asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement about illegal immigration.

Yes, Sir. Firm action is fully justified to prevent illegal immigration and to remove those who attempt to enter illegally. Such action has my full support. It is particularly important to ensure that those who seek to organise illegal entry are firmly dealt with. Heavy penalties are available to the courts. Equally, the powers and the machinery exist, and are used fairly but firmly, to deal with people who do not enter unlawfully but misrepresented their intentions in gaining entry and fail to leave by the end of their permitted stay.

Is the Home Secretary aware that we welcome his words about firm action being used against an evil which causes dangerous disquiet, added to by the seemingly endless influx of dependants and passport holders? Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the police and others concerned have sufficient resources to deal with this? While welcoming what he said about the special interest of the immigrant community, may I ask whether he is satisfied that he is receiving full co-operation in dealing with something which can poison relations between different ethnic groups?

The immigration service has established special units which work in close collaboration together with the police. There is close co-operation between the police and other services, and there is also international co-operation. The police have the resources they require, and manpower in the service has increased very substantially in the past year or two. The police have the powers and, broadly speaking, the resources they require.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we all support him fully in his efforts on illegal immigration, there is a tendency in the country and in some parts of this House to lump together all immigration and to give the impression that all immigration is illegal? This tendency has led to a lot of the racialist outbreaks which have taken place recently.

One must draw a very sharp distinction between those who are entitled to come here—United Kingdom passport holders with no other citizenship, and dependants of those who are already legally settled here—and those who enter illegally. If I had one mild criticism of the question put by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), it was that he seemed to introduce an element of confusion between legal immigration and illegal immigration. They are in completely different categories and it is important that we should keep them so.

Has the Home Secretary's attention been drawn to an article by Chapman Pincher in the Daily Express on 19th June? Does he appreciate that stories of immigration officers being ordered to ease entry run counter to the remarks he has made in the House today, and which I fully support? Will he make it perfectly clear that the statement, attributed to the Home Office, that these stories are without foundation has his personal support?

The article by Chapman Pincher in the Daily Express on 19th June contained an allegation of a circular instruction issued to immigration officers that immigrants were not to be rejected even if they had bogus papers. There is no truth whatever in this allegation. There is no such circular and no such instruction.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the editors of mass circulation newspapers seem to show an abysmal ignorance of the immigration rules as drawn up by the Opposition when they were in Government? Is it not a fact that the basic rules are determined by the 1971 Immigration Act, which still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of equality between blacks and whites? Does he agree that in the way they sensationalise these stories the newspaper editors show an abysmal ignorance and that it is about time they woke up?

The editorials vary between the mass circulation and the minority circulation newspapers. Certainly a great deal of comment does not seem to be based upon an understanding of the immigration rules, which are basically those set up by the 1971 Act. The only substantial change I have made, under pressure from both sides, related to the spouses of British women or women with a right to reside in this country.

Will the Home Secretary tell the House whether he accepts that part of Mr. Hawley's report which says that there has been, and is, widespread illegal immigration from the Indian sub-continent?

There is another Question on the Order Paper which relates specifically to Mr. Hawley's report. I would prefer to deal with the matter there. I do not think that Mr. Hawley was specifically relating his comment to this issue. I do not mind reports being published. I believe in open government, but there are factors in having to comment on a particular piece of advice as opposed to other advice which would put civil servants and Ministers in considerable difficulty. I think that Mr. Hawley's remarks were mainly directed to the possible size of the pool in the Indian subcontinent and not to the current flow to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester on the violence in connection with the October 1974 General Election in Manchester, Blackley, the distribution of leaflets without an imprint, contrary to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1949, and with regard to the disruption by the National Front of the meeting at UMIST held by the National Council for Civil Liberties.

I have received reports from the chief constable on these incidents, on which it appears to me that the police took appropriate action.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Greater Manchester area there are very strong feelings that the forces of intolerance have been treated very favourably by the law enforcement bodies? What steps does my right hon. Friend propose to take to allay those feelings?

If my hon. Friend and others say that there is a feeling, I must recognise that it exists. But I cannot find, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, who was called in at all relevant stages, did not find, any slackness on the part of the police. Clearly it must be for the Director to decide whether action is taken in particular instances. After the 1974 General Election campaigns, prosecutions were undertaken. One offender was found guilty and fined, and two persons were brought before the courts but were found not guilty. I could not, and would not, seek to control what the courts say when they are asked to give a verdict.

