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

The recent improvement continues, and the strength of the Metropolitan Police is now increasing by an average of about 100 officers a month.

It is only natural that crimes of violence should capture most of the headlines, but does the Home Secretary recognise that recently there has been a sharp increase in crimes of fraud? In welcoming him to his first Question Time, may I ask him what action he is taking to increase the staff of the over-pressed Fraud Squad?

I have not yet had time to put my mind to this matter, but of course that is what Question Time is for. I shall discuss this issue with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is some truth in the generalisation that a policeman's lot is not a happy one? Accordingly, if recruitment and building up of the police force is to take place it is important to pay attention not only to pay and conditions of employment, but to the creation of confidence within the force. Will he keep under review the procedure for dealing with complaints against the police?

I shall do that. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular aspect in mind perhaps he will speak to me later.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that with better rates of pay it is more likely that we shall obtain more adequate recruits? The more recruits we have, the better the police can deal with robberies and thefts from the person—crimes which are worrying a lot of people in the London area.

Recruitment is increasing, and this may be a reflection of the 30 per cent. increase in pay which the police obtained last year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now publish the report of his committee on the tape recordings of statements to the police.

The committee was concerned with the feasibility of an experiment in the tape recording of police interrogations. Its report was published on 19th October. I am grateful to the members of the committee for their work; their report, which considers in detail the practical and financial implications of an experiment, is a valuable contribution to discussion.

I thank my right hon. Friend for issuing the report so promptly. This is urgent, since it goes back to the Criminal Law Revision Committee of 1972. There will be grave disappointment that the committee recommended that only statements and not interrogations should be tape recorded. When he says that he is taking further consultations, does he have a deadline for these consultations, so that we shall have some idea when the Home Office will go ahead with this very important experiment?

The report was published a few days ago. I am seized of its urgency. I would like now to have the views of all those who are interested in this report, and I shall make up my mind as soon as I can.

The issues are very complex, but since the committee has recommended that it is feasible to have such an experiment, it is essential to get it going as soon as possible. The Home Secretary will realise that it is a necessary prerequisite to getting any further consideration of the Criminal Law Revision Committee's report on evidence.

I hope that those who have views about this report will listen to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I shall look at all the views which are submitted to me. I am aware of the need for speed in this matter.

Is there not a double advantage in the tape recording of statements and interrogations, in that it would provide protection for the defendant against misrepresentation and protection for the policeman who is making the interrogation against false allegations of perjury and misconduct?

I understand that, but I think that my hon. Friend will have read the report and will know, therefore, that there are problems in this respect. I want to hear what people have to say about it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for use of illegal walkie-talkie equipment took place in 1974 and 1975, respectively.

Ten in 1974 and four in 1975.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern that exists about the amount of interference caused in the 27 and 28 MHz hand by illegal walkie-talkie equipment? Is it not absurd that the Home Office, which has a responsibility here, will not impound such equipment or ban its importation when by definition it can only be used illegally? Can we not take some action now, instead of waiting for the formulation of policy on a citizens' waveband?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the use of walkie-talkie equipment, and particularly about the interference with equipment systems which are located on these frequencies, many of which systems are performing a worthwhile function. But it would be wrong to legislate piecemeal when in 1979 there will be a world administrative radio conference, which may well put forward many more general recommendations which will need legislation to gather them all together, and that may be a more appropriate time to act.

Will the Minister explain why he gave such a peremptory "No' to my Question for Written Answer a few days ago, seeking the establishment of a citizen's band on VHF? Is he aware that the establishment of such a band would meet exactly the exigencies of the problem which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) raised? It would have the additional advantage of raising money for the Government and an even greater advantage to citizens wishing to use such a band in being able to do so.

I gave the peremptory answer "No" because the hon. Member asked, as I recollect, whether it was the Government's intention to set up such a citizens' band. Our answer is still "No", but I shall consider these matters, and if the hon. Member has further representations to make to me perhaps he will do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce legislation to reform the law on official secrets.

It remains the Government's intention to bring forward some proposals as soon as possible.

