asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the working of the Unit Beat Policing experiment currently in operation in Bromley and elsewhere.

Unit beat policing is now in operation in two sub-divisions of the Metropolitan police and in parts of eleven provincial police forces. It is too early yet to reach firm conclusions about its effect on crime, but early reports are encouraging and indicate that in all these areas the system has so far resulted in improved police cover and better relations with local residents, without requiring any increase in manpower.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement will be warmly echoed by people living in Bromley, who find that this system is excellent and that it is doing much to reassure the public and to deter the would-be criminal? Can he say what plans there are to extend this excellent system still further?

Yes, indeed. I am very glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the experience so far in Bromley. The Commissioner intends to introduce the system to two more subdivisions of the Metropolitan Police in the near future and to 11 outer divisions of the Metropolitan police in due course.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where, as in the case of Bournemouth's excellent force, this system has been introduced it has contributed to a very remarkable degree to an increase not only in efficiency but in the morale of the individual policeman?

I believe this very firmly. That is why I am taking all steps to encourage its introduction to suitable areas as rapidly as possible, not only in London but in other parts of the country.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the increase in morale that he accepts comes from this experiment may well lead to an increase in recruitment to the police forces?

It improves the position both ways. It makes better use of the police manpower we have and gives us a better chance of getting more manpower.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what public buildings and other places in London members of the Metropolitan police are required to wear helmets when on duty indoors.

The Commissioner of Police informs me that helmets are worn by police officers on duty in uniform in the Houses of Parliament, the public entrances to certain Royal residences and New Scotland Yard, and inside buildings where public events are taking place.

Does it not follow from that very helpful answer that the Palace of Westminster is the only place where police on duty indoors are required for any length of time to wear helmets, and would it not now be appropriate that we should review this practice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—to have regard to not only the efficiency, of course, but the comfort of the men concerned?

I am not sure that it follows, because the public events to which I referred include those in buildings such as Wembley Stadium, Olympia and Earls Court when they are being used for public events, but certainly the general point of substance which the hon. Gentleman raises is one that we can look into.

Would my hon. and learned Friend make some inquiries into not only the wearing of helmets in the Palace of Westminster but the weight of the cloth used for the uniforms which have to be worn on the few hot days we have during the year?

I am not sure that would be able to employ a weighing machine, but certainly the question of the comfort of those who render such sterling service to hon. Members is one that we shall deliberate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider taking steps to have otherwise suitable recruits for the police force who have been rejected for colour blindness independently examined on their request.

The decision whether to accept a particular candidate for appointment as a police officer in England and Wales rests with the chief officer of the force to which he applies. It is for the chief officer to obtain such medical advice as he requires.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend, but is he aware that his Answer will cause great disappointment? My mail indicates that there is a conflict of medical opinion and otherwise suitable recruits feel that this matter should be tested.

I am aware that my hon. Friend has a certain case in mind which concerns the Scottish police force. A conflict of opinion is not necessarily the cause of this. What a doctor decides is colour blindness, which is not necessarily conclusive when people have to take account of to what extent colour blindness or lack of vision for colours may make someone unfit to perform police duty. This is a matter which must be decided by the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the grounds on which he refused permission for Mr. John Smeed, a United States citizen, to enter the United Kingdom.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 6th June.—[Vol. 747, Col. 195.]

Would it now be the Government's policy to exclude all pro-Rhodesian Americans like Mr. Dean Acheson, for example? Is it the Government's policy to exclude all foreign supporters of colonial rebellions?

Mr. Smeed describes himself as national director of the Friends of Rhodesia in the United States. On arrival back in New York, he reported that he had taken important action to try to breach the sanctions arrangements. I certainly think that I would be quite unjustified in admitting such an individual to this country.

Will my right hon. Friend be equally firm with any pro-Ian Smith people in this country? In particular, what assurance do we have that the pro-Ian Smith spies who are being deported from Zambia do not continue their activities in this country?

What I am dealing with here is the question of admission to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquiries or requests for information or advice he has had from local authorities in response to the recent joint circular concerning local arrangements for dealing with evicted families.

None, Sir.

Would my right hon. Friend consider it desirable to remind local authorities of the importance of the circular so as to avoid the personal suffering that has arisen in the past and has been highlighted by television programmes?

I appreciate the problem, but the circular to which my hon. Friend refers asks for reports to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and local authorities have addressed to him any inquiries arising out of it. None of those inquiries has specifically concerned the Home Office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study he has made of the recent report of the British Safety Council on the subject of mini-cabs, a copy of which has been sent to him; and whether lie will, by legislation or otherwise, deal with the dangers inherent in mini-cabs as presently operated.

The independent committee which my right hon. Friend is setting up to inquire into the taxi-cab and private hire car services in London following the announcement I made on 9th June will be concerned with these matters.

Will the Minister of State agree that this is a most urgent matter? May I ask whether the committee to which she refers has yet been set up, or when it is intended to set it up?

There is a Question on the Order Paper about this matter. As my hon. Friend will realise, an interesting debate was raised on the Adjournment a fortnight ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher), when I announced the setting up of the inquiry.

Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that while many, and perhaps most, private hire firms are of the highest repute, there is some disquieting evidence that some firms are bogus and connected with the profession of organised crime in this country?

Yes, Sir. We did not discuss that aspect of the matter during the debate, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any information about it I should be very ready to look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total net increase in 1966 in men, women and children immigrants from India, Pakistan and Jamaica into the United Kingdom.

I would refer the hon. Member to Table 2 in the statistics published as Cmnd. 3258.

Would the Minister agree that Table 2 shows a growing increase in immigrants from these countries? Does it not also indicate that women and children are in a proportion of eight to one with breadwinners and, if that is so, does it not indicate that a large amount of evasion is going on?

No, Sir; that is not the case at all. The reason is that we have strictly limited the number who can come in for employment on vouchers. Most of those now coming in are families. The figures are interesting. From India there were fewer men and fewer women but more children, from Pakistan there were more women and children but more men actually embarked than were admitted, and from Jamaica there were more children and fewer women, and, as with Pakistan, more men embarked than were admitted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the difficulties in housing and race relations disclosed in the Political and Economic Planning report, he will not now bring into equal balance immigration and emigration between this country and India, Pakistan and Jamaica for the next five years.

No, Sir. We regulate the rate at which Commonwealth workers come here; but most of those who are admitted for settlement are the dependants of Commonwealth citizens entering the country or already living here, and I do not think it would be right to make the admission of an immigrant's wife and children dependent upon a compensating emigration from this country.

In view of the obvious difficulties about accommodation and accepting these people agreeably in this country, as disclosed in the P.E.P. report, would it not be kinder now not to raise their hopes but to have a clamp-down on immigration for a few years to allow us to solve our own problems before more of them are admitted?

I can think of nothing that would be more unkind to a man who has settled in this country than to tell him that his wife and children cannot join him, and nothing more unkind to wives and children than to say that they must be separated. I think it would be absolutely wrong to say that women and children could join their husbands in this country only provided that a number of United Kingdom citizens desire to go to their country.

Without dissenting from that last reply at all, is not the right answer to make sure that there is no avoidance in this respect and that persons alleged to be dependants really are dependants, and is not the best way to do that to make sure that they are declared as dependants at the time of the original entry?

There is a problem of evasions, of course. Evasions are dealt with a little later in another Question. There are two types. There are those who claim to be someone they are not or of a different age from that which they are. The immigration officers are careful to try to ensure that there is no evasion. The second type of evasion is by those who are already here as students or visitors and try to stay longer. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the immigration officers are very careful in these cases. However, in order to remove the sort of difficulties that he has in mind, we are strongly urging those who think they have a right to come to this country to seek an entry certificate so that these questions and uncertainties can be dealt with in advance.

In view of the disquiet outside this House about the large number of immigrants who have been admitted, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House for how many years he expects the rights of families to come to this country will last?

It is impossible to know this, because there is inevitably a delay between the time when a man arrives here and the time when he becomes settled, is in sound employment and can afford to provide a house to accommodate his family and to bring his family over. This is a perfectly human matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to "feelings'. I think that sometimes the exaggerated statements which have been made by the hon. Gentleman himself have contributed to those feelings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in 1965 the net increase of women and children from the Commonwealth amounted to just under 50,000, compared with fewer than 14,000 men, and that in 1966 the net increase of women and children amounted to 45,528, compared with only 5,820 men; whether the disproportionate increase in the numbers of women and children was due to the men resident here having large families before they came or whether it was due to evasions; and whether he will make a statement.

Commonwealth immigrants may wait sometimes before sending for their families, so the numbers admitted as voucher-holders and dependants in any one year are not directly related.

Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that in answer to an earlier Question he said that there were various evasions with regard to families coming in? What has been the extent of those evasions and what will the Government do to prevent the situation from geting out of hand?

As I said in answer to a Question on another occasion, it is impossible to give any figure for evasion. The very fact that people have evaded means that one does not know how many there are. There are two types of evasion. There are those who make a false claim in order to be admitted—the immigration officers are very careful about these—and, secondly, those who try to stay for longer than the period for which they have been admitted. It is clearly shown by the figures that these have been greatly reduced and are now only a few hundred.

Will not the hon. Gentleman seriously consider the suggestion, which has been put to him before, that it would be a means of checking the first type of evasion if the immigrant at the time of entry where to declare the extent of the dependants whom he at that time possessed?

That is a proposal worthy of further consideration, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be wrong to think that that would give us the answer to our problem, because very often a man here may not wish to bring over all his family. Nevertheless, it is a proposal which we shall consider again.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration has now been given to extending the Race Relations Act to cover employment, housing and credit facilities.

I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave to a number of questions on 27th April.—[Vol. 745, cols. 1793–97.]

Will my right hon. Friend give some indication of the talks that he has recently had with industry on this topic? Can he say whether it is likely that the Act will be extended in the lifetime of the present Parliament?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I have been in touch very recently with both the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. on the employment aspects of the matter. As I indicated in the replies on 22nd April, if the Government judge that it is right to extend legislation I hope it will be done well within the lifetime of this Parliament.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider consulting the Leader of the House about the possibility of a debate on these reports, because I understand that a good many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome an opportunity of expressing an opinion?

