asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce his plans for the future of broadcasting services.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on 17th November last.

Is the Home Secretary aware that there is considerable concern, particularly among the broadcasting companies, about the lack of a decision on this matter, and that investment is being held up? Will he give a guarantee to the House that he will consider the conduct of such companies as ATV, which has been trying to put out a grossly distorted picture of life in another country?

Disgraceful.

I shall publish a White Paper early in the new year. The number of people who write to the companies arguing that they are biased one way is matched only by the number of people who write and say that they are biased the other way.

Entirely disregarding the second part of the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton), because its content was so disgraceful, will my right hon. Friend say something about the prospects for the companies? Is it not a fact that the decision on the new franchises will have to be delayed if we do not get legislation very soon?

I think that it is quite clear that there cannot be legislation in the course of next year, and I am actively considering the speediest way of dealing with the existing companies.

Has the Secretary of State seen the comments of the Chairman of the BBC about the way it may be financed in the future? Will the White Paper contain proposals for the future financial structure of the BBC?

The White Paper will certainly discuss the future financial structure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the rise in numbers of offences against persons and property in the Midlands over the past five years.

Between 1971 and 1976, there was a rise of 26 per cent. in the number of indictable offences against persons and property recorded by the police in the West Midlands and East Midlands standard regions. This excludes Lincolnshire, which in 1971 included what is now South Humberside. This increase, though in itself disturbing is slightly lower than that for England and Wales as a whole.

Against this deeply disturbing background, are the police establishment numbers realistically adequate in the densely-populated urban areas? Is the Minister aware that the West Midlands police force is now no fewer than 745 short of its established strength of 6,500 officers? How can the police adequately patrol the trouble areas in such circumstance, when what the people need is more protection in their home areas?

In spite of what the hon. Gentleman says, there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the strength of the West Midlands police force since the 1974 boundary changes. This is well above the national average, which is 7–8 per cent. I would also remind him of the recently-announced increase of an extra £9 million in the law and order budget.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the leaders of the Fire Brigades Union; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings he has had with leaders of the Fire Brigades Union; and if he will make a statement.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the pay claim by firemen.

I last met the full Executive Council of the Fire Brigades Union at the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Fire Brigades Union on 29th November. Since 14th November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have been in close touch with representatives of both sides of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades. We are ready to meet them again at any time, and I last saw the Joint Secretaries on 8th December. On the general question of the firemen's pay claim, I refer to the statement I made to the House on 8th December.

Does the Home Secretary think that there is room, in any formula that may be arranged for the settlement of this strike, to follow up the suggestion, made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), that part of the deal should be that the Fire Brigades Union would give up the right to strike as Dart of the settlement?

Whatever the merits of discussion of that suggestion are—and I personally do not think that there are any—negotiations are taking place now, and I believe that negotiations are best caried out across the negotiating table.

rose—

I shall call those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the statement by the TUC Finance and General Purposes Committee, issued the other week, was a body blow to the Fire Brigades Union? Will he now acknowledge that the TUC General Council could well overturn that decision when it meets on 21st December? Will he take that factor into account, and accept the advice of Terry Parry this morning to advance the timetable and put more money on the table now?

The Government have made their view quite clear. The offer that the local authorities put forward is really a remarkable one and something that I believe is beginning to be understood. Let the negotiations carry on.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public and, indeed, many firemen regard the proposals that he put forward as an honourable basis for a settlement of this dispute? Will he confirm, however, that for many firemen, particularly in my own area, some parts of the NJC package are negotiable—not the 10 per cent. figure and the guidelines, but matters such as the precise introduction of the 42-hour week and what goes with it?

The question of the 42-hour week is for negotiation. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides have looked at the feasibility study on the 42-hour week. It raises a large number of issues, and, obviously, it is negotiable.

Does the Home Secretary agree that, while we all want to see this strike settled as soon as possible, if it goes on over Christmas this will be a particularly risky time for domestic fire dangers and also a very rough time indeed for those having to perform the fire-fighting services? Will he, therefore, reassure us that those who are carrying out these duties have the full equipment available to them to carry them out most efficiently? What further steps have been taken since we last discussed this matter to train the troops to carry out the basic fire-fighting services and to use the more complex equipment that ought to be available to them?