Does the Home Secretary not agree that the highest priority should be given to the liberalisation of the law on official secrets because it is one of the few beneficial reforms that will not cost extra money? By opening up the processes of government to the scrutiny of the public and Parliament we may even find ways of cutting public expenditure without reducing the standard of services.

I was a member of the Franks Committee. I cannot recall that a reduction in public expenditure loomed large in our minds when we recommended liberalisation. I am keen to see it, but it is a question not only of money but of parliamentary time. It is a complicated matter, but the hon. Member can rest assured that I have a vested interest in this question through the Franks Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take further steps to achieve better race relations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take further steps to achieve better race relations.

The Government's policies for promoting racial harmony were set out in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination. We shall continue to pursue these policies and to give a lead in encouraging the tolerance and understanding on which good community relations depend.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that politicians of all parties have a particular responsibility to try to promote harmonious race relations? As well as deploring provocative politics from organisations like the National Front, who try to incite hatred of coloured immigrants, does my right hon. Friend deplore those who try to incite people to hate the English, as is done by certain extremist elements in the Scottish nationalist movement?

As a Welshman born I must say that many of my friends are Englishmen. I see the point of my hon. Friend's final comment. On the first part of his question, I am convinced, new as I am to the job, that while there is much to be said for the legislation that we pass on this matter, what matters above all is what all of us are seen to be doing in everyday life in dealing with racialism. The most important element is the way in which we act and treat people.

Does the Home Secretary agree that by far the most important action to improve race relations would be to reduce the number of immigrants coming into this country, particularly from the New Commonwealth? Does he agree that the concession that was allowed in June 1974, by which male fiancés are allowed in, has now clearly been seriously abused and should be revoked?

If there is abuse I must look into it I see no reason for departing from the general principle of treating men and women alike. As for the numbers, I must ask the hon. Member to look at the figures that are being published, and in particular the very small number of men and women from the New Commonwealth who are coming here with employment permits. Those figures are the key to the long-term situation.

Does the new Home Secretary recognise that the first part of the White Paper to which he referred, which deals with disadvantage, was a most inadequate response to the most important part of the problem of race relations? Does he accept that a major overhaul of the Section 11 grants and the grant for the urban programme is now needed and that we must produce a coherent programme for dealing with disadvantage to ethnic minorities in this country?

My hon. Friend referred to disadvantage in the inner cities. The statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about people in the inner cities, whatever the colour of their skin, form the basis on which to work. My hon. Friend is right. He had a responsibility here. The question of deprivation is a factor in racialism and in the problem of the inner cities.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Home Secretary. Once more we are brought into opposing positions, although our roles are reversed this time—I trust in the wrong way and only very temporarily. I associate myself fully with his views about the need to promote good race relations and to treat everyone here as an equal and welcome citizen in our country. But does the right hon. Gentleman not accept the resolutions passed at the Labour Party conference, which did a great deal to boost the feelings of those people who fear that there will be unrestricted entry into this country? Will he take this opportunity of rejecting that?

I was present when those resolutions were discussed. I trust that the right hon. Member will appreciate that there is a misunderstanding on the matter. I do not believe that what he suggested is the case.

Look behind you.

I shall look behind me, and I am proud to be associated with a party that stands up on the matter of race relations. That matters a great deal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many grandparents of immigrant families have been given permission to settle in the United Kingdom in the years 1974–75 and to date in 1976; and how many of these grandparents are in receipt of supplementary benefit.

I regret that this information is not available. Statistics of grandparents accepted for settlement on arrival are not maintained separately but are included in the published "Control of Immigration Statistics" as "others accepted for settlement on arrival (mainly dependants)". Such information as we have suggests that the number of grandparents so accepted is very small.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is a general feeling that there are quite a large number of elderly people who have come in as immigrants—some are grandparents and some parents—and that they are unable to work here? The social security rule is supposed to be that the people who are already here and working are responsible for their keep, and that they should not be a call upon our social security system. Many of them are a call on the system, however. Will the Under-Secretary look into that?