I will, of course, consult my right hon. Friend, but it is a matter for him and we are getting on rather in the Session.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, so as to include local elections in addition to Parliamentary elections.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now take steps to abolish business or plural voting in local elections.

These points will be considered in the review of local government electoral law which will follow the curent review of the law relating to Parliamentary elections.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that substantial use has already been made of this glaring omission from the law in that broadcasting has already been used in attempts to influence the results of the Greater London Council elections and the local elections in Scotland? Would she agree that it is urgent to put an end to the abuse irrespective of the direction in which this influence is exerted?

Yes, Sir; I would agree with the hon. Gentleman. It has been an abuse, and it was an omission from the 1949 Act, the last occasion when the matter was discussed. But my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is taking power to deal with the broadcasting stations. The whole question will, we hope, be considered in the review of local government reform.

Could my right hon. Friend include the reform suggested in Question No. 32 in any measure which gives effect to the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, and could she add whether it will also apply to Northern Ireland?

Yes, Sir; the point raised by my hon. Friend in Question No. 32 will be included in any consideration of local government matters. He would have to give me due notice about the second part of his question. He asked a Question about this before, and I then said that the matter would be considered in the review of local government electoral law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to protect foreign embassies in London.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for the protection of foreign embassies in London; and if he will make a statement.

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is responsible for deciding the degree of protection to be given to embassies in London; he is satisfied that the present arrangements, which involve a substantial deployment of manpower, are adequate.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Does not he agree, particularly in view of the actions which have been permitted to take place in a number of foreign countries, that it is all the more important that we should set an example of civilised behaviour by protecting embassies in London? Does not he further agree that any failure in this respect should be taken very seriously?

In general, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I know that the Commissioner attaches importance to this aspect of the matter. At present, two sergeants and 111 constables are employed full-time on this duty, but clearly there has to be some limit to the amount of manpower so used.

Bearing in mind how strongly we feel, quite rightly, about demonstrations and violence against our embassies or any other embassies abroad, should we not ensure that incidents such as that which took place at the Greek Embassy—

Order. That matter is sub judice. The hon. Gentleman may put a general question but not refer to that specific case.

—should we not make sure that incidents of any kind against any embassy in London do not take place?

I agree that it is very undesirable that incidents should take place.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now fixed taxi fares from Heathrow Airport to Central London.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now take action to fix maximum charges for taxi journeys from Heathrow Airport to central London.

This requires legislation which it has not been found possible to include in the Government's programme for this Session.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this question is urgent as the tourist season has started? Recently, a French friend of mine was charged £4 10s. from Heathrow to Victoria Station. From Orly to central Paris cab fares are fixed. Why not fix them for London? Do we want to create this unfavourable impression on all visitors?

My right hon. Friend has announced the Government's intention to introduce legislation for this purpose, but he made it clear that it would probably not be able to be introduced in this Session.

Pending legislation, cannot the right hon. Lady get a voluntary agreement of some kind with the cab trade for a reasonable fare? Is she aware that only the other day I was charged £4 in returning to this House after coming back from abroad on a Parliamentary engagement?

The hon. Gentleman has made a very useful suggestion. As he knows, the Home Office recently set up a consultative committee with sections of the cab trade. I will see that this matter is referred to them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to introduce modifications to the Shop Acts to permit more flexible hours of opening and closing during the holiday season.

There is already considerable scope under the Shops Act, 1950, for local authorities to vary the closing hours of shops in holiday resorts. My right hon. Friend is considering the possible need for further powers of variation as part of his general review of shop hours legislation.

While ensuring that the hours of shop workers are not prolonged, my right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed because there is great demand for the consumer interest to be paramount in seaside resorts and on the Norfolk Broads so that shopkeepers can serve people who come to their shops if they wish to.

Under the Shops Act, 1950, a local authority in a holiday resort may make an order permitting the opening of shops specified in the order on not more than 18 Sundays in the year for the sale of certain goods.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is now over two years since the Government produced their proposals for shops legislation in a White Paper? What further consideration is needed?

I am aware that it is a long time since the White Paper was published. The trouble has been that in all the discussions we have held and in all the submissions made to us there has been so much disagreement about what ought to be done among those concerned that we have not found any consensus.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the number of attacks in London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Manchester and Birmingham on public service vehicle employees, particularly on late shifts; and if he will introduce legislation to increase penalties on those who threaten public services.

The Criminal Justice Bill proposes increases in the maximum penalties for many of the relevant offences.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for drawing that to my notice. The unions and the employers are very concerned that public services are being threatened by a very small number of thugs. Is it not wrong that the public should suffer because a few people want to exhibit themselves freely? Will he not take great care to bring to the notice of magistrates the fact that greater sentences are now available?

Two questions are involved here. The first concerns maximum penalties, and I remind my hon. Friend that the Criminal Justice Bill is not yet law. The second question concerns police measures, which may help in certain areas. In some of the areas referred to in my hon. Friend's Question, I understand that the institution of police patrols has had a salutary effect.