I am sure that precautions are necessary. The number of fires has fallen and, although it is rising again, I understand that it is not back to the pre-strike level. On the question of the use of fire-fighting equipment, I am following the advice of the Chief Inspector of Fire Services. I am not in business to play politics about it. I know from the chief inspector's advice that to play about with modern equipment would be a foolish thing to do, and I am not prepared to depart from the professional advice that I have received.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the most unfortunate experiences of the firemen as the victims of successive incomes policies under successive Goverments, there is suspicion about whether the guarantee formula is fire-proof? Does the Home Secretary understand that there needs to be an interim settlement now to make the whole package acceptable, and that it needs to be brought forward before Christmas if an honourable settlement is to be secured?

On the question of the guarantee, the Government have given their word about the phasing, and we stick to that. Over the weekend in my own constituency I was asked what would happen if there were a change of Government, and whether the guarantee could be banked on in that circumstance. It is not for me to say anything about that. I simply give the word of the Government now.

If the present round of talks unfortunately fails, will the Home Secretary consider the possibility of himself holding a tripartite meeting with the union and the employers to discuss the specific point of trying to prepare and agree a productivity deal that would enable the working week to be reduced from 48 hours to 42, and for overtime to be paid immediately? I think that that would get the firemen back to work very quickly.

I only advise the hon. Gentleman to read the feasibility study on the 42-hour week, which shows the hours offered for work—I am not getting involved in the silly argument about firemen being there to wait for fires of course, they are—and look at the great differences between one brigade and another. That may well be the reason why the immediate productivity discussion has not got very far. But it is up to the negotiating body to look at these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the outcome of his consideration of arrangements concerning public meetings and marches, with particular reference to those by racialist organisations.

I am continuing to consider the law on public order. The law on incitement to racial hatred has only recently been strengthened, but I am also considering its adequacy in the light of recent events.

But since incitement to racial hatred is illegal, will the Home Secretary, without further inaction, ban all marches and public meetings by the National Front, which admits that it is a racialist party, or by any other racialist organisation?

The question of incitement is a matter for the law, and there were many discussions on this during the passage of the Criminal Law Act, which amended the Public Order Act. As Home Secretary, I shall never be in the position that I was in in Northern Ireland—I grant, in a different context—of saying that I will ban a march on a subjective evaluation on my part, however much I detest the views of the people who are going to march. The best way is to do that through the process of law.

Leaving aside all the humbug about racialism, will the Home Secretary tell the House how many members of the so-called Socialist, so-called Workers' Party have been charged with violence against the police, and how many members of the National Front have been charged with violence against the police? If he does not have those figures in his brief—the Home Office is not too keen about producing figures that it does not like—perhaps he will hazard a guess on the distinction and ratio.

The hon. Gentleman is extremely foolish in his latter remarks, but, taking his views for what they are worth, the policy of the National Front—and he would know a great deal about that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman studies the matter and is always talking about it. He knows a great deal about it. Of course the National Front's policy is not to attack the police. Having said that, however, I hold not the slightest brief for the Socialist Workers' Party. It has nothing to do with anything that I believe in.

Would it not be a contribution to preventing people from attending racialist meetings if the Home Secretary were to consider amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act so that it would be known to the general public that those who organise these meetings—like Tyndal and Webster—are people with criminal records who have served sentences of imprisonment for acts of violence? Would it not be wise to alter the law so that people understand how many people in the National Front are ex-convicts?

Just as in the case of the SWP, I am picketed frequently by the National Front, and a funny bunch of people they are when one sees them at close quarters. I am having a look at the question of amending the law to see whether anything can be done.

Does not the Home Secretary consider that there is an urgent case for simplifying the law on public order and codifying it so that everybody knows exactly what it is?

I bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the law, but I understand that the Public Order Act is codified. I have talked to chief constables about aspects of the Act concerning, for example, matters of notification, on which, much as there may be a case for change, there is no major problem. The problem is mainly on the matter of incitement that my hon. Friend the Memlearned Member for Burton (Mr. If I have misunderstood the hon. and ber for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) raised. Lawrence) on the question of codification, I shall willingly look at the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to contain the rise in numbers of acts of vandalism in urban areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to contain the rise in the number of acts of vandalism in urban areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to contain the rise in the numbers of acts of vandalism in urban areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to contain the rise in the numbers of acts of vandalism in suburban areas.

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State stated in a reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 17th November, it was generally agreed at a conference that my right hon. Friend held in April that measures to counter vandalism are best planned and organised at local level. The Department is continuing work on research, publicity and the co-ordination of information, and is in touch with other Government Departments for those purposes.

How many working party reports on vandalism has the Home Secretary received on which no action has been taken in the last four years?