The criteria for admission for settlement of grandparents or parents of people who are already settled here are set out in the Immigration Rules. They provide, among other things, that the sponsor must have the means to support a parent or grandparent and be able to provide accommodation. There is no evidence that anything but a very small minority of these people have to resort to supplementary benefit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is plenty of evidence that many of these parents and grandparents are employed in the most useful jobs in industry? Is she aware that if she visited Bradford she would find that we could not run some textile industries without them?

The people concerned in the Question are elderly and do not draw supplementary benefit. Under the rules of immigration, they are dependent on their children or grandchildren.

When extra-statutory categories of dependants are admitted by administrative announcement in future, will the hon. Lady bear in mind that it would be desirable to have statistics on the addition to total immigration which is thereby caused? Will she and her right hon. Friend also bear in mind that since the statistics became quarterly, the delay in their publication has become very bad?

I shall look at the question of delay in the quarterly statistics. They are based on spouses, with separate figures for men and women. There is another section for others accepted for settlement, mainly dependants. In this case, separate figures are given for men, women and children.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he issues advice on measures designed to reduce vandalism; and, if so, to whom such advice is issued.

In November 1975, the Home Office sent a report by the Standing Committee on Crime Prevention on this subject to a large number of organisations including the police, local authorities and the construction industry. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the report and a list of those to whom it was sent. We shall take an early opportunity of discussing the subject with chief officers of police.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep concern felt by many tenants on the large council estates on the edge of my constituency, and shared by tenants in cities throughout the country, that the situation could be greatly improved if the stigma of council tenancy were removed and people could own their own houses, have control over their environments and have power over their estates, free from the tyranny of petty bureaucracy and local government officialdom?

I am all in favour of removing petty bureaucracy in local authorities, but on the wider question, vandalism—and I have put my mind to this matter—concerns me in my own constituency and does not take place only on council estates. It is pretty general. It is a matter to which we should put our minds. That is why I shall be talking about it to chief constables. A great deal is being done, but it is extraordinarily difficult to deal with the problem. The cost of it in inner city areas is staggering.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one solution might be to provide work for juveniles who are unemployed? Will he consider, as a means of dealing with vandalism, an extension of something like community service orders, so that juveniles may make reparation to the community for the damage they have caused? Would this not be far more effective in dealing with them than other punitive measures, and be of far more benefit to them as individuals and to the community as a whole?

Unemployment among juveniles is bad and must be a factor in vandalism, but it is only one. I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said and if he cares to have a word with me about it, he can add to my store of knowledge. I am trying to do something about this problem and I should be interested in his views.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the points system for the allocation of council houses means that parents with large families become concentrated on council estates and that there are hordes of youngsters who are bored to death? Does he agree that the vandals ought to make good some of the damage they cause and be helped to appreciate what is really good?

Vandalism takes place on council estates, but it also occurs in many other places. I have often found that there is no vandalism among larger families, where family spirit is greatest. The problem is not capable of easy explanation. It is complicated, and it costs a great deal of money which we could well spend in other ways.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to implement the recommendations in the Hawley Report; and if he will make a statement.

I keep immigration policy as a whole, including the matters discussed in Mr. Hawley's report, under continuing consideration. It would not be appropriate for me to single out for comment the contents of an internal report which forms only one element in the wide range of advice available to the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the report, in January 1975, there was a substantial relaxation of the administrative procedures in overseas posts for vetting visa applications for settlement, at the request of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who was then Minister of State at the Home Office? Is he further aware that since that relaxation was introduced, well over 12,000 new immigrants have been admitted over and about the 1974 figure? Would it not be a good idea, in the interests of fairer and strict immigration control, to revert to the original procedures?

The hon. Gentleman is taking relaxation to mean that people who should not be here are coming here. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was looking at the question of dependants who have the right to come here and was attempting to speed up the process. I think that he was right to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the authors of reports such as the Hawley Report should be entitled to immunity? I understand that it has been the practice to extend to civil servants the right of protection by Ministers, but should we not be protected from those who issue reports in their own names?

I am not au fait with the precise circumstances of the making public of this document, but there is no question of its being issued under the name of the civil servant. However, I shall look at the matter raised by my hon. Friend.

