a final decision is taken, and undertake not to take such a decision unless she is satisfied that all the legal obstacles have been removed?

We have advised the settlement that its solicitors should clarify the situation with the trust's solicitors. They will be doing that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not approve use of the premises as a bail hostel unless we are satisfied that there is no legal impediment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that behind the Question lies a campaign to create a snob preserve in Lambeth for the benefit of Tory MPs living in that area?

I cannot say that I was not aware of that, but it is not the primary consideration in the mind of the Home Office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with police-military co-operation in the area of internal intelligence gathering.

No such co-operation exists in England and Wales, although members of the Armed Services, like other people, will naturally pass on to the police such information relevant to the prevention and detection of crimes as comes into their possession.

In the event of the IRA's stepping up its bombing campaign, will the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind about the possibility of allowing military intelligence personnel to play a part in the intelligence-gathering process in Britain?

I try to keep an open mind on many questions, but the position in Northern Ireland is exceptional—justified in the circumstances, but one that we would not wish to see automatically extended to this country. The police are responsible for the prevention and detection of crime. The Armed Services have no function in that respect in Great Britain at present, except those functions which rest upon ordinary citizens. Unless circumstances were to develop in a way which I greatly hope they will not, comparable with those in Northern Ireland, we would not wish to see the military exercising a function that it did not normally exercise in civilised and relatively peaceful societies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend the release of the two imprisoned building workers' pickets before Christmas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend the exercise of clemency in regard to the two Shrewsbury pickets, Desmond Warren and Eric Tomlinson, in time to ensure they are set free and at home with their families by Christmas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given recent consideration to the representations made on behalf of Mr. Warren and Mr. Tomlinson against their continued imprisonment, and the possibility of recommending a free pardon, or the use of the Official Solicitor on the grounds of precedent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he proposes to make to the request to him by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party that he should recommend the use of the Queen's Prerogative of mercy for Mr. Eric Tomlinson and Mr. Dennis Warren, who were convicted last year of conspiring to intimidate workers on building sites.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he proposes with regard to Mr. Des Warren and Mr. Eric Tomlinson; and if he will make a statement

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will respond to the request from the Labour Party and the TUC to release the Shrewsbury pickets.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now decided on his response to requests to recommend the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy in the cases of Mr. Eric Tomlinson and Mr. Dennis Warren who were convicted in December 1973 of conspiring to intimidate workers on building sites at Shrewsbury and Telford.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to release the Shrewsbury pickets.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to release the Shrewsbury pickets.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to release the Shrewsbury pickets.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now prepared to exercise the prerogative of mercy in relation to the Shrewsbury pickets, Mr. Warren and Mr. Tomlinson, on the lines expressed to him by the General Secretary of the TUC and the Labour Party conference.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend the exercise of clemency in the cases of the two Shrewsbury pickets, Desmond Warren and Eric Tomlinson, in time for these men to be with their families for Christmas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will exercise his power to recommend mercy to pardon Messrs. Tomlinson and Warren, at present held in prison at Shrewsbury.

No, Sir. The law and facts of this case were fully argued before the Court of Appeal and a judicial decision has been reached upon the merits of the sentences. I cannot usurp the functions of the courts and no new considerations have been put before me on which I could properly advise interference with the sentences by the exercise of the Prerogative.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that the sentences were excessive, as no charges of violence were sustained? Secondly, is not the case unique, in that never before in British legal history has the law of conspiracy been applied to an industrial dispute, in sharp contrast with what happened to the Welsh farmers recently, who were guilty of violence and in respect of whom no such charge was brought?

On the first point, I would not presume—and I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend would not wish me to presume—to make personal judgments about sentences. I am sure that my hon. Friend or I or anyone else could, if we looked around, find sentences some of which we thought excessive and some of which we thought were more lenient than they should be. That would not be difficult, and the whole of the time of the House could be occupied in discussing such matters. These are matters for the courts.