There has been one report, published in 1975, the effect of which was to put forward practical suggestions. Over 18,000 copies of it have been distributed in order to deal with matters at local level. But I repeat to the hon. Gentleman, who does not seem to have understood my answer, that it is agreed by all people, including the relevant police forces and local authorities, that vandalism is best tackled at local level by local arrangements and co-ordination.

Does the Minister agree that the increase in vandalism in areas like Merseyside is giving rise to increasing concern? If so, will he agree to take positive action to bring police establishment figures up to realistic levels, and also to take action to reform the Children and Young Persons Act so that we may have real protection for people and property?

The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was so wide and generalised that I cannot possibly say that the reform of the Children and Young Persons Act would have any effect upon vandalism. In reply to the first part, I repeat what my hon. Friend has just said—that inner city and large city police strengths have gone up considerably, and that they are well above the level of three years ago.

Is the Minister aware that vandalism will be diminished only if offenders are put in fear of the consequences of being caught? What have his Government done to frighten young potential offenders away from committing crimes?

Quite apart from the fact that the Criminal Law Act, which increased penalties with regard to vandalism, has just been enacted by this House, I should have thought that the increase in police strength, and therefore the greater certainty of detection, was in itself a deterrent. But I readily concede that it is not for the police alone to deal with this matter; many other people need to co-operate in tackling vandalism, particularly parents and other members of society, by reporting acts of vandalism that they see.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the root causes of vandalism is the environment in which many young people live in inner cities, the level of unemployment among young people, and the lack of opportunities? Is it not a fact that until those matters are taken in hand and resolved, vandalism will continue to be a problem?

My hon. Friend says that the problem will not be solved until certain matters are resolved. I agree that part of the problem is as he said. I do not think that it is the sole cause of vandalism, unfortunately, but he will be encouraged by the publication today of the Inner Urban Areas Bill.

If the Minister accepts that one of the best deterrents to the vandal is the prospect of a policeman strolling round the corner at any moment, why are the Metropolitan Police limited in the extent to which they can do his by restrictions on overtime?

I am informed by the Commissioner that overtime is a matter for his operational judgment. It is nothing to do with the Home Office, and I should have thought that as the new Commissioner has come in with universal praise he ought to be trusted in his judgments until evidence proves the contrary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage increase in the number of recorded crimes of violence against the person in 1976, as compared with 1966.

In England and Wales, the number of indictable offences of violence against the person recorded by the police increased by 191 per cent. in 1976 as compared with 1966.

Does the Minister agree that those figures are horrifying? Is he aware that in the Thames Valley area this year crime has increased by 26·4 per cent., as against only 9 per cent. in the Metropolitan district? Will the Home Secretary approach the Chief Constable of the Thames Valley police to see what special factors there are in that area? Does he agree that shortage of police, because of the pay situation, is one of the prime factors?

My right hon. Friend will approach the Chief Constable of the Thames Valley area, but nationally—these figures are provisional, and I do not put them forward with great certainty—the fact is that for the second and third quarters of this year there were rises of only 1 per cent. and 3 per cent., compared with last year's figures for crimes of violence.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that over the past 10 years there has been a big increase in both the detection and the coviction rate?

That is true. The detection rate and the cleared-up rate of such crimes is well over double that for other crimes, such as theft.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the percentage increases in crimes against the person has differed between urban and rural areas over the past five years.

The statistics of recorded crime that are centrally available are for each police area as a whole and do not distinguish between urban and rural areas. The comparison sought cannot therefore be made.

Does the Minister understand that there is widespread concern throughout an area such as my constituency, where the village policeman has disappeared and where there has been an increase in police strength in Redditch New Town? Will he take action to increase the establishment of the West Mercia constabulary?

There are two points here. First, I have made it clear that I am concerned with the rise in crimes of violence, and other crimes, too. No one likes the present explosion of crime which has occurred not only here but in the whole of the Western world. It is police strength that needs to be increased, not establishments. Establishments do not pound a beat.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any correspondence relating to the conditions in Armley Prison; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received four letters arising out of the publicity recently given to complaints about the treatment of prisoners at Leeds Prison who are removed for their own protection under Prison Rule 43 from association with other prisoners not similarly segregated. The complaints are alleged to have been made by one such unnamed prisoner. It is at present unavoidable that Rule 43 prisoners at Leeds have to spend long periods each day in their cells, but my right hon. Friend is satisfied that all the specific complaints of ill-treatment are without foundation.

Does the Minister agree that if the contents of the letter being circulated in the Yorkshire area by PROP axe unfounded, the contents of that letter are an unwarranted slander on the staff at Armley Gaol, Leeds, who are doing a first-class job under very difficult and overcrowded circumstances?