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my view that in this enormous problem there is nothing useful or sensible in trying to pretend that anything can be achieved by repatriation?

I firmly agree that repatriation, in the way it has been talked about recently, is wrong. I hope that none of the major parties will touch it with a barge-pole.

Is this question not jumping the gun, since the Franks Committee is studying this matter and will be reporting to my right hon. Friend fairly soon? Will he assure the House that whatever the outcome of that committee's considerations, or the Hawley Report, there will be no let up in the view of all parties in this House that the principle of family unity must be preserved, and that we shall not have hordes of guest workers in this country as some Tory racists would like to see?

I am awaiting the Franks Report with interest. I agree that family unity is an important factor in people settling down in this country.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) touched a sensitive point when he asked whether it was Government policy to relax existing controls on immigration? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what Government policy really is, in the light of the Labour Party recommendation that the 1968 and 1971 Acts should be abolished?

The hon. Gentleman has that a bit wrong. What matters is doing away with the 1971 Act. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Act. In many parts it is incomprehensible. It is vital to put that right. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the Act and to see whether he understands it. All that the conference was referring to was the need to make citizenship a basis of immigration. That was something that I believed in strongly when I was a junior Minister doing that job. I like to think that it was as result of something I did that the matter was put in the party manifesto in 1970.

As the major recommendation that I made when I made my visit to the sub-continent—the recommendation about which Mr. Hawley complained—was that in future the standard of proof should be the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, as against the criminal standard; as that was decided to be the law by the Divisional Court in 1972; and as instructions had not been given to the entry certificate officers until I gave them in 1975, will my right hon. Friend continue to abide by the ruling of the Divisional Court and ensure that this standard of proof is applied in all future entry cases?

I certainly do not intend to change that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his latest plans for tackling urban deprivation in the remaining 1970s.

Our Department is responsible for a number of programmes relevant to the problems of urban deprivation. We intend to ensure that these are developed and used as fully as public expenditure constraints permit.

In addition to making clearer the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for the Environment, would it not be helpful if we had a White Paper or Green Paper explaining the whole of the Government's strategy on deprivation and disadvantage? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such an explanation is now overdue?

The overlap of responsibilities is quite clear. We are responsible for specific programmes, such as the urban programme, the CCPs and the CDPs. My right hon. Friend is responsible for chairing a committee that is considering the problem of inner cities and deprivation. In due course the Government will make their views known.

As there needs to be a comprehensive approach to the whole question, are discussions being held not only with the Department of the Environment but with the Department of Industry and other Departments that can make a contribution to solving the problem of deprivation in the inner city areas?

Yes. My hon. Friend should know that the committee consists of representatives of both Departments.

As one of the most disturbing symptoms of urban deprivation in recent years has been the alarming increase in mugging, especially within the area that is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will try to take action to encourage the implementation of stiffer sentences for those convicted of these crimes and, equally, provide better job prospects for the young people who are so often involved in these matters?

My right hon. Friend was speaking to the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police yesterday about that subject, among others. The factors that the hon. Gentleman mentions are some of those involved. However, the more that we look into questions of crime prevention the less we think that any simplistic solution, such as stiffer sentences, will bring a cure to the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans amending legislation on the law relating to obscenity.

My right hon. Friend has no present plans for legislation making fundamental changes in the law on obscenity, but when possible we want to legislate to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission proposing certain amendments in the Obscene Publications Acts to compensate for the abolition of the common law on indecency.

I welcome the Minister's reply, but is it not becoming clear as a result of recent decisions that the law is full of inconsistencies and that we are placing responsibility for exercising value judgments on those who are ill equipped to carry out the function? I suggest that consideration be given to scrapping the whole of the present arrangement and reverting to straight censorship, no doubt taking into account the standards and values of 1976.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the "deprave and corrupt" formula is criticised, but those who criticise it cannot suggest anything better to put in its place. Before the hon. Gentleman suggests changing the law, I beg him to consider the effect of the Law Lords' ruling in the case that was decided only yesterday.