Will the Home Secretary accept the congratulations of almost the whole House on upholding the rule of law—[Interruption.] At least he will receive the congratulations of the whole of the House, with the exception of one section which is well known to the Government Chief Whip. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any proposals he may subsequently bring forward for the amendment of the 1875 Act will not be applied retrospectively? Will he also confirm that what is at issue in this case was described by the court as a vicious intimidation of fellow workers? Does he not agree that conspiracy must, of itself, aggravate any criminal offence which occurs in the first instance?

The hon. Member asked a large number of supplementary questions. I do not look for congratulations from any part of the House in the discharge of what is always a difficult duty as to how one should or should not exercise the Royal Prerogative. I have indicated that in my view changes in the law of conspiracy might be appropriate in the future. They would not be retrospective. I do not believe in retrospectiive legislation. As for the merits of this case, it would be quite inappropriate for me, as Home Secretary, to pronounce upon them.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that the plaudits from the Opposition to his initial monosyllabic answer—

And from this side.

are not totally unexpected? Outside this House a large number of people think that it was not the pickets who intimidated anybody but the establishment—

Order. The House must take this Question quietly. I hope to call a great many hon. Members to put supplementary questions. If this sort of row goes on, I shall move on quickly to the next Question.

The view is held outside the House that it is not the pickets who have intimidated anybody in any conspiracy but that picketing is in grave danger and that anybody who plans an honourable demonstration or an honourable picket will feel intimidated against doing so by the gaoling in such a Draconian manner of these two pickets. Will my right hon. Friend make a serious attempt—as he is duly paid to do—to see that these men are freed and sent home to their wives and families by Christmas?

My hon. Friend must surely be aware that I have already answered the last part of the question. On the other parts of the question, there is clearly a difference of view on my side of the House, which I accept and which has been expressed. I make two points arising from what my hon. Friend said. First, it would be a great mistake if he or any other of my hon. Friends were to assume, as a starting point, that in this situation Mr. Warren and Mr. Tomlinson were behaving as good trade unionists would normally behave. Secondly, my hon. Friend's view seems to be based on the fact that what is or is not guilt, or what is or is not an appropriate sentence, should be debated between him and me or some other hon. Member and me on the Floor of the House.

I am not asking my right hon. Friend to rejudge this case. My question relates to the cause of the affray and the fact that in this industry, which is one of the most fragmented in the country, things have been seriously at fault from the point of view of danger and filth. It is one of the most accident-prone industries in the world. The cause of bad industrial relations has existed for many years and no action has been taken by any Government to remove that cause. Will my right hon. Friend take a look at the bad industrial relations and consider why the real guilty parties—the faceless men on the Conservative benches who were in office at the time of the affray, and the bad employers—were not in the box to be judged at the same time?

I am sure that in this industry—perhaps particularly in this industry—and in some others we would all wish to see an improvement in industrial relations. We would certainly not wish to endorse the record of the Conservative Party on the subject. There is no dispute between my hon. Friends and me on that. That fact, however—and actions to deal with the "lump" have been proposed—does not alter the fact that in individual cases it must be the rôle of the courts and not of the executive to judge what has happened.

I fully appreciate the unwillingness of the Home Secretary to comment on individual cases. However, does he not think it would be helpful to make clear to certain people in the House and outside that these men were convicted not of unlawful picketing but of terrorising and intimidating fellow workmen by what I think was described in the courts as "a display of wanton violence".

These men were convicted of three offences, one of which was quashed on a technical ground on appeal. The other two, one of which was for conspiracy, were upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is much better that in replying to these questions I should endeavour to give the facts in as neutral a manner as possible. I do not propose to rejudge, and I do not wish to put myself in the position of rejudging, issues which have been before the courts. That means two things. First, I am not willing to put myself into conflict with the courts on individual cases. Secondly, I do not think it appropriate to use the Floor of the House to make pronouncements which might be prejudicial to the interests of the two people concerned.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake an investigation into the conduct of the police, since they were present throughout the whole of the picketing which we have heard about today? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the war-time coalition Government released three miners imprisoned under the notorious Order 1305 in almost identical circumstances? Does my right hon. Friend accept that any violence in the building industry is due to the appalling lack of safety standards, often brought about by the use of the "lump", against which these UCATT members were organising a strike?