There is widespread concern all over the country at the activities of the National Front. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people now feel that whenever the National Front appears in public, however much it claims to be law-abiding and non-violent, laws are broken and violence occurs, and that, therefore, the National Front's campaigns and demonstrations should be banned? Will he seriously consider that? It has been suggested to me by certain organisations, and I therefore hope he will tell us that he will seriously consider such action in the interests of racial harmony and peace.

I wish very much to promote the interests of racial harmony and peace and to preserve those of free speech and civil liberties. I detest and deplore the doctrines of the National Front. If it or any other organisation operates outside the law, it should be subject to the full rigour of the law. However, it is for those who have to operate the law—I am not a prosecuting authority, still less a judicial authority—to decide how the law should be applied in certain circumstances.

"One down, one million to go."

Is the Home Secretary aware that there is widespread concern and anxiety about the so-called National Council for Civil Liberties, which does not appear to have much concern for the liberty of English people but is rather a semi-revolutionary organisation?

The National Council for Civil Liberties often sends me its views. I consider them carefully and treat them with the respect I think they deserve. Everyone is entitled to express his view, even the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who does so quite frequently.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress the Government have made in establishing comprehensive community projects.

As was indicated in a reply given to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) on 7th April, the development of comprehensive community programmes as a means of tackling the problems of urban deprivation more effectively is a long-term process. Our Department is now working with Birmingham District Council and the Institute of Local Government Studies, Birmingham University, to establish a framework for the development of comprehensive community programmes.

Does the Minister agree that if the comprehensive community programmes are to be a success the people in the areas in which the programmes are based must have power over the decision-making process and control over their own environment? Will he therefore see that each of the programmes has a neighbourhood council based in the locality and that it is monitored properly so that the people can be given real power over their own destiny?

I think that the purpose of working out these studies is to decide in what way the comprehensive community programmes can best be fulfilled. For us to say from the centre that such and such a pattern should be adopted by particular localities is exactly contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said about each locality having power over its own destiny.

In the present situation, does not the Minister of State agree that it is not enough for us merely to condemn racialism and racial discrimination—which I hope we all do—but that there is also a need for a stronger attack than hitherto on urban deprivation, from which whites and blacks alike are suffering.

I join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that, in spite of indications to the contrary, all of us in this House condemn racial discrimination. One of the problems about urban deprivation, however, is not merely the amount of money which must be devoted to it in total but how the money can be most effectively used. Many of the problems have been intractable, and that is why a study is being made of how best we can devote our resources as well as of the resources we devote.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the remission of sentence lost by Mr. Dennis Warren in the course of his dispute with the prison authorities over the wearing of prison regulation footwear has since been restored to him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Dennis Warren to be released from prison.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet received the latest special review of the Parole Board in regard to Mr. Des Warren; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Warren, who has had one special parole review and is not eligible for a further routine review, is due for release on 3rd September this year. This prospective release date takes into account the restoration of 21 days' remission lost in July 1975. Mr. Warren was originally punished for refusing to wear prison shoes, but in the light of later medical advice this award was withdrawn.

I am grateful for that reply. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Mr. Warren asked for a medical examination when his dispute with the prison authorities about the wearing of prison shoes first developed? Why was there such a lengthy delay in finally granting this man a medical examination for which he asked? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what progress the Department has made in investigating a complaint by the prisoner against Prison Officer Pendal, who has made certain mendacious and damaging allegations against him and which this prison officer has since repeated on being transferred to Leicester Prison, to which Mr. Warren was also transferred?

There was some delay in the medical investigation. I shall look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend. The matter was fully investigated by the Prison Department, and Mr. Warren had 28 days' remission restored. Unfortunately, this did not make as big a difference as it might have done because he had been charged with 33 offences against discipline, 31 of which were found proved, with a resulting 17 awards of forfeiture of remission. That is why the one case was only a relatively small part of the matter. However, it shows that the Prison Department handled the matter with detachment. It restored the remission in that case. As far as the allegation against a particular prison officer is concerned, I have investigated it thoroughly and have written to my hon. Friend and several other hon. Members.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is now crystal clear that he has successfully ignored the wishes of the trade union and labour movements in this matter and that we are, therefore, asking not for anything he might regard as a concession but only that Des Warren should not be treated worse than the average prisoner? Is my right hon. Friend aware that by the time he is released Des Warren will have served a considerably longer than average proportion of his sentence? Can he explain why, if Mr. Warren's accusations against members of the prison staff have been proved untrue, they did not result in the normal consequences for him?