Have the Government decided to accept the Law Commission report in respect of the common law function in this area? Many right hon. and hon. Members still feel that common law has an important role to play, and that it is much better in the film world, for example, than in books.

We want to legislate on the proposals, but to compensate for the abolition of common law on indecency rather than to supplement it, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the law that allows Government bodies such as the Arts Council or the British Council to spend taxpayers' money on sending Cosi- fan Tutte to have a bath in polythene chips in Milan and to hold exhibitions of other absurdities such as we have in London? Is that Government policy? Are the Government happy to see money spent in that way at this time?

I do not think that any body of human beings will make correct decisions in every case. However, the correctness of the decisions that are made is a matter of individual taste. I do not agree with many of the comments that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, for example. The basic answer is that these matters are for the Arts Council. That body is autonomous, and the Government do not interfere in its affairs.

When public money is in very short supply, will my hon. Friend take into account the use that outside bodies make of it when it is being allocated?

I accept that. When grant is being considered these matters are taken into account. One can never expect correct decisions in all cases in which grants are made.

Will the hon. Gentleman go to the Institute of Contemporary Arts to view the exhibition entitled "Prostitution" which is currently on display, which itself is a prostitution of the taxpayers' money? Will he have urgent consultations with the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a view to banning the grant given to that body, which is squandering our money?

As a matter of departmental responsibility, the exhibition is outside my control. As a private citizen, my leisure time is so limited that I probably shall not have the opportunity to go to the exhibition.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House of Lords decision this week in the obscenity case has basically changed the attitude of the courts towards the test of what is obscene and the evidence that can be called? Many of the questions asked today are irrelevant in the light of the decision of the Lords.

I tried to invite the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), who asked the Question, to study the judgment of the Lords. Basically, it introduces a refinement into the law as it was understood. It would repay study before questions are asked.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the need to increase the deposit for candidates at parliamentary elections.

Since 1st January 1975 Home Office Ministers have answered nine Questions on the size of the deposit, two of which specifically suggested that it be increased.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that merely to keep pace with inflation the deposit would have to be increased to well over £1,000, bearing in mind when it was first fixed at £150? I do not necessarily advocate increasing it to that figure, but is it not a fact that the present very low figure, which was first fixed as long ago as 1918, is an open invitation to every crank in the land to stand for Parliament, merely for the cheap publicity?

I think that there should be a law against the hon. Gentleman incriminating himself in public. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that this is primarily a matter for the Speaker's Conference. We hope that it will be one of the matters that the Speaker's Conference will take into account.

Does my hon. Friend accept that whatever the amount of the deposit, it will do little to stop certain wealthy individuals from standing in any number of constituencies, as has happened in recent elections? Does he agree that some regulations could be introduced whereby an individual is allowed to stand for election in only one constituency at any given time?

That is a matter that can be considered. However, the rise in candidates is not as dramatic as some hon. Members seem to think. In December 1918 the figure was 1,623. In October 1974 it was 2,252. That is hardly taking advantage of inflation and the depreciation in the value of money.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now been able to establish for how long a period the police film of the peaceful demonstration of President Geisel's visit in May 1976 will be available for training purposes and if it will eventually be destroyed.

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the film will be used for training purposes for protection officers as long as it serves a useful purpose. It will then be kept in police archives.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is of the utmost importance that outside agencies do not see films of this nature, especially as there were some Brazilians on the particular film concerned who would be placed in difficult circumstances if they wanted to return to Brazil? Is not the only real way to deal with this matter to destroy the film, and many others that the police took at the time? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that some of us find it exceedingly difficult to understand why, if the police want films of noisy demonstrations for training purposes, the best films that could be taken are not those of the National Front, and not of small peaceful demonstrations such as that which occurred regarding Brazil?

My hon. Friend took the point that I made that these films will not be made available to outside agencies. I have learned from experience in the last two and a half years that protection officers have to be trained. That was the genuine reason for this. I have made inquiries about it. No attempt was made to disguise the fact that the film was being made. No effort was made to film spectators. The film will not be made available to Brazilians or anyone else.