I can confirm that the 13 points made in the letter to which my hon. Friend referred are without foundation. I have nothing but praise for the prison officers at Leeds Prison, who are working in very difficult circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will raise with the Independent Broadcasting Authority the operation of its code of practice on television advertising, and, in particular, the matter of Christmas television advertising of toys at times when children are likely to be watching.

These are matters for the Independent Broadcasting Authority under the IBA Act 1973. The Annan Committee recommended, however, that there should be no advertisements within or between children's programmes and that the advertising of products or services of particular interest to children should not be shown before 9 p.m. We are considering this recommendation in the light of the comments that we have received on it.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he take this matter seriously, because in my view and in the view of many of my constituents, grossly exaggerated visual claims are made by television, not only on this product but on other products? I believe that that part of consumer protection needs tightening up.

Nothing in my answer should lead my hon. Friend to believe that I do not take it seriously. We are considering the Annan Committee's recommendations most seriously and I shall certainly look at this aspect of it, because I understand the points that my hon. Friend is making.

Does the Minister agree that the responsibility for children buying toys lies not with the Independent Broadcasting Authority but with the parents?

Yes, but I think that that is a simplistic view, which one would expect from the hon. Gentleman. He knows the powerful effect of advertising in the Western world.

Will my hon. Friend discount the last statement, yet again, and take on board the fact that many Labour Members know that children in lower-income families can be brainwashed by these advertisements? That is why the Annan Committee was against advertising during children's programmes.

I accept what my hon. Friend said. I believe that the Annan Committee made its recommendation after careful study. It therefore behoves us, in our turn, to give the report equally careful study.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to expedite replies to hon Members of Parliament who have submitted correspondence to his Department.

The arrangements for handling hon. Members' correspondence are kept under review and some procedural changes were introduced earlier this year following a special survey. Every effort is made to reply as quickly as possible, but many letters require detailed inquiries outside the Department and delay is sometimes inevitable.

I appreciate the vast volume of correspondence directed towards my right hon. Friend's Department, but is he aware that the simple fact is that Back-Bench Members frequently have to wait several months for a reply to a straightforward query? In this circumstance, will he press for additional staff to be recruited, or consider pressing the Prime Minister for a transfer of some of his responsibilities to another Department?

The last point is not applicable because wherever it goes the query has to be dealt with. I have considered this very carefully. What arises with most correspondence to the Home Office is that it has to be sent out to a local police force or to a prison. It is not just dealt with in the Department. There are legal considerations. Indeed, I dare not express a view on one matter about which my hon. Friend has been corresponding with me until certain inquiries are made, and in most cases that is what is involved. It is implicit, from the nature of the letters that we get in the Home Office, that we have to be extremely careful, because we may end up being quoted in courts and we must not reply hastily or in slipshod fashion.

We know the Home Secretary's difficulties in replying to letters, but will he give us a reasonable estimate of when an hon. Member may expect a reply to a letter? For instance, I have written a letter to his Department saying that an answer given in the House was highly inaccurate. Surely that is a matter which should be corrected at an early stage. When may I expect a reply to that letter?

Without looking at that I cannot give an answer, but I am concerned about this. We have had an O and M study of the matter. Apart from extra staff, it is implicit in the nature of the stuff that comes to the Home Office that great care has to be taken over the reply. I apologise if there has been the sort of slip-up to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what annual grants of taxpayers' money have been made to the Albany Trust and the Princedale Trust; and what are the total sums so far advanced to each of these bodies.

The total sums paid by the Voluntary Services Unit since 1974–75, when the grants began, are £43,625 to the Albany Trust and £86,000 to the Prince-dale Trust. A final instalment of £3,375 from the 1977–78 grant authorised for the Albany Trust remains to be paid. I will send the hon. Member the annual breakdown of these figures.

Is the Minister aware that there is evidence—which I can supply to him if he has not seen it—that both these trusts have given encouragement and publicity to the Paedophile Information Exchange, an organisation which exists as openly dedicated to the sexual corruption of children? Before paying any balance of grants, or before renewing any such grants, will the Minister obtain assurances that public money is not being used to help a disgusting organisation which most people would regard as having criminal objectives?

When I met a delegation led by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), I did such research. I am satisfied that no public money is being used for any propaganda purposes on behalf of such an organisation as the hon. Gentleman mentions, but he and I can correspond if he thinks that evidence exists for his view. I am satisfied that it does not.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to provide information about the percentage of people on shoplifting charges who are first-time offenders on any criminal charge; and what importance he attaches to this statistic in assessing the reason for the high coincidence between shoplifting allegations and self-service shops and stores.