It appeared that my hon. Friend was anxious to bring further charges against Mr. Warren in the latter part of her question. I am anxious, and I should have thought that people who have followed this rather long saga would be anxious, to see a continuation of Mr. Warren's recent good behaviour, which, if there is no further trouble, will lead to his release on 3rd September. It will be possible for him to apply to the governor and/or the board of visitors for restoration of more remission in early August. I have not endeavoured to ignore anybody's views. They have been sufficiently strongly expressed that the option to ignore them has not been open to me. I have been consistently concerned to uphold the rule of law and to ensure that Mr. Warren should be treated no less, but no more, favourably than a normal prisoner. If my hon. Friend asks why he has lost more remission than the normal prisoner, the answer lies in the 31 charges which have been proved against him.

None of us wishes to prolong this saga, but is not some further explanation necessary? Has not Mr. Warren now served 780 days in prison, which represents 71 per cent. of his original sentence, and on the basis of past averages is not this an unprecedented situation? Is it not the case that Mr. Warren was given a deterrent sentence of three years' imprisonment on a charge which would not now exist if the Law Commission's views were accepted? Is it not the case that a charge of conspiracy to intimidate would no longer be applicable, and should not my right hon. Friend now make a statement on the situation?

The Law Commission's report, upon which the Government propose to ask Parliament to legislate, makes clear that even if its recommendations had been implemented Mr. Warren would still have been liable to the same sentence because of the additional charges brought against him. It is not relevant to compare the total sentence served by Mr. Warren with the average served by other prisoners unless one takes into account the number of offences with which Mr. Warren has been charged. That number is far above average and has as much chance of being unprecedented as does the proportion of his sentence served by Mr. Warren. Mr. Warren's pattern of behaviour has changed substantially. I hope that this will continue, and I believe that it would be in the best interests of those who are very concerned about this case if they did not continue to believe that they could get Mr. Warren out of prison by political pressure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many service tenancies are in the gift of his Department; what are the rules govErning security of tenure for such tenancies; and what modifications have been or are proposed to be made to these rules to bring them into conformity with the views of Her Majesty's Government as expressed in relation to agricultural service tenancies.

The great majority of the 11,500 dwellings owned by the Home Office are not rented but are occupied by members of the prison service without charge under their conditions of service, which also include an obligation to vacate the quarters when required to do so. There is no intention to change these conditions.

Is the Minister aware that there is strong resentment in the agriculture industry, which produces the food of the nation, that it should be treated under different standards from those applied by the Government to themselves? Is he aware that it is considered that this action is being taken in agriculture because the Government, who do not allow the same standards to apply to themselves, are not affected?

Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, the Bill is warmly welcomed by that section of the agriculture industry represented by tenants of farmers. Opposition Members may not agree, but they can express their own views—preferably from a standing position if they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. Where the Government are affected in agriculture tenancies, my right hon. Friend has already said that we shall act within the spirit of the Bill.

Since so many of these houses are occupied by officers in the prison service, can the Miniser give an assurance that they will not be caught by the notorious provisions of the Finance Bill which seek to impose taxation on those who occupy such houses?

The hon. Gentleman must put down a separate Question on that matter at the correct time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the BBC.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next proposes to meet the Director-General of the BBC.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

While I am always happy to meet the Chairman or the Director-General of the BBC, I have no immediate plans to do so.

At their next meeting, will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Chairman of the BBC that he should reject the advice of Mrs. Mary Whitehouse, who is now swinging from porn to patriotism and has recently said that television coverage of the horrors of modern war, particularly in Vietnam, weakened the will for national freedom? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this kind of censorship would suppress the truth, whereas honest reporting on television and in the Press will help the will for peace and disarmament?

I do not believe in censorship, and I certainly believe in honest reporting, but I shall not suggest to the Chairman of the BBC that he should reject Mrs. Whitehouse's advice, because I might be put under pressure on a future occasion to suggest that he accepts her advice. It is much better, in accordance with our normal practice, that the chairman should make up his own mind about advice he receives.

When the Home Secretary meets the Chairman of the BBC, will he discuss the early implementation of the decision made by the Government in November 1974 to establish the fourth television channel in Wales as a national Welsh channel on which Welsh language programmes will be given time at peak viewing hours? Is he aware of the incalculable damage being done to the Welsh language and culture among children and young people by the present situation? Is he aware that an ancient culture is in danger of mortal injury?