Would it not be a good idea for the film to be made available to the public, so that apart from Brazilians the public could see the "phoney" group from "Rent-a-Crowd" who take part in such demonstrations?

It depends on the nature of the demonstration. While there are people who attend these things as something to be done every weekend, in many cases those who attend have a genuine concern about the issues.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that on the Government Benches we feel that there is a gross indignity in having to be filmed by the police on these occasions—[Interruption.]—and that it is symptomatic that the laughter about this comes from Opposition Members, who never demonstrate on any occasion, except on the odd occasion with the National Front[Interruption.]—and that on the occasions when demonstrations take place—[Interruption.]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman complete his question?

On the occasions when these demonstrations take place—[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I am trying to formulate my question in the face of all this noise, and I should like to continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—I almost said my "right hon. Friend" I withdraw that—has made a very important point. Chileans, Brazilians and people from countries in which there are tyrannies are often at these demonstrations, and these films could be used to identify them in relation to the tyrannies about which we are talking.

On the last point, this cannot happen. In many cases—not that to which my hon. Friend has referred—it is important to take photographs to identify people who have committed offences, to illustrate to the courts the general nature and conduct of a crowd, and sometimes to counter allegations of police malpractice. However, there can be too much of this. When used properly, I think it is right. The police are very well aware that to overdo it would be wrong.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising it at this moment, but it is necessary to do so. I ask you to instruct the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) to withdraw his accusation that Members on the Opposition Benches demonstrated with the National Front. He knows that that is totally untrue.

Accusations thrown at anyone in the House are always to be discouraged. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) may care—[Interruption.] Order. I know exactly the noise that there would be if a charge of marching with Fascists came from the Opposition side of the House. I am merely asking the hon. Member to withdraw the statement.

As I have not named anyone, Mr. Speaker, I can see no point in withdrawing it.

I am sorry to rise again on this point, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman clearly said that Members on the Opposition Benches demonstrated with the National Front. That is totally untrue, and as he said it, he must withdraw it.

How does the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) know that that is the case? How does he—

Order.

rose——

Sit down.

This is not a time for debating the issue. I thought that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) had a point of order that he wished to raise.

Yes of course, Mr. Speaker, and I was about to add, if you had not interrupted—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman was very discourteous not to take his seat when I rose.

You rose in the middle of my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was about to continue and to ask you whether you are asking my hon. Friend to withdraw something. Did not my hon. Friend refer to an organisation that is still legal?

I asked the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough—I hope that he will help me in this matter—to withdraw any accusation that any hon. Members in the House are sharing in the National Front.

rose——[Interruption.]

Order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is against—[Interruption.]

Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough was about to reply to me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is against the rules of order in accusing some Opposition Members of joining with a legal organisation in a demonstration, even if that remark is inaccurate? The mere inaccuracy of a remark is not itself a breach of order.

A responsibility is laid upon me to ensure that if remarks are offensive and likely to upset our arrangements—[Interruption.] I shall not be influenced by the shouting. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough has been here long enough to know that if the Speaker asks him to withdraw a statement, as I have asked, he should do so.

I withdraw what I said, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that there will be adequate proof coming from the Conservative Party that I was wrong.

asked the Prime Minister what subjects he proposes to discuss at his next meeting with the STUC.

I expect to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the Scottish economy.

Bearing in mind the deep concern within the Scottish TUC about the effects that further cuts in public expenditure would have on the already intolerable total of 150,000 unemployed in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend give a firm assurance to the whole Labour movement in Scotland and elsewhere that it is his intention in future to pursue more Socialist policies which have more in common with the Socialist principles and traditions of Keir Hardie than the sellout coalition principles and suggestions of people such as Ramsay MacDonald and Harold Macmillan?

The Government will continue to pursue the policies on which we fought and won the last General Election; that is to say, to conquer inflation, as our first—[Interruption.] Hon. Members seem to have lunched very well today—to conquer inflation as our first priority and to deal, through that, with industrial regeneration, which is absolutely essential for putting our economic affairs on a sound foundation.