No, Sir. I would not propose to introduce an inquiry into the police in matters which happened two years ago. If complaints had been made they would have fallen to be investigated under the Section 49 procedure which, as the House probably knows, I do not regard as totally satisfactory and which we are, with the agreement of the whole House, endeavouring to reform. We have to apply the law as it stands at present.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government side of the House are concerned about the length of the sentences and welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will ensure that there is a review of the law on conspiracy, but that many Members on these benches as well as on the benches opposite would view with grave dismay any attempt by himself to intervene with the due process of law, especially when no new evidence was available between the time of the hearing in the Court of Appeal and any action proposed to him?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his forthright statement. In my view, review of the sentences is a matter for the Parole Board to which the Lord Chief Justice, in his judgment in the Court of Appeal, specifically commended consideration of the matter. This is in accordance with the due process of law, and this is how I think we should proceed.

However compassionate one may wish to be, does not the weakness of the questions lie in the suggestion that the men should be released because they are trade unionists? Are not all men equal before the law? Is it not a fact that, whether a man is a stockbroker or a trade unionist, it is repugnant to the concept of English law that any privilege should be accorded to a particular class of person?

With respect to the hon. Member, I think that he must have prepared that question before today's exchanges, because although, as he and the House are aware, I have not agreed with every nuance of some of my hon. Friends, I have not heard any of them say that these men should be treated specially because they are trade unionists and for no other reason. The arguments which I have not been able to accept have been much more specifically directed than that.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is because many of us feel that the case of the Shrewsbury pickets is a travesty of British justice that we continue to press him on this issue? We very much regret his decision not to intervene. Is there anything further we can do to make him change his mind?

No, Sir. I am not against political campaigns; I have engaged in many of them myself. But I must tell my hon. Friend—and this will cause no surprise—that in my view there would be no worse basis for changing—which I have no intention of doing—a decision on a matter of this sort than in response to a political campaign.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is Government policy that the recommendation about radio transmission to North Northumberland made in paragraph 106 of the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting Coverage should await implementation until after the Annan Committee has reported.

This recommendation does not call for submission to the Annan Committee. Implementation depends on the priority accorded to it in relation to other claims on the BBC's resources.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the very ambiguous statement of his hon. Friend on 21st November. Will he recognise and represent to the BBC that my constituents have been deprived of all local and regional news on radio for nearly two years and that, just as the recommendation of the Crawford Committee was seen as a priority by the committee, so it must be seen by the Government and the BBC?

The hon. Gentleman refers to his constituents in general. I understand that about 4,000 people out of 28,000 people in the area are affected. However, I take his point, and I think that the BBC takes it. It is, however, a matter for the BBC and for the allocation of resources within the BBC. I cannot pretend that in present straitened circumstances it will feel that it is a very high priority.

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the straitened circumstances of the BBC. Will he draw to the attention of the BBC the fact that it can save a considerable sum of money by not spending about £635 on sending to each Member of the House a copy of its annual report, plus, as far as I can calculate, over £150 in postage?

I am sure that that matter will be noted by the BBC.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the Maxwell Stamp Report on hackney carriages.

Two of the committee's recommendations, on compellable hirings at Heathrow and more stringent control over signs carried on unlicensed vehicles, have already been implemented. We are now considering, following extensive consultations, what further action can be taken.

I thank the hon. Lady for her reply, which shows a slight advance on similar replies given in the last four years. However, will she assure the House that her Department will give no more contracts for hire to mini-cars, which are the subject of serious allegations in the Maxwell Stamp Report?

This is one of the important and slightly controversial aspects of the Maxwell Stamp Report which involved discussions with the Commissioner of Police, the trade, the Greater London Council and other Government Departments. I assure the hon. Gentleman that discussions are taking place. I have already had discussions with the Transport Committee of the GLC.

Is the hon. Lady satisfied that the GLC, in particular, is dealing with this matter with the necessary urgency?

The GLC is not very willing to take on policy responsibility unless the police continue with the licensing work. It was, however, pointed out that in the Government's view licensing and policy control were linked and should remain so. We are trying to find a practical solution to the deadlock.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give figures and other possible details on the numbers of persons excluded from Great Britain since the passing of the anti-terrorist Act.