The most recent information available to me is based on a sample of persons convicted of shoplifting in January, 1971 in England and Wales. Sixty per cent. of the males and 81 per cent. of the females in that sample had no known previous convictions. The figures throw no particular light on the causes of shoplifting.

Even though those statistics are now six years old, are they not of great concern to the hon. Gentleman? Is he aware that an organisation calling itself the Association for the Prevention of Thefts in Shops has been set up by the stores, with ample funds, which implies that the trading methods used by self-service stores in no way affect the increase in shoplifting charges? The statistics also seek to cover up the fact that up to 70 per cent. of stores' losses are caused by thefts by staff in the shops. Will he accept the principle that self-service trading results in increases in shoplifting?

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions. He will know that the Home Office research unit is conducting a project on shoplifting—a project which will look at shops, the ports and the police. At the moment it is studying trading practices in shops. It hopes to report on that later in 1978, and we hope to publish the report in 1979.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that police forces throughout the country are made aware of the fact that it is all too easy for people without any criminal intent whatever to find themselves held on shoplifting charges, and that the mere appearance of these people in court can be damaging to the whole of their lives? Is he satisfied that police forces are well aware of that in bringing prosecutions?

Of course I understand, and I am concerned, that innocent people may be brought up on charges that are found not to be proved. I am concerned also that so many first-time offenders are convicted of that offence. I have no reason to doubt that police forces are well aware of this phenomenon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the introduction of a scheme whereby all retired people living alone are eligible to either a free or a half-fee television licence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the granting of concessionary television licences to elderly citizens who are living on their own and are not under the coverage of a warden's system.

Representations have been received this year from two hon. Members and from several members of the public suggesting television licence concessions for pensioners living alone. The Government are currently considering the question of licence concessions in the light of the Annan Committee's recommendation that no further concessions should be introduced.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the hierarchy of the British Broadcasting Corporation is clamouring for what it calls a substantial increase in the licence fee? Does he agree that if that came about it would represent a substantial burden on the shoulders of many retired people living alone? Is it not high time that these people were given either a free television licence or a half-rate licence?

What the BBC clamours for—as my hon. Friend puts it—and what the Home Secretary judges to be a proper basis for television licensing may well be different things. The Annan Committee studied this matter and came to the conclusion that no further concessions should be introduced. Such a concession would have an implication in respect of licence fees for all other people.

Would not the Minister consider a system similar to that for motor vehicle licences, where people who give up the use of a television set during the period of a year should be entitled to a refund for the remainder of that year? Is he not aware that this causes considerable annoyance to people when it happens?

Yes, I am well aware of that, but this question arises in particular not out of concessions to elderly people but more generally. It has been found impracticable to introduce such a system at the moment, but we are continuing to give it thought.

The Annan Committee could be wrong about the television licence. Is it right to go on with a poll tax of this kind which is increasing in size very considerably and bears heavily on the poorest part of the population? Cannot BBC revenue come out of taxation?

Nothing that I suggested was meant to imply that I believed that the Annan Committe ewas infallible. That is why we are studying its findings with such care. We want to sift out those recommendations which we believe ought to be implemented from those that ought not. But when the Annan Committee studied this matter with care it came to the conclusion that revenue should continue to be raised by a licence fee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to increase the deposit for candidates at General Elections to the level that in real terms would be equivalent to the £150 that was introduced in 1918.

The Government consider that this matter should be considered by a Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law before amending legislation is prepared.

It is not a fact that it is far too easy to stand for a parliamentary election, just for £150, Some people have not the remotest hope or intention of getting elected. The sum of £150, bearing in mind that it gives a free post to upwards of 100,000 people, is remarkably good value for even a commercial organisation. Is it not time that this deposit was increased?

I accept many of the points that my hon. Friend makes. The deposit was set at £150 in 1918. The comparable figure today would be £1,250. But, as I have said, this matter, which is concerned with electoral law, would best be considered by a Speaker's Conference. It is a great pity that no agreement has been arrived at about the setting up of a Speaker's Conference.

Would the adoption of this suggestion be a suitably festive gesture to the hon. Members who sit on the Liberal Bench?

Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be advisable to have the Speaker's Conference as quickly as possible because the level of the deposit has fallen so low that frivolous candidates can misuse the opportunity to advertise their interests in an election? Will my hon. Friend treat this as a matter of great urgency?

Again, I am constantly being asked to do something from which I do not dissent. I regard this matter as serious and I think that a Speaker's Conference should meet as soon as possible. But my hon. Friend will know that that can be arranged only by agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to lower the age of criminal responsibility.