Is the Prime Minister aware that we on the SNP Bench would much prefer a General Election in Scotland to a coalition, which would be unhelpful to any of the conditions in Scotland? Is he also aware that the gross domestic product in Scotland has risen in real terms by some 13 per cent. this year as a result of supplies of oil coming ashore? What is the Prime Minister going to do to plough back the benefits of that resource into Scotland in order to create more jobs for the STUC and others?

On the political aspect of coalition, I have not yet detected much sense of enthusiasm for it anywhere except in the hearts and minds of those who were once joined with us but have now left. As far as I am concerned, I have stated the basis upon which I am Leader of this party, and will continue to remain Leader of this party. On no other basis do I remain here.

When the Prime Minister next meets the STUC will he discuss with it the report in Tuesday's Scottish Daily Express that the shipbuilding industry board has recommended to the Government that a necessary consequence of the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry is that 2,000 jobs in the West of Scotland must be axed? Will the Government even now drop this measure, in order to prevent a further escalation in unemployment both in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is usually a fair controversialist, will not relate the number of jobs in shipbuilding to the act of nationalisation, because he knows, as everyone in the House does, that it is only through Government support that a great many jobs are now being safeguarded in the shipbuilding industry. The act of either dropping the Bill or passing it will not affect the economic prospects of the world's shipbuilding industry—[Interruption.] Do hon. Gentlemen really need every syllable spelled out to them? I am beginning to fear that that is true, and that we have to start a long way back.

Will the Prime Minister talk seriously to the STUC about the point at issue in tonight's opposed Private Business, namely, whether millions of pounds of public money should go into a green fields refinery site at Nigg if there is no demand?

It has already said that it supports it.

I would be happy to discuss all these matters with the Scottish TUC if it raised them with me, but I do not think I can lay down the agenda here this afternoon.

asked the Prime Minister how many times he has met the CBI during the Summer Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister how many times he has met the CBI during the Summer Adjournment.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) on 12th October.

Has the Prime Minister noticed the similarity in the content of his recent speeches at Blackpool and Oxford with the content of the CBI document published yesterday entitled "Road to Recovery"? Is he aware that if he had the courage to translate his speeches into actions he would probably attract the support of 75 per cent. of hon. Members in this House?

I regret to say that I have not studied the CBI document in detail, but if there is a similarity I am happy to think that my meetings with the CBI have led it to the conclusions that I have long since formed. I hope to continue on that path. A very important measure of agreement, which I wish to foster in the interests of us all, is that the Government, TUC and CBI at Chequers in November 1975 gave priority to an industrial strategy. We are getting slowly on that path—not nearly fast enough, but it will take a long time, as all sensible hon. Members in the House will know. We must pursue that area of policy. I do not spurn any proposals that come from the CBI. I have recently had proposals jointly from the CBI and the TUC. I believe that a national effort is needed, and this Labour Government will continue to make a national effort.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal from the CBI to cut public expenditure by £3,000 million could push our economy into the kind of depression that would make the 1920s and 1930s look almost like an economic miracle? Does he also agree that the kind of tax handouts that the CBI is now advocating were tried before by the previous Government and found their way into property, land, commodity speculation and investment overseas?

Yes, I think there is a case for a detailed study in respect of the burden of taxes. [HON. GENTLEMEN: "Why?"] Because I am told that the tax burden in this country amounted to 40·9 per cent. of GDP in the fiscal year 1975–76. It is estimated to be much the same for the current year. As a proportion of GDP, the tax burdens in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, for example, are appreciably higher, and in West Germany the burden is comparable. [Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite want the facts or whether they want to live with their prejudices. If this can be demonstrated it seems to me important that people should not be labouring under a misapprehension. If the tax burden is too high, clearly, in order to encourage effort—[Interruption.] Sedentary interruptions do not add to the course of easy debate. If it is too high, clearly we should consider the matter, but as far as I am concerned there is no indication yet that we are much out of line in respect of taxation.