I have signed 10 exclusion orders, three of which are against persons who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and who are therefore excluded from the United Kingdom. Notice of the making of an order has been served on five of the 10 people. Two have been removed to the Irish Republic. Three have made representations. I have reconsidered the cases of two of these three, and I have decided not to revoke the exclusion orders I made. Both are being removed to Northern Ireland this afternoon. The case of the third is still under consideration. Of the other five people against whom exclusion orders have been made, three are understood to be outside the United Kingdom and two have been charged with murder. The orders made against these last two have therefore been revoked.

Will my right hon. Friend accept—I am sure he does—that those of us who have been concerned over the years with the question of civil liberties will want to know from time to time how the Act is working? It has six months to run. At the end of that six months the House will have to consider whether it should renew the Act. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to inform the House periodically of the working of the Act? As there is no appeal machinery in being—he rejected that idea during the debates on the Bill— what extra assistance, which he hinted at, is being contemplated?

On the main part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the House will review the Act—and I would wish it to do so—if and when an order has to be laid for its renewal in six months, when we shall be able to consider the matter with an open mind in accordance with developments.

As one of my constituents is the subject of an order, will the Home Secretary say roughly how long he expects the intervals to be between the time when notice is served on a person, the time when he sees the adjudicator and the time when the final decision is taken?

I hope that these intervals will be as short as possible. There is no desire to hold a person in custody in these circumstances. I told the House that of the three cases concerned I have been able to reach a decision upon two, and hope to reach a decision upon the third in the reasonably near future. I would not wish to put an exact number of days upon it, but I do not think that anyone will suggest that it is an unduly long-drawn-out procedure, in view of the report which I have been able to give the House.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the extremely disturbing report in today's issue of The Guardian alleging physical assault by warders upon six persons held in Winson Green on suspected acts of terrorism in Birmingham? Will he announce immediate steps to investigate these disturbing allegations, preferably in public and independently?

I saw the report in The Guardian today. An investigation of the incident is already being conducted by an assistant chief constable of another authority, and I shall await the report. As my hon. Friend knows, in present circumstances fully independent inquiries, as opposed to inquiries by an independent force, can be held only under Section 32, and only two have been held. That is very unusual procedure. I shall of course consider the matter urgently when I receive the report from the police, but I do not want to give the impression that I think it would be here appropriate to have a Section 32 inquiry or a public inquiry of that sort.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the establishment of the police in the West Drayton area; to what extent it is under strength; and what steps he is taking to remedy the situation.

On 1st December the Metropolitan Police establishment in the West Drayton area was 134, and the deficiency was 52. Police pay in London has recently been substantially increased, and recruitment publicity is being maintained at a high level.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the establishment of the Metropolitan Police in the London borough of Hillingdon as a whole was 240 under strength as at 1st December? Will she, therefore, consider the desirability of supplementing the force by the recruitment of special constables if that is possible? Is the hon. Lady further aware that my constituents in the West Drayton area have been sorely tried by many acts of petty crime in recent months for which no person has so far been apprehended? Does the hon. Lady know that the West Drayton Cricket Club has suffered three burglaries, for which no person has been apprehended? Will she take urgent action to make sure that there are more police constables on the beat in this area, so that my constituents can see that the Home Office is doing something about what to them is an important local matter?

As I said in the debate on the police, everything possible is being done to recruit more police. Fortunately, it was possible to agree an increased London allowance of £275 with effect from 1st April last, in addition to recent national pay increases. It is not yet possible to estimate the total effect on recruitment that this might have. As I say, publicity is being maintained at a high level to recruit more police.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Metropolitan Police is more acutely below establishment than is any other police force in the country? In the London borough of Ealing it is sometimes necessary for pedestrian crossings outside schools on major roads to be controlled by police officers but the police, reluctantly, cannot accept the responsibility because they have insufficient men. There has also been an increase in the number of accidents. Will my hon. Friend take this into account in her endeavours to increase the establishment of the Metropolitan Police?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. Special efforts are being made to recruit more traffic wardens, women police and cadets into the Metropolitan force.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider a review of the regulations governing entry into the United Kingdom by Commonwealth citizens from Australia and New Zealand in order to facilitate access.