No, Sir. It would, in my view, be a retrograde step to lower the present age of 10 years, fixed by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, below which it is conclusively presumed in law that a child cannot be guilty of any offence.

Has the Minister no further proposals for coping with the gangs of children under 10 years old, which are involved in so much of the present wave of vandalism?

First, there is the question of what evidence there is about this, other than a subjective impression. But such children can be brought before the juvenile court as being in need of care and control, on the ground that they may be outside parental control, and if that is so an order can be made, for example, binding over the parents. I am satisfied that the present powers are sufficient for those purposes.

When does my hon. Friend intend to raise the age of criminal responsibility?

When I am satisfied that it is the right step to take.

Will the Minister travel over the border, where he will find that we have a much lower age of consent and no harm arises?

I am not sure whether I should assent to the proposition that we were discussing the age of consent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his review of the problem of child pornography; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. We continue to examine the information and representations that are being made.

Does the Minister acknowledge the very grave and widespread public disquiet on this topic? Will he assure the House that in framing his measures he will not allow himself to be deflected by legal advice on the difficulty of definition? Does he not further agree that a picture of a child under the age of consent indulging in sexual activities with an adult is prima facie evidence of a breach of the law?

Of course, I view this problem with the utmost seriousness. As for ignoring legal advice about difficulties in legislation, I suggest that none of us ought to avoid considering such difficulties, because we have to enact the legislation and the courts have to give effect to it. If there are difficulties of definition, they must be tackled seriously. I am having discussions with, among others, the hon. Gentlemen's hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), who has a Private Member's Bill on this subject, and I am trying to be as co-operative with him as I can.

Can my hon. Friend say how many police prosecutions there have been of people involved in photography or filming concerning this disgusting exploitation of children? Have they been commensurate with the apparent growth of the practice?

So far as we can ascertain—we have checked with the police on this subject—the availability of such literature has not markedly increased. The difficulty that I find in answering my hon. Friend's question is that implicit in many of these matters is not the direct offence itself but other sexual offences which arise out of the inclination of the people who take the photographs.

I welcome the Minister's comments. However, why do not the Government take instant action to try to cut down on the distribution of such material?

Because I do not think that in the criminal law we should rush without due consideration into what are admitted on all hands to be difficult matters. We are considering them. The hon. Gentleman and I had a useful discussion about these problems, and he will acknowledge that there are difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people he estimates are eligible to apply for the amnesty for illegal immigrants announced on 29th November 1977.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) on 9th December.

Does the Minister agree that these amnesties encourage immigrants to believe that so long as they can enter this country by one means or another they are likely to be able to remain here eventually, openly and legally?

This is a completely ignorant question based, presumably, on ignorance of the facts. This extension of the amnesty was introduced for people who had entered by deception, as opposed to illegally, before January 1973. It does not apply to anybody else. The Immigration Act 1971, introduced by the Conservative Party, put people in jeopardy retrospectively. I am sure that nobody in the House would approve of retrospective powers in such legislation. All amnesty for everybody will finish at the end of next year, on 31st December. After that, no amnesty will apply at all.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the amnesty has been magnified out of all proportion to the numbers that it can possibly affect, and simply seeks to put right what was expected to be put right way back in 1973 by her right hon. Friend's predecessor? Does she agree also that the villains of the piece, to a great extent, have been employers, especially in the Midlands, who support the hon. Member who brings this matter before us?

My hon. Friend's question is an informed question, based on knowledge of the facts. This decision was made as a result of recent court judgments, and that is why my right hon. Friend has been honourable in carrying it out.

Does the hon. Lady appreciate that her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is extremely unreasonable, in that he asked a perfectly sensible and proper question? Does she appreciate that there is a very narrow line—which, apparently, she draws but few others do—between deception and illegal entry, which many people find difficult to understand? If it be deception or illegal entry, will she not be the first to agree that an amnesty of this sort inevitably encourages the belief by people that if, in the future, they can get into this country by any means, they will be allowed to stay? That is very damaging indeed to those who have come in legally and who will have much resentment stirred up against them by this action.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman lends weight to his argument by decibels. This measure follows court judgments, and I am sure that the whole House would wish to put right the irregularities of the Opposition's own Act. No new distinction is being drawn between the illegal immigrant who came in by deception and the illegal immigrant who came in clandestinely. That is the whole point of this measure. The amnesty provision will apply to both those groups until the end of next year.

I shall allow three minutes after half-past three for Prime Minister's Questions.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 10th November.