Does the Prime Minister realise that millions of British men and women on both sides of British industry may have been stirred and inspired by Mr. Harold Macmillan's call, on television last night, for national unity? Is it not obvious—at least to all those who are not wearing Left Wing blinkers—that the situation in industry and in practically all other economic areas is now far too grave for the British people to go on being bluffed by the Prime Minister's avuncular complacency? Will the right hon. Gentleman now take the initiative to start discussions among all parties and all interested groups to see whether we can find truly national solutions to these deep-seated national problems?

I believe that if we can hold to them the policies that the Government are following are bound to produce results. In the past, the Conservatives have not pursued their policies sufficiently long to achieve the results that were necessary. They ran away on a number of previous occasions. They ran away on matters such as the increase in the money supply. They ran away when they gave way to fiscal extravagance as soon as there were difficulties in their economic path. I intend to adhere to the policies that we are following—difficult, uncomfortable and unpleasant though they may be, and bringing a great deal of hardship. I look for very little support from Conservative Members, despite what the hon. Gentleman said.

Is the Prime Minister aware that if anyone is running away from reality it is he, and his Government? Will he look at the facts of his administration and recognise that he has brought the pound down to $1·65, whereas he was left with it at $2·30; he has unemployment at nearly 1,400,000, whereas he was left with it at 600,000; he has the index of industrial production down to below 101, whereas he was left with it at 103? In other words, on all fronts he has followed a disaster course. Does he not agree with his predecessor that most of us would far rather see a Conservative Government with a good majority than any coalition Government?

At least the right hon. Lady shares my dislike of coalitions. No, I do not want to see a Conservative Government. I think that it would be a disaster for the country, because neither in their performance in the past nor in their promises for the future lies any hope for the country. I have been looking at the costing of the Conservative tax credit scheme. We all know that the Conservatives intend to cut public expenditure, but is the right hon. Lady aware that the tax credit scheme that she has set out and adopted in her new policy would cost at least an extra £3 billion a year, and possibly as much as £5 billion a year? Does she intend to introduce that scheme or to let it go as a broken promise?

The Prime Minister is proving exactly what I said; he is running away from the existing reality. He is running away from the reality of his own record, which has nearly trebled unemployment, brought the pound low, reduced industrial production, and increased inflation.

We should acknowledge these facts. The right hon. Lady is correct that these things have happened and are happening in Britain today, and we should certainly examine the reasons for that. But when I contrast the appeal made for national unity by Mr. Harold Macmillan with the behaviour of Conservative Members, I know how spurious is such a call.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he cannot go on adopting the position that nothing more needs to be done other than what the Government have already done? Is he aware, for instance, that the 15 per cent. minimum lending rate has not stopped the decline in sterling, which is back to the level it was before that measure was taken? Is he further aware of the report in the International Currency Review that out of £6 billion sterling balances the holders of £4 billion intend to remove them from the country within the next two or three years? Is he further aware that the forward rate for sterling for one year hence is $1·47? In the light of that and the causes that he mentioned, does he not think that single-party government has come to the end of the road?

It is Question Time, and we are running over. I propose to allow two more supplementary questions, but not if they are as long as that one.

I am not aware of what the hon. Gentleman said about sterling balances. I am grateful to him for writing to me and indicating that he wished to explain the figures that he gave to the House on the minimum lending rate and the money supply on Tuesday. His statement this afternoon did not add much to the known position, that is to say, that the country has a serious problem to face. That can be done only by giving priority to manufacturing industry. We intend to stick to that course. We do not think that we need to depart from it. If there is any help that the Liberal Party cares to give us from time to time in the Lobbies—I never despise anybody—I should be very happy to have it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement made by Harold Macmillan, repeated and supported by Conservatives today, is an indication that the Conservative Party recognises that its present leadership is totally bankrupt of political ideas and that we should be wise to continue with a Labour Government if we want to overcome our problems?

I am very content with the quality of the Labour Party leadership. I would not care to comment on the quality opposite.

The Prime Minister has once again referred to the urgent need for a substantial reduction in Government borrowing. Does he propose to achieve that by further cuts in public expenditure or by further increases in taxation? I trust that he will not run away from answering that question.

I would not dream of running away, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a Question on that matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.