Could not the hon. and learned Gentleman alert local watch committees about these serious problems? I cannot believe that these watch committees, in conjunction with the police, cannot afford better protection to bus conductors. It is a miserable experience for a conductor who is attacked. He may have only one or two public-spirited passengers to call upon for help.

On the whole, this is a matter for chief constables, who are aware of the problem. In areas where it has been brought to our notice some action has been taken.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Metropolitan Police oppose the planting of any climbing flowering plant or creeper on the wall of Buckingham Palace Gardens facing Grosvenor Place, Hyde Park Corner and Constitution Hill.

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis considers that plants on or near the wall could assist an intruder by providing concealment or a foothold for climbing the wall. My right hon. Friend will, however, be glad to consult the Commissioner on any proposals the hon. Member may have to overcome this difficulty.

While I welcome such a conference, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to point out to the police that there are many varieties of roses which would deter any scrambler? How many people have tried to climb the Citadel in the Mall?

We will take due note of the horticultural expertise of the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to keep summer-time throughout the year.

Yes, Sir The Government intend to introduce legislation early next Session to apply summertime throughout the year in Great Britain, in conformity with Central European time. The proposal is that the legislation should take effect in the autumn of 1968; and an Order will shortly be laid before the House under the existing Acts providing for summer-time to start next year on 18th February.

While Scotland and some farmers may not find this news very welcome, is the right hon Gentleman aware that the country as a whole, particularly chambers of commerce and industry, will be very gratified?

We have made all the inquiries that we could on an issue on which people can hold differing views. The Government have concluded that this change will be substantially in accordance with the balance of opinion in the country.

Is not this a further example of the progressive policies being followed by the Government to the advantage and satisfaction of the overwhelming majority of the British public?

I do not think that I could possibly attempt an answer to that supplementary Question.

Some of us regard this as a retrograde step. If it is the business world that wants it, can the right hon. Gentleman say how the business world of America manages perfectly all right when they have four different times across the Continent?

As I have indicated in replying to a previous supplementary, I do not think the fact that one has to have different time zones in a continent 3,000 miles wide affects what we do here. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not take into account only business opinion but also the general balance of social convenience and social considerations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider changing the name of this new time when it goes throughout the year?

Yes. I do not think that either summer-time or, indeed, Central European time, which applies mostly in western Europe, are particularly appropriate titles. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman or any other hon. Member has any suggestions to offer I will consider them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to disregard the payment of pensions when assessing compensation pending the results of his present inquiry into the scheme.

It would not be appropriate to make a change of this kind while the matter is the subject of an appeal pending in the courts.

If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to give that undertaking now, would he give the House an assurance that when his inquiries are conducted and completed there will be retrospective assessment of the cases already decided?

I cannot give my hon. Friend such an assurance. There would be considerable difficulties in retrospective assessment here, as there are in many other respects.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is discriminating very badly against public servants, most of whom are in the front line of attack? Would he not agree that this would be a matter not of serious Parliamentary time but merely him changing his mind and placing an Order before the House?

There are certain difficulties. I am not unsympathetic to the difficulties which arise, but I think there is a possible anomaly between those who draw a public service pension and those who draw pensions from other sources. When the scheme was introduced it was made clear by the hon. Lady the Member for Malton (Miss Pike) that it was intended to deal with hardship and there should not be two payments from public sources. I am willing to look at the matter, although, as I have indicated, it is to some extent tied up with the report which I hope to have from a sub-committee of the Advisory Council on the Penal System on the whole subject of restitution.

Will the Home Secretary agree to reconsider his decision about current cases to see that he does not discriminate against widows and others who are at present suffering an injustice and who, unless he allows their cases to be considered, will continue to have unequal treatment?

I think the right hon. Gentleman will be aware on reflection that I was not making any announcement on this. I was merely not giving a firm undertaking.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of instructions issued by Scotland Yard to Metropolitan Police stations regarding carnival processions; and whether, in view of the anxieties of the Carnival Associations Guild and others, he will make a statement to clarify the present position.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Carnival Associations Guild concerning the routes available to the member Asso- ciations of the Guild; and what reply he has given.

The Commissioner of Police informs me that, because carnival processions on main roads can cause widespread dislocation of traffic, organisers may be advised to modify their routes in agreement with the police. My right hon. Friend has received letters from three hon. Members, but no representations directly from the Carnival Associations Guild.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many will regard these instructions as harsh and unreasonable? Will he bear in mind that any re-routing of the kind mentioned must adversely affect the collections which these carnival processions are able to make for charities? Will he, therefore, make it clear to Scotland Yard that any slight dislocation of traffic once a year is a very small price to pay for the preservation of one of the last vestiges of community life in Greater London?

I am sure that the Commissioner of Police is aware that a slight dislocation of traffic is something that one could tolerate in a good cause; but I think the hon. Member must be aware that quite often it is not just a slight dislocation of traffic, but a major congestion.