I am aware of the nature of the reports we have had which command broad support from the Government, subject to the overwhelming pressure on resources at present. I am prepared to discuss this matter with the chairman, subject to the resources which the Government are able to make available. It is an appropriate subject of discussion with the chairman because it is a matter of resources and not of programme content.

When my right hon. Friend has the opportunity of meeting the Chairman or Director-General of the BBC, will he make it abundantly plain to either of those gentlemen that the Government have no intention of approving any increase in licence fees this or next year, and that when the British people are being asked to accept wage restraint they feel affronted by the rumours and stories being put about concerning the BBC's claims for increased licence fees?

The BBC has not put in any application. I am not sure that I can go quite as far as my hon. Friend, but when I announced the increases on 29th January 1975 I made it clear that the level of licence fees was intended to last for at least two years. That remains the position. The BBC has not yet made any application for an increase.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Chairman of the BBC if he will direct his attention to the problem of my constituents, who do not like receiving their television programmes in Welsh, which they find totally unintelligible, the Welsh programmes frequently interrupting national English programmes? This is a scandal and should be put right.

Yes, I am aware that there is a certain cross-Bristol Channel problem that operates both ways as regards Welsh and English television.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to refer the additional member system as recommended by the Hansard Society to any Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform.

The Hansard Society has made an interesting proposal, but I cannot yet say whether it will be within the terms of reference of the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from whether it is within the terms of reference, there are many people in the Houses of Parliament and outside who are concerned at the way the Government appear to be dragging their feet in not setting up this Speaker's Conference? Will he expedite the matter?

Yes, we should like to get on and get the Speaker's Conference set up. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct about the Government dragging their feet. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made suggestions to other party leaders on the terms of reference. The replies have been received, but only fairly recently. It is a matter for the Prime Minister, in consultation with the leaders of the other parties, to determine the terms of reference. I agree that there are a number of matters of ongoing business, apart from wider and more controversial issues, on which it is important to have the Speaker's Conference reconvened. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it will be convenient to you that that should be done at a fairly early stage.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this system of voting is not recommended by the Hansard Society or by the commission appointed by it, and that the Hansard Society takes no responsibility for the commission's report?

Quite so. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that correction. As an ex-Chairman of the Fabian Society—I believe that my right hon. Friend may be as well—I should be aware that bodies can sponsor inquiries without taking any responsibility for the nature of their results.

Apart from the rather more esoteric remedies that are proposed by one source or another, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that action is urgently necessary by reason of the gross disparities of electorates thrown up by the present system, as evidenced by his Department's answer to my Question a fortnight ago?

With respect—this is most exceptional for the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I do not think that his supplementary question bears directly upon the Question or upon a Speaker's Conference. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the disparities which arise within the time scale which the House has laid down in which the Boundary Commission should do its work. In fact, the commission is doing its work within that time scale. It is moving towards the earliest possible date within the span allowed to it. One of its objectives will be precisely to correct such disparities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of the recent representations he has received from residents living in the vicinity of Norman Park, Bromley, he will now rescind his provisional approval of the London borough of Bromley's proposed byelaws in respect of the flying of model aircraft in the parks and commons and reconsider the imposition of a total ban on flying of such machines, as orginally requested by Bromley Council.

Consultations between the Home Office and the council about alternatives to a total ban on the flying of power-driven model aircraft have recently ended without agreement. If the council will now make a byelaw in such terms as it thinks right, we shall consider it afresh in accordance with the statutory procedure.

I thank the hon. Lady for that answer. When she considers the byelaw, will she bear in mind that this matter has been drifting on for a long time—almost two years—and that local residents are at the end of their tether, especially during weekends, when they are subjected to almost incessant and intolerable noise, as well as the risk of physical danger, from these machines, which often fly at between 60 and 100 m.p.h.? In these circumstances, does the hon. Lady agree that the request from Bromley Council for a total ban is perfectly reasonable? Should she not bow to local opinion on this matter?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of the strong feelings that are held by some of his constituents about the dangers of the unrestricted flying which now goes on. Those feelings will be taken into consideration if the council formally submits a byelaw for consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about police photographers being present at working-class demonstrations; and whether all films have been destroyed when protests have been made by members of the public involved.

Since March 1974 I have received representations about the presence of police photographers at five demonstrations. No photographs were taken at two of these demonstrations; a further film was taken solely for police training purposes; the photographs taken at the other two demonstrations were destroyed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have reached a sorry state—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—when police photographers are sent to a little place called Bletchley, where about 50 women were marching on May Day about cuts in public expenditure? Is he entirely happy about the retention of film used outside Downing Street when decent Brazilian citizens, along with British people, were demonstrating against President Geisel? Does he not realise that the retention of that film might mean that those protesting against that oppressive regime could be marked for life if they dared to return to Brazil?