No, Sir. Our policy is not to discriminate in relation to the admission of Commonwealth citizens on grounds of race, colour, religion or country of origin.

Is the Minister aware that his decision will be received with great regret by non-patriates who have had the opportunity over the years of spending an extended working holiday of 18 or 24 months in this country? Although that opportunity is freely available to first generation Australians and New Zealanders, it is not available to third and fourth generation Australians and New Zealanders. Will the hon. Gentleman consider making reciprocal arrangements, so that people will feel welcome in what they regard as their mother country?

I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in what he says, but I will look at this. I think that the working holiday concession is available to any Commonwealth citizen irrespective of whether he is first, second, third or fourth generation. So far this year we have allowed 135,000 people in from Australia and refused only 14. From New Zealand we have allowed in 31,000 and refused only three. I doubt whether there is any real reason for complaint.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by many hon. Members as a reiteration of the Government's policy of non-discrimination between black and white members of the Commonwealth? Many of us are disturbed about the way in which the immigration laws are operated against the black citizens of the Commonwealth. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that in any further concessions no special preference will be given to Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else in the white Commonwealth?

I thought I made clear that no special concession is made to one part of the Commonwealth as distinct from any other part. As long as I have anything to do with the matter that will remain the position. We are quite clear that there should be no discrimination in the individual cases which come before us.

The Minister confirmed that the Government are carrying on the previous Government's policy in this respect, in which we support him. While he is rightly concerned with the efficiency of the entry arrangements for people entitled to come here, whether from Australia, New Zealand, the Indian subcontinent, or anywhere else, will he assure the House that the Government will give equal attention to improving the arrangements for keeping out people who are not entitled to come here from any source?

We are continually improving our methods of dealing with illegal immigration. Only last week we announced a change in the regulations concerning the filling in of application forms when people arrive in this country. The changes are designed to increase our checks against illegal immigration. In those circumstances, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has much to complain of.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will order an official police inquiry into the arrest of Mr. Edward Hodgson at South Moor, Stanley, County Durham, on 3rd February 1974.

No, Sir. I understand that the Chief Constable of Durham has already made inquiries into this matter and, in the absence of any formal complaint from Mr. Hodgson, is satisfied that no further action is necessary.

Notwithstanding the views of the chief constable, is my hon. Friend aware that my constituent was arrested for an alleged assault on a youth whom he found with a group of others vandalising his property and who proved to be the son of a police officer? Is my hon. Friend also aware that when the case came up at Durham Crown Court the judge directed the jury to dismiss the case immediately after the presentation of the police evidence, without even awaiting cross-examination?

If my hon. Friend considers that the case requires further investigation and will transmit Mr. Hodgson's complaint through the Home Office, I shall be glad to ask the chief constable for a report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to increase severely the penalties for persons hampering the activities of the police, fire services and other services by malicious or hoax phone calls.

I keep these matters under continuing review, but the powers of the courts are already sufficient. The circumstances of each case will determine what offence may have been committed; but where, for example, there is a threat to destroy or damage property, it will be punishable on conviction on indictment under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with up to 10 years' imprisonment.

If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the penalties, is he equally satisfied with the proportion of hoaxers who are caught and punished?

I am never satisfied with the proportion of people who commit any offence and who are caught. We endeavour to improve the situation the whole time. Where such people are brought before the courts, it is a matter for the courts to decide the penalty. This cuts both ways, as the hon. Lady will know, having listened to earlier exchanges. I am satisfied that the maximum penalties are heavy enough, and if the courts choose to exercise them they can do so.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are no better ways than those which are at present used to catch people who tie up industry with hoax bomb scares and do vast damage to our economy?

If I knew of any better ways, I would advise the police on how to use them. I am sure that the police are doing what they can to deal with the problem—a problem which should not be thought of as funny because of the word "hoax". It can be grave and damaging for the people of this country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given any guidance to police authorities about methods of interrogation of those convicted of or suspected of having committed acts of terrorism.