Will my hon. and learned Friend note that the carnivals have always co-operated fully with the police? Will he, moreover, note that the contribution of these carnivals to community life includes, for instance, the improvement of race relations by incorporating all sections of the community in the carnivals? Would he please give every possible assistance to ensure that they can continue to do things which are in no way different from the weekly football match at Highbury Stadium?

I realise that many of the causes promoted by these carnivals are causes which everyone would wish to support. However, it is not necessarily as simple as saying that it is like the usual disturbance at Highbury Stadium. On some occasions some of these carnivals clash with other engagements, like football matches, which also cause dislocation. One could not have the Home Office interfering with the discretion of the police as to whether a particular route should be followed in a particular case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of recent bullion robberies and other attacks on custodians of large sums of money, if he will introduce legislation to allow such custodians to be armed with authority to shoot if attacked, as one method of reducing this type of crime.

The issue of firearms certificates is a matter for chief officers of police, but it remains my view that only in very exceptional circumstances should a firearm be held for protection purposes.

In view of the increasing brutality of the attacks upon ordinary civilians whose job it is to look after large sums of money, does not the Home Secretary think that bank clerks and Post Office workers are entitled to better protection? If he will not accept this, what suggestion can he offer to protect them?

I do not accept this. I have had the opportunity, as no doubt many other hon. Members have, of studying the position in the United States and elsewhere, and it remains my view that an armed police and, still more, armed private individuals, would be much more likely to lead to an escalation of violence with increased danger for everybody rather than increased protection.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sir Ronald Howe, the ex-Deputy Commissioner of Scotland Yard and the present Chairman of Factory Guards Ltd., has said that firearms are unnecessary and not in the public interest, and the present managing, director of Securicor has said that it is unnecessary to give his men firearms? Would he oppose any attempt by the uninformed to arm the uniformed?

The expression of view and conclusion of my hon. Friend is in accordance with my own conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the minimum, the maximum and the average times required to bring a child before a juvenile court in the Greater London area.

My right hon. Friend would not feel justified in asking the courts to undertake the special inquiry needed to provide this information. In general, the interval between the institution of proceedings and the child's first appearance in court is about two weeks, though there can be variations according to circumstances.

Does not the right hon. Lady think that two weeks is a very long time to keep a child waiting in such circumstances? Is she aware that cases occur—I have had correspondence with her about one where there has been delay of five weeks? This has a very bad effect on the children concerned.

I agree about the case about which the hon. Gentleman has had correspondence with my right hon. Friend, but there were special circumstances, because it was concerned with the railway police. As to the average of two weeks, it is sometimes necessary to get reports on the children about their home circumstances and so on.

Because of the time that it takes for these cases to come on for trial, would my right hon. Friend do everything she can to ensure that children are not unnecessarily remanded in custody during these periods?

It is for the courts to determine where the child should be remanded. However, it is often necessary for a child to be remanded in a remand home so that observation may be made and medical reports received.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new instructions he has given immigration officers about their treatment of foreigners and Commonwealth citizens seeking entry to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what revised instructions to immigration officers have been issued in 1967; and whether he plans to issue any further instructions in the near future.

I would refer the hon. Members to a reply my right hon. Friend gave on 27th April to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). Apart from the change referred to in that reply, and instructions on minor matters, there have been no new instructions, nor are there any immediately in prospect, dealing with major changes of policy or practice. My right hon. Friend will look at the instructions again after he has received and considered the report of the Committee on Immigration Appeals.

Does not the hon. Member agree that in recent weeks and months there have been a number of very disturbing cases, particularly at London Airport? Does not he think that his right hon. Friend ought to look at the matter urgently so that visitors to this country can expect reasonable treatment, which they receive in the overwhelming majority of cases, and this small minority of cases be stopped?

This is a matter which is constantly before my right hon. Friend and myself. It should be understood that in a number of cases Press reports have been grossly exaggerated and sometimes quite incorrect. As I said, my right hon. Friend recently changed certain instructions concerning medical examinations at London Airport where there had been a particular incident.

Does the Minister appreciate that immigration officers, at airports particularly, are already working at full stretch and if any further controls are put on their activities the whole system of checking immigrants may collapse altogether?

I do not agree with the last part of the conclusion. This is one reason why we have been encouraging those coming to this country—I am particularly referring to Commonwealth citizens about whom there may be some doubt whether they are entitled to entry under the Act—to obtain entry certi- ficates before coming so as to prevent all the difficulties of questioning which inevitably occur at London Airport.

Will my hon. Friend encourage the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination and other bodies who want to see, and are helping to provide the money for, a welfare officer at London Airport to help people who are in difficulties when they arrive here?

This is precisely the sort of proposal which my right hon. Friend will have in mind when he considers the report from the Wilson Committee to which I have referred and which we expect quite shortly.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is most unsatisfactory, because on 27th April his right hon. Friend assured me that he would look at this matter again and also said that it was not the custom to publish these instructions although in fact in 1966 we had a White Paper which did precisely that?