If my hon. Friend will consider the matter calmly, as I know he mostly does—[Interruption.] The increase in the number of complaints received has been very small over the past two years. I agree that the police should exercise restraint in these matters, and that it can be foolish to take such photographs in certain circumstances, but I have no indication of any abuse. Let me assure my hon. Friend that as regards the Brazilian demonstration there was no question of the film passing outside the control of the Metropolitan Police. [Interruption.] The Metropolitan Police have the right to take a film and to use it for training purposes. I have no statutory power, even if I thought it wise, which I do not, to say that the police—[Interruption.] I have no statutory power, even if I thought it wise, which I do not, to say that the police alone among people in this country should never be allowed to take photographs.

As these working-class demonstrations are entirely peaceable, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has frequently said, what possible objection can there be to the police taking such photographs for training purposes?

I have indicated my attitude fairly clearly. I do not necessarily think it would be a good thing if every time a little demonstration were held a great battery of police cameramen attended it, or even one police cameraman. There is a question of balance and sense. I hope that broadly speaking the police will observe that balance. I am not going to put on a special ban—indeed, I have no power to do so—but I think that the police should exercise restraint in this as in other matters.

For what purpose other than training are photographs taken?

In certain circumstances photographs could well be important to ascertain what had happened in a situation in which public order was threatened or damaged. I do not think one could possibly object to photographs being available of the Red Lion Square demonstration, for instance. They might be of value in court proceedings. I cannot take the view that such photographs should automatically not exist or should be destroyed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects the new prison project at Ulnes Walton, Chorley, to be completed.

We expect building work to be completed in August 1977 and occupation to begin about three months later. The establishment will be known as Her Majesty's Prison, Wymott.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Will he advise me whether the second stage of the prison development on this site is to go ahead and whether he is satisfied that the proposed restrictions on public spending will not prevent amenities, such as housing, schools and so on, being provided to serve the population who will work at the establishment?

Certainly the houses, schools and amenities under the first stage are provided for. Obviously, in the present financial climate, some delay is to be expected on the second phase, but the facilities for that will not be needed until it is completed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received to date in support of increasing the control of firearms.

The principal local authority associations, the Magistrates' Association, the National Farmers' Union and various bodies representing the police are among those who support the introduction of more stringent controls over certain firearms.

Before any final decision is made by the Minister as to whether further legislation is required, will she bear in mind rural areas, in which shooting is a long-accepted interest? Shooting involves a wide cross-section of society and has been long established. I hope that this will be borne in mind.

I have announced at a previous Question Time that the Government intend to introduce legislation to improve the existing controls over shotguns—in the next Session, we hope. However, I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said. I am not sure that the legislation would interfere with the practice he has described.

When considering this legislation, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is growing apprehension about the irresponsible use of high-powered airguns? In my constituency vandalism affecting both private and public property has been occasioned by the firing of such guns, and animals and people have been injured. When preparing this legislation, will my hon. Friend seriously consider whether these guns might be made unavailable except under licence?

The existing controls over such weapons as rifles and pistols are adequate at present. There are no proposals to make them more stringent. The legislation will concern shotguns. Figures show that since 1970 shotguns have been used in crime more frequently than any other weapons subject to certificate control.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to amend the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, in order to ensure that breeding establishments for dogs provide bedding materials and adequate exercise.

No, Sir. The Act already requires the licensing authority to have regard to such matters before granting a licence and to attach appropriate conditions to the licence. The authority has power under the Act to inspect licensed premises to ensure that these conditions are complied with.

Is the hon. Lady aware that under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 it is mandatory for people breeding dogs to supply bedding and to give them exercise? Is she aware that at the Oxford Laboratory Animals Centre at Capel Isaac, where beagles are bred for vivisection in this country and abroad, after they are six weeks old and until they are sold for vivisection at between 16 and 20 weeks they are given neither bedding nor exercise? Will she see that this matter is put right.

I understand that the firm that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned holds a licence under the Act. The licensing authority will doubtless take the conditions which exist there into account when determining whether there has been a contravention of any condition of the licence. Also, there is the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, which makes it an offence to cause an animal unnecessary suffering.

Will my hon. Friend be good enough to get our priorities right and have a chat with the Secretary of State for the Environment to make sure that equipment and bedding are provided for homeless families before we start messing about with dogs?