Chief officers of police are well aware that the recent legislation in no way affects methods of interrogation, but I have arranged for the police to be reminded of this fact.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of those suspected of terrorism have in their possession information which, if available to the security forces, might save the lives of innocent civilians or of the security forces? Will he look again at the recommendations of the majority of the Parker Committee, in paragraphs 35 to 42?

I shall look again at any reports on this matter, but what I have endeavoured to do in the past few weeks, in difficult circumstances, is to give the police additional powers—powers which they have used most effectively. I have done nothing which has not been justified by the situation, and I have sought to preserve the rights of individuals to the greatest extent possible. I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement a few moments ago and his earlier statements on the anti-terrorist legislation are most welcome? When he has demanded extra powers from this House and has obtained them, he has not failed to underline the basic rights of the citizen, and that attitude has been welcomed. When one bears in mind the unfortunate publicity following events in Belfast, one realises that my right hon. Friend's attitude is most constructive and helpful in dealing with these terrible problems.

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. It is important to preserve a balance. Therefore, I have given certain additional powers to the police, but not related to interrogation. It is appropriate to remind my hon. Friend that the rules on interrogation still apply.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to implement the recommendations of the Erroll Committee on liquor licensing.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to similar Questions from a number of hon. Members on 9th December.—[Vol. 883, c. 37.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the 324-page Erroll Report was presented to Parliament two years ago? Since the whole of our licensing system is in a sad state of disarray, will she say when something will be done about the situation?

The House debated the report on 19th October last year. A number of its recommendations, particularly those concerning young people and an extension of the licensing hours, were controversial. The Government need more time to consider the report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of his talks with the broadcasting authorities concerning the appearance of members of the IRA on television.

The broadcasting authorities have said they will take into account the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act as an important new consideration in shaping their policies in this sensitive area.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the broadcasting organisations that whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation before the advent of the anti-terrorist legislation, now that the IRA is proscribed in this country there will be no justification for allowing its members to explain their policies on television?

We debated this subject in the early hours of the morning on the anti-terrorist legislation and heard a powerful speech from the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). I gave my views, which have since been conveyed to the broadcasting authorities. I do not think that any real difficulty remains. We all want to see responsibility without censorship.

asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has now taken the chair at meetings of the NEDC.

I have taken the chair at meetings of the NEDC twice this year and on 24 occasions in all.

Will the Prime Minister say whether the NEDC is interested in the energy aspects, and especially the international aspects, of monetary control?

The council at present is giving high priority to the question of investment with special reference to the objectives of investment, firm by firm, in public and private industry. It is at present working out its programme for 1975 and the whole House will appreciate that all the work coming before the NEDC is dominated, as yesterday's debate showed, by the international aspects of energy and the financial consequences of the world energy situation.

Has the Prime Minister any plans to meet the miners?

No, Sir; I have no immediate plans to meet the mine-workers. I understand that the executive of the NUM met yesterday and took a decision on the situation. We had better wait and see how things develop.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his chairmanship of the NEDC gives him unique authority on economic affairs? Will he take the opportunity, early in the new year, to broadcast to the nation setting out in plain and stark detail the economic situation, the remedies and the sacrifices which are necessary? will he tell the people what is expected of them? They are waiting to hear.

I have done so, and I shall do so again whenever I consider it to be desirable.

What action do the Government propose to take to deal with breaches of the social contract?

This matter was fully debated yesterday. I should think that the Leader of the Opposition, who answered none of the questions put to him yesterday, ought occasionally to pay tribute to the large number of cases settled within the social contract, instead of going nit-picking round the place trying to find every case where it has gone wrong.

Since the Prime Minister was not in the House last night to hear the speech of the Secretary of State for Employment, he will not know that his right hon. Friend did not answer this question. Therefore, will the Prime Minister now say what action the Government are taking to deal with breaches of the social contract?

In every case, whether before or after the event, there is a danger that the guidelines are not being followed. These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or other Ministers who are concerned with the particular industries involved. The Leader of the Opposition was asked yesterday what he would do. The only alternative was clear —namely, a return to statutory policies, which would once again produce the three-day working week.

So the Government will do nothing?

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with co-ordination between the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary in the procedures for the termination of the Simonstown Agreement.