Is it not an interesting example of the social contract and "Back to Work with Labour" that the Secretary of State for Transport has apparently been urging a CBI member, the Road Haulage Association, to set up a defence fund to resist a possible strike by Jack Jones's union? Is that the Labour Party's new industrial relations policy?

When I last met the CBI and talked to the President, he made quite clear that the CBI believes that everything depends upon beating inflation. That is what the actions of my right hon. Friend are directed to.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to discuss with anyone interested in industrial relations the persistent evidence of this century that the higher echelons of the judiciary are anti-Labour and antiunion? Does he agree that until the judiciary comes less from a privileged and wealthy elite and becomes more representative of the public that prejudice will continue?

I did not discuss that matter with the CBI and have no intention of doing so. It does not arise out of the Question. If there is any comment to be made about the judiciary, the normal course is to put it on the Order Paper. That is the procedure which I should recommend in such cases. But I also recommend to the House that we should beware of trying to embroil the judiciary in our affairs, with the corresponding caveat that the judiciary should be very careful about embroiling itself in the Legislature.

May I refer back to the Prime Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham)? Is he really saying that it is the Government's new policy to encourage solidarity among employers, as a means of fighting off wage claims by trade unions?

I encourage solidarity among everybody in the country, because I believe that national effort and common understanding are the best ways in which we can ensure that the scourge of inflation does not return. I wish that the right hon. Lady, now and again, would show a little more understanding.

So the answer to my question is "Yes".

asked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Welling, Kent.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday one of his Ministers decided to close down the last two remaining hospitals in my constituency? Why are so many so-called cottage hospitals, many of which are highly efficient and well modernised, being closed down at a time when Ministers are calling for more community care?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that it would be preferable if he would table a question of that sort to the Secretary of State for Social Services. There is a well-known policy for building district hospitals. It has been discussed and debated in the House many times. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a particular matter I suggest that he table a Question to my right hon. Friend.

If my right hon. Friend gets on the wrong train when he does not intend to go to Welling and by some fortunate mischance lands up in Smethwick, will he make a speech there roundly condemning the racialist nonsense and the Nazi nature of the National Front? I can assure him of a very sympathetic hearing from the moderate and tolerant people of the West Midlands.

My hon. Friend has always been in the forefront in condemnation of this sort. I reiterate how pleased I am that the broadcast undertaken on behalf of the Labour Party last week has aroused such public interest, and, I am glad to say, some controversy, too, because it is as well that our attitudes should be clearly out in the open and that we should understand where we are. All my hon. Friends and I stand against racialism of any description at any time and in any place.

When the Prime Minister is on his way to Welling, by whatever means, or to Smethwick, will he take time to read the rather seedy newsletter of the Scottish National Party, called "Focus", in which the views of our Ambassador in Washington, whom he may know, and who is what I belies is called an economist, are prayed in aid of the Scottish National Party? It says that Scotland should have an independent monetary system and an independent exchange as the foundation stone of the benefits that Scotland is about to enjoy. Does the Prime Minister agree with those views, and does he think it right that the Ambassador in Washington should air them, or does he think that the Scottish National Party is taking advantage of this poor, underprivileged youth?

I am sure that the Ambassador in Washington is capable of looking after himself against the hon. and learned Gentleman at any time. As for the general sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, for once I find myself in agreement with him.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 15th December.

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

Can the Prime Minister confirm today's Press report that the Government already have the Frolik tapes, which the Lord President seemed to know so little about last night? Secondly, does he agree that it would be right and fair to have an independent inquiry, so that those named can have an opportunity of clearing themselves?

As is well known in the House, there is no ministerial responsibility for Press reports and Ministers are not required to answer for them. I was extremely surprised by the allegations made in the House yesterday. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) said that he had been considering the matter for months. It is a well-known convention in this House—and it is usually accepted, although not by one or two hon. Members—that hon. Members do not raise these matters across the Floor of the House unless there has been previous discussion. I can tell the House that the hon. Gentleman at no time made any approach to me on this matter.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read Mr. Andrew Alexander's column in the Daily Mail today, which, quite rightly, says that the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) was very silly? I think that that is the context in which it ought to be left.

Perhaps it was a silly speech, but it was calculated to do a lot of damage, and deliberately to do damage. Otherwise, if it had been intended to be raised to protect national security, I believe that the hon. Member would have come to me privately, expressed his views and asked me to investigate the matter. The matter could then have been cleared up. In fact, of course, these matters were looked into years ago—two or three years ago. What has been happening recently is that Mr. Frolik has been embroidering the original stories that he told when he was debriefed some years ago. It is a way of keeping himself in the public eye, and from time to time he manages to get some Press interest and to catch one or two Conservative Members.