It is true that in 1966 Cmnd. 3064 publicised the instructions. However, my right hon. Friend will consider whether there is a case for publishing other instructions. Since from time to time there are minor instructions, it would not be helpful for them all to be published.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, in an application made to the Becontree magistrates and heard on 8th December, 1966, at the Stratford Magistrates' Court, details of which have been sent to him by the honourable Member for Wanstead and Woodford, evidence of previous convictions of the man whom the applicant was seeking permission to marry was not made available by the police to the applicant's parents who were opposing the application.

It is not the practice of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to disclose this kind of information to private individuals, but he has no record of having been asked for these particulars by the parents of the girl concerned. The particulars, which related to juvenile offences, were disclosed to the court by the man himself.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the information which was disclosed to the court came out in reexamination? Is she further aware that the parents knew nothing whatever of the facts which were disclosed to them by the police only after the proceedings were completed, as a result of which they are now labouring under a grievous sense of injustice.

The hon. Member has a mistaken impression of the purpose of these proceedings. It is not for the police to make investigations into these matters and it is certainly not for the police to hand to private individuals any of the information which they have. In these cases the court has to act in a judicial capacity and, on the basis of the evidence submitted, assess whether the particular grounds on which the parents have withheld their consent are good and sufficient.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in 1966 there was an increase of 30,044 in the alien population of the United Kingdom compared with 25,508 in 1965 and 18,866 in 1964; what were the reasons for this increase; and whether he will make a statement about current and future policy with regard to the admission of aliens to this country.

The figures quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—the figure for 1965 should be 24,508—represent the net balance between aliens arriving and departing, and are not a figure for the permanent addition to our resident alien population. The numbers of aliens accepted for permanent residence in 1964, 1965 and 1966 were 19,211, 20,615 and 18,948, respectively. These figures are not such as to call for any fresh policy.

How does the hon. Gentleman relate the large increase in the number of aliens here in the last two years with the high level of unemployment and the smaller number of vacancies to be filled during that period?

There is very little relationship, because these are simply figures at the ends of particular years and they fluctuate from year to year. For instance, in 1962 there were well over 8,000, whereas in 1966 there were 30,000, in 1957, 10,000, and in 1960, 36,000. This is a figure which varies from year to year and it can be considered only by looking over a period of years as a whole.

asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take on the conclusions of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the latest recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform; and if he will arrange for the evidence on which such recommendations were based to be published.

Mr. Speaker's Conference has reported its recommendations on all those matters within its terms of reference, except that dealing with the minimum age for voting. The Government are considering these recommendations as a whole.

Is not the delay in the consideration of these recommendations by the House unfortunate, as there are some 17 major recommendations involving legislation, some dating back to December, 1965?

Yes, Sir. That is certainly so. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, some of the recommendations were made available only in May of this year and it was felt right that we should consider all the recommendations as a whole. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for urgency and about providing adequate time for legislation.

Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea of when the Conference will conclude its investigations and recommendations? Do the Government expect to have a debate on a package deal, as it were, when we discuss these recommendations? Will my right hon. Friend press for the evidence on which the recommendation on public opinion polls was based to be published in full, as there has been singularly little research into this problem?

As I have said, publication of evidence is a matter for the Conference itself. The House can form its own view. There is a problem about the issue of the age of voting, for a separate committee is considering what should be the right age for majority and it may be thought well to wait for that committee to conclude its work. The subject of a debate and what form it should take should be a matter for consultations within the House, first both as to the kind of statement to be made and the way in which it should be made and how the House should then handle it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that at the very first meeting of Mr. Speaker's Conference on 30th June, 1965, I proposed, without success, that all proceedings of the Conference should be published, so that when the House came to consider—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—

I think that the fact that the hon. Gentleman was defeated puts his question out of order.

Will the Prime Minister urge on the Conference the importance of an early recommendation on the minimum age of voting? Does he not recognise that many young people are not able to vote for the first time in a Parliamentary election until they are 23 or 24 years of age and that a reduction of the age minimum to 18 would rectify that anomaly?

That is certainly a fact, particularly, of course, if the person concerned comes of age fairly early in the lifetime of a Parliament. There are other problems—the problems of the Y voters—even among those who come of age. These are all matters which we should leave until we are able to debate the issue as a whole.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with King Faisal.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 6th June to a Question by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. LangfordHolt).—[Vol. 747, c. 789–91.]

Does not the Prime Minister agree that much of the good will engendered by this State visit has been lost by the unfortunate timing of remarks by Government spokesmen, including the Prime Minister, about the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba? What firm proposals does the Prime Minister have for mending our fences with our Arab friends?

The hon. Gentleman will recollect the deep division at the time of King Faisal's visit, even before the problems of the Gulf of Aqaba became real, but when we debated this issue, before the fighting began, the vast majority of hon. Members—there were one or two exceptions on both sides of the House—felt that what the Government had said about the Straits of Aqaba represented the views of the majority of the House.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now take the initiative towards resolving the Rhodesian problem by appointing an all-party commission to investigate, on the spot, the possibility of further negotiations.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Lord Alport arrives in Salisbury today, and it would not be appropriate therefore for me to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Does the Prime Minister not think that it might be of assistance to the noble Lord to have such an all-party commission of hon. Members, to find out what are the views of the people of Rhodesia on the acceptability of the "Tiger" Constitution, and to discover their desire to return to a system of dependence on Her Majesty's Government?