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Foreign Secretary has spoken of discussing the termination of the Simonstown Agreement, that the Secretary of State for Defence has spoken of negotiating the end of the Simonstown Agreement, and that there is a great deal more than a semantic difference between these two prospects? Will he tell us which procedure will be adopted, when it will be started, and when he expects it to be concluded?

The matter is quite simple. It has been explained before, but I shall explain it again. We see no need for the Simonstown Agreeement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, even before the announcement of our proposals on defence, said that, if necessary, it could be left to wither on the vine. The position, so far as we can tell from the legal interpretation, is that the Simonstown Agreement exists until it is ended by mutual agreement. If the South African Government insist on that position we shall enter into negotiations to bring it to an end, but we do not now propose to regard it as operative. We have no obligations under the agreement.

The Prime Minister will certainly regret those words about the Simonstown Agreement, since there is perceptible evidence that the tragic logjam of attitudes in Southern Africa is breaking up. Is this the right time to increase the degree of social and political ostracism of South Africa?

It is not a question of the degree of ostracism of South Africa. We very much welcome what has been happening there—which is the result of many hon. Members on this side of the House pressing the points that they have done over the last 10 years against votes by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on Rhodesia, on South Africa and on arms for South Africa. The South African Government are now forming a new view on where their interests lie. I welcome that they are doing that. I hope that it will lead, as has been foreshadowed in the statement by the South African Prime Minister, to substantial changes. I am referring not only to Rhodesia and apartheid, but to Namibia. We welcome the changes that are taking place, but the Simonstown Agreement has nothing to do with them.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage everyone who is able to participate in a social contract which will include conservation of scarce resources, collection and recycling of waste materials, work within local communities, and personal involvement in a national effort to combine the fight against inflation with progress towards a fairer and more co-operative society.

Yes, Sir. This is in fact already the Government's policy, as set out in Cmnd. 5727, War on Waste —a Policy for Reclamation. My hon. Friend will be aware of the announcement by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for the Environment on Monday that, as a first step towards achieving the objects set out in that paper, the Government have established the Waste Management Advisory Council, which held its first meeting yesterday.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many people are anxious to help the country's survival effort and would welcome his initiative in setting out a practical programme in which they could participate? Will he consider making a television broadcast, launching such a national self-help project, and also urgently examine any departmental red tape or other factors which may prevent its success and get them removed?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of this matter. It is important both environmentally and in terms of our balance of payments. I think that my hon. Friend will have seen in the White Paper the enormous figures involved in the loss of foreign exchange due to the fact that materials are wasted in this country.

Referring to scarce resources, I should like to ask the Prime Minister specifically about oil. Is he aware that we welcome the conservation measures announced by his right hon. Friend, but that they will save only £350 million and will still leave this country with a bill for £2,000 million for imported oil? Since the Government have rejected straightforward rationing and prefer to have rationing by the purse, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to the possibility of a two-tier pricing system, so that there may be a limited allocation for people who have to travel to work, particularly in rural areas, to ensure that they are not penalised by the increase in price?

The last point, which is important though not original, is being considered with other proposals. My right hon. Friend, in his announcement of these matters, made it clear that it was an interim proposal. Indeed, I am sure that he and all others concerned will welcome suggestions from the right hon. Gentleman and anyone else in the country about these matters. The one mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman is important.

Is the Prime Minister aware that recent difficulties in the marketing of waste paper have proved a discouragement to local authorities and voluntary organisations which have been proceeding with enthusiasm in that area? Is he further aware that Ministers in the Department of the Environment have not responded to a proposal that the Government could help by making long-term marketing arrangements for the disposal of waste paper, and for storage in times of plenty, so that there may be an even flow and proper marketing arrangements?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive suggestion. All the facts set out, which cover a period of years and came to a head in the White Paper, suggest a whole series of frustrations and of people leaving things to be done by others. There is frustration for people who save paper which is not collected by the local authority, and the local authority is frustrated because there are no means for disposing of it. All these matters are important. That is why we have tried to get them together in this Waste Management Advisory Council. What the hon. Gentleman said is of importance. If he has any specific proposals to make, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be happy to receive them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the German Chancellor.

Mr. Skinner—Question No. 4.