Will the Prime Minister accept that I make no apology whatsoever for raising this matter? Does he agree that the only way to restore public confidence is to set up an independent inquiry, as asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), whose supplementary question he has not answered? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I shall make all material in my hands available to such an inquiry?

Knowing him, I would not expect the hon. Gentleman to make an apology. But what I do say is that if he has any information, as he now says he has, he should have done the proper thing and communicated it to me instead of making allegations across the Floor of the House in the way that he did, skulking behind parliamentary privilege to attack people outside.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the European Summit meeting.

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made on 7th December.

Can my right hon. Friend say something more about the steps to be taken soon in an attempt to cut down the appallingly high levels of unemployment in all of the Community countries, especially among young people? Would he also elaborate on what he said in his reference to something more having to be done in the public employment sector? When may a start be made on that?

It so happens that the Secretary of State for Employment is in Paris today meeting his Community colleagues, who are also Ministers of labour and employment, to discuss this very question of youth unemployment. I am very glad indeed to be able to say that between September and November youth unemployment in this country fell by nearly 100,000. In September, it was 166,000. In November it was 68,000. As for public employment, I have nothing that I can add at this stage to what I said two or three days ago.

During the Summit meeting did the Prime Minister manage to discover from the French President why, since February 1974, prices have risen twice as much in Great Britain as they have in France, and why unemployment has risen much more than in France? When speaking to the President, did the Prime Minister take any pride in the fact that Britain is at the top, or the bottom, according to which way one looks at it, of the league—in other words, worse on prices and worse on unemployment than any other member of the Community?

I did not discuss 1974 with the President because the reason is well known—that the Conservative Administration allowed the money supply to get totally out of control. Whereas when we came into office the M3 figure—which is the index frequently used—was over 27 per cent., as the hon. Gentleman may have seen from statistics which were published at 2.30 p.m. today, it is now down to 13·4 per cent. and will keep within the 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. level. Therefore, we do not have far to seek for the reasons for inflation. The hon. Gentleman, unusually, is getting a little behind the times, because the level of inflation in this country next year is likely to be as good as that of France and may well be better.

Did my right hon. Friend discuss with his colleagues at the Summit the new powers of the European Assembly exercised under Articles 203 and 204 of the Treaty of Rome? Has he seen the reports of the success of the Assembly in screwing more money out of the Council of Ministers in Strasbourg this week? Does not this exercise of the Assembly's powers show that there is already a federal element in it and, therefore, that direct elections would bring us into a federal structure, which my right hon. Friend denies exists?

I do not think that this long-running debate to which my hon. Friend is obsessively attached will ever be settled by question and answer in the House of Commons. My general conclusion, in answer to his supplementary question, is to say "No, Sir."

Is the Prime Minister aware that while youth unemployment as a whole, under this Government, has doubled, the unemployment of young West Indians has increased sixfold? When is he going to do something to tackle that problem?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to focus public attention on these matters, which are of great concern and to which we should all direct our attention. The West Indians concerned are mostly in areas in which it is more difficult to get jobs, and the Secretary of State for Employment has been making special inquiries and seeking to undertake special action. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the attention that he directs to this problem.

Reverting to the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), can my right hon. Friend explain why, if what the hon. Gentleman says is true—that French prices are so much lower than ours—boatloads of French people come to this country every weekend to buy goods and stores?

It was certainly true during the past 12 months, but I have a feeling that it will not be true next year, because the level of inflation in this country is likely to be level with that of France, give or take a point or two.

asked Mr. Speaker whether he will arrange for Members of the House to receive independent actuarial advice upon his letter of 30th November relating to contracting Members out of the new State pension scheme?

The Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund who were appointed by this House to administer the Members' Pension Fund have examined the merits, or otherwise, of contracting out of the additional pension element of the new State scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and are satisfied that by so doing it is in the best interests of Members. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue this matter, I draw his attention to paragraph 7 of the notice which accompanied my letter which states how representations can be made either to the Managing Trustees or to the Occupational Pensions Board.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether you are to be congratulated upon joining the ranks of employers. I always thought, until now, that my employers were my constituents. The point at issue is whether we have the same rights as employees. We have given employees rights of consultation so that they can get independent advice to determine whether it is worth their while to be contracted out or contracted in, and we need such independent advice ourselves from an actuary before we can make the same decision.

I can only advise the hon. Member to take this up with the managing trustees, who are all senior Members of the House.