I thought that on H.M.S. "Tiger" we reached agreement on the best possible means of finding out the views of the people of Rhodesia in relation to the fifth principle. While there might have been a time, and might still be a time, when a Parliamentary Committee might be useful, I doubt whether this is the time and I think that we should leave this now to Lord Alport.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very difficult for the people of Rhodesia to make their views known at the moment, and that, until there is some sign from the Rhodesian Government that they are prepared to accept the commission, I see no purpose in setting it up?

I suggested this on a number of occasions to Mr. Smith, and so did my right hon. Friend last year. He was very much opposed to any type of outside Parliamentary visit, from this House or from both Houses. Now he has, albeit somewhat reluctantly, accepted the fact that Lord Alport is there and we must now leave that where it is.

asked the Prime Minister how, in negotiating Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, he proposes to safeguard Australia's growing export market in Great Britain, worth, last year. $A475 million, of which 65 per cent. enjoyed preferential duties.

I can assure the hon. Member that I am well aware of the importance to Australia of the British market. We are in close touch with the Australian Government about the implications for Australia of British membership of the European Economic Community.

What has the Prime Minister done to co-ordinate Commonwealth action in preparation for the U.N.C.T.A.D. conference, due next year, especially over commodity agreements, as recommended by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference of September, 1966?

We are working on preparations for the U.N.C.T.A.D. conference, but this particularly refers, as the House knows, to the problem of developing countries. As I understand it, this Question relates to our entry to the European Economic Community, and the Australian market for Great Britain. On that question, I was discussing this last week with the Prime Minister of Australia.

On the other hand, will the Prime Minister say what action he proposes to safeguard our exports to Australia, whether we get in to the Common Market or whether we do not?

I agree that this is important too, and we have had a number of bilateral exchanges on the ways in which both of us can help increase our trade, one with another. It is a fact that there has been a very major diversification of Australian exports in the last few years and its exports east of Suez now represent about 50 per cent. of its total exports. Japan has now displaced the United Kingdom as Australia's largest export market.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister of State in the Ministry of Technology solely concerned with the development of the technology of the sea-bed.

While fully recognising the importance of work in this sphere, I do not think that a full-time Ministerial appointment could be justified.

Does the Prime Minister accept the case that a major marine science programme can be sustained on its own hard-headed economic merits and that some technical resources, hitherto bound up in the Atomic Energy Authority and defence engineering, should be released for a development programme of the sea-bed?

Yes. The importance that the Government attach to this was shown by the Conference on the Technology of the Sea and the Sea Bed, held at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment a couple of months ago, and sponsored by the Ministry of Technology, at which other Departments were represented. Follow-up action from that conference is now proceeding.

Would the right hon. Gentleman look at this Question in a wider field? Would he not agree that the time has really come for a much wider investigation of the whole question of sea use, of marine technology, marine science, and of getting someone to look at it from outside the Department?

This is absolutely right, and it was one reason why we set up the super-co-ordinating committee in the matter of scientific research. I said at that time that there were some scientists who felt that, compared with the vast amounts we were spending on space, a million or two spent on marine geology might give us much more value, in real terms as well as scientific terms. Certainly this whole matter should be looked at, and is being looked at.

Is not this a case in which the Prime Minister might well be doing something, instead of just wringing his hands?

Yes, and in this, as in all other matters, we are. I do not remember the right hon. Gentleman paying any attention to sea-bed technology—I am not sure if he even knew what it was.

asked the Prime Minister if he will instruct the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary to prepare a study relating to the United Kingdom comparable to the Staff Study on Arms Sales and Foreign Policy prepared for the use of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a copy of which has been sent to him.

No, Sir. The factors governing the export of armaments are kept constantly under review, and each application to export defence equipment is carefully considered on its merits.

Does the Prime Minister recall saying that the Labour Government would concentrate on the export of the munitions of life rather than the munitions of death? Will he not agree that, even in the crudest economic terms, the export of arms may not give a good yield?

In terms of the export of peaceful munitions, of the kind quoted, our aid programme is a fulfilment of that. On the sale of defence arms, we are very anxious to conclude a world agreement, particularly banning private sales of arms, which cause so much harm in areas of tension, and to reach agreement on an arms export control system with the countries concerned. When we have raised this with, for example, the Soviet Union, we have not received very much encouragement, but we shall keep on trying.

Is the Prime Minister aware that when we put Questions in this House about where the arms are sent we are told that it is the practice not to disclose this? In view of the fact that people believe that arms have been sent to both sides in the Middle East conflict, does he not think that it is time that we knew where the arms were sent?

It is the practice not to give details about individual arms sales. I certainly agree with what I think is my hon. Friend's feelings, that we ought to get, if we can—and this should be part of a settlement in the Middle East—a comprehensive arms control agreement. It is no good that it should be just binding on us—it should be binding on all those countries which have been supplying arms to the Middle East.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Lord Chancellor at Brighton on 5th May about changes in the law relating to divorce represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

No, Sir. My noble and learned Friend emphasised that he was expressing a personal view, and was not speaking on behalf of the Government.

Is it not a novel procedure for a member of the Cabinet to advocate a complete change in the grounds of the law of divorce, a matter within the sphere of his Department and involving legislation, without this being the policy of the Government? Is this the new streamlined administration that we were promised?

Is it an extremely refreshing proposal. It has been widely recognised for many years that reforms in this area, as in so many others, are not matters for party controversy—for Government policy—but rather are matters which should come up in this House usually by Private Member's Bills. In this particular case, we shall need the work of the Law Commission, which is at present discussing this with the Bishop of Exeter's Committee. It was perfectly appropriate and right that my noble and learned Friend, since this could not be a Government question, should help to stimulate further discussion by the speech that he made.

asked the Prime Minister what Government decisions have been taken to enable the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to explain British policy on the Middle East at the United Nations Assembly.

The House will by this time have read reports of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's speech at the General Assembly of the United Nations yesterday. I am placing a full text of the speech in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was expressing certain principles, drawn from the Charter of the United Nations, on which our general approach to a solution of the Arab-Israel conflict is based. He was not, of course, attempting to put forward any detailed proposals for an eventual settlement.

But is my right hon. Friend aware that what the Foreign Secretary did at the United Nations Assembly was to indulge in a sustained criticism of the Israeli Government, including threats if the Israeli Government failed to carry out a certain policy? Was he representing the policy of the Government, and, if so, was he taking sides for the first time? Was he representing the declared view of right hon. and hon. Members in this Assembly?

My right hon. Friend was representing the policy of the Government. He was not taking sides. It is my view—and my right hon. Friend's Question has confirmed this—that there has been some misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what my right hon. Friend said. What he was trying to do, and what he said, was to lay down the principle that all the matters to which he referred were for decision in the eventual settlement. When he referred to Israel on this particular point, he was warning Israel—

Warning?

Yes, warning Israel against taking any immediate unilateral action, for example, formal annexation of a quasi-legal character or by legislation to harden and make permanent their grip on the territory which they had captured. He felt, and I should have thought that the House would feel, that if this were done it would prejudice the prospects of a satisfactory all-round settlement at which we should all be aiming and which could have very great advantage for Israel as well as for other countries.

But the Foreign Secretary's use of the phrase that there must be no "territorial aggrandisement" of any kind following the recent conflict has been widely interpreted, certainly in this country, as meaning that Israel must go back exactly to the status quo before the recent conflict. Would not the Foreign Secretary be better advised to continue to urge that there should be negotiations between the two sides to achieve a reasonable and permanent settlement which would provide security for Israel as well as a peaceful, prosperous existence for the Arab countries?

Yes. He was, of course, pressing for negotiations—and when the text of the whole speech and not parts of it have been reported this will be clear—not necessarily between the two sides. This would be valuable if it could be achieved; it might not be realistic. There are other possibilities, including four-Power talks and discussions at the United Nations. But my right hon. Friend's reference to "territorial aggrandisement" in his speech was a warning against the idea that boundaries could be settled just by military action. The boundaries have to be settled by an all-out settlement. This settlement could be of the greatest value in giving security all round if, for example, as it most certainly should—[Interruption.]—this is a very serious question and hon. Members should treat it with the seriousness which it deserves—if, for example, such a settlement as most of us have urged in the House were to include for the first time recognition of the right of Israel to her existence, security through international waterways for her goods as well as, of course, dealing with some of the security anxieties both ways and with the problem of refugees. This is a very valuable prize. Nothing should be done short term to make it more difficult.

Does my right hon. Friend still subscribe to the policy of not supplying arms to the Middle East at all? If he does, how does he reconcile that with the proceedings between President Nasser and the President of the Soviet Union in Cairo yesterday?

As my right hon. Friend made clear to the House before he went to New York, while we did have a temporary embargo to all parties, while we were inquiring whether other countries would do the same, the fact that we could not get assurances of this kind, for example, from the Soviet Union, led us to end the embargo and to resume our previous practice and judge each case on its merits.

Since the Government have attached some moral significance to remaining neutral in what many regard as a highly controversial issue, may we know why the Foreign Secretary made his remark about "territorial aggrandisement" at a time when Russia continues to supply arms to the Egyptians and when no Arab State has agreed to negotiate with the Israeli Government? Are we to take it that this is a new definition of "neutral" which is more neutral to one side than to the other?

I do not accept that for a moment. I believe, as many hon. Members believe, that we shall not get a settlement advantageous to Israel if it is asserted that whatever has been seized in the war should automatically become part of the permanent frontiers. Israel and everyone in the Middle East have a lot more to gain from a settlement in which these matters are settled by negotiation. My right hon. Friend felt that it was right to say this because of the immediate danger of the chance of such a settlement being prejudiced by action such as legislation in the Knesset incorporating certain territories on a legal, although challengeable legal, basis into the territory of Israel.

May I ask my right hon. Friend three questions