Where is he?

I hope that the House will realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not here because of the death of his father, a few hours ago. I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen will not pursue those interruptions any further.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the President of France.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 17th December.—[Vol. 883, c. 399.]

Does my right hon. Friend believe that, as a result of the private talks and the subsequent summit talks, the prospects of Britain's remaining in the Common Market are that much brighter? Will he further restate the position that, if so, he will make recommendations to the British people to accept the terms of renegotiation?

My hon. Friend will be aware that I dealt with this matter very fully both in my statement and in answer to questions in the House on Monday. I welcome the progress that was made on the budgetary question. That is still to be ratified and turned into concrete proposals as a result of what we then decided.

Will the House of Commons be given an opportunity to make its own judgment on the results of the Prime Minister's renegotiations before there is either a Labour Party conference or recourse to the ballot box?

I have no doubt that when the renegotiations are complete the matter will be reported to the House. Indeed, the House is already spending a considerable amount of time, by day and by night, on those questions. Of course there will be a report to the House, and it will be for the House to decide whether it intends to debate the matter. It will take somewhat longer before any recommendations are made to the country, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall make recommendations to the country. We shall not tell the country that we are going to take a particular decision only on the basis of the consent of the people and then take a decision rejecting any attempt to get their consent.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Common Market summit meeting.

I did so on 16th December, Sir.—[Vol. 883, c. 1121–24.]

Will the Prime Minister accept that it may be of some help to him in his negotiations, and of help to those on both sides of the Common Market argument, if we can have an early announcement from him of the form that his proposed consultation of the British people is to take? Is there any valid reason why an announcement of this should wait upon the conclusion of the negotiations and the Government's own decision upon them?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of making this clear as quickly as possible. There is no requirement that the negotiations must be completed before a recommendation is discussed. We have still to discuss this matter, and I agree that it is important to make a statement to the House at the earliest possible moment so that the House can consider it.

Once the Government resolve to recommend the renegotiated terms, will the Prime Minister revert to established practice and require of his Cabinet and ministerial colleagues either their acquiescence in collective responsibility or their resignations?

I shall consider these matters when the time comes, but I shall not expect any degree of consistency on any question from my hon. Friend.

Will the Prime Minister say whether, during these discussions or at any time, the question has been gone into as to the matters arising on a determination of the Treaty of Accession at the insistence of one contracting party, and of the associated obligations involved?

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking whether this matter has been discussed at the summit meeting or at other meetings, I can tell him that it was not discussed at the meeting I attended. I think that, almost certainly, the answer is that it has not been discussed at any time. We are negotiating with real intent to try to solve the problem in front of us. We have made some progress. We have not, obviously, started to discuss with our colleagues what would happen if the negotiations were to fail.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that continued uncertainty on the question whether we are in or out of the Common Market—

We are in.

The real mood of the people is that they wish to come to a decision much more rapidly than my right hon. Friend has said. Will he comment on the suggestion that the uncertainty has a distinct bearing on many of our economic difficulties at the present time?

I said on Monday, and I said in Paris, that it is in the highest possible interests of both this country and the eight other members that these matters be resolved as quickly as possible. It will be of great advantage to us all, but my hon. Friend, who in the course of two elections will no doubt have studied the manifesto on which we fought the elections, will realise that these are important questions for us. They also raise matters of great importance to the other members of the Common Market, and I am sure my hon. Friend would be the first to condemn us if we had a purely perfunctory discussion about them instead of going into them in the real depth in which they are being discussed at present.

Is the Prime Minister saying that collective Cabinet responsibility is merely a matter for consideration? The Prime Minister may not be able to support his own Chief Whip, but cannot he stand up for collective Cabinet responsibility?

Wherever else I should look for guidance about collective responsibility, it would not be to the right hon. Gentleman's Front Bench. I have just had to ask one of my hon. Friends whether half the people sitting around the right hon. Gentleman are themselves Members of Parliament, and I am assured they are.

rose

Order. I think it is high time we went on to business questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put it on record, and I should like the House to realise, that I consider the Prime Minister's petulance to be a tribute to my only virtue, which is consistency, particularly on the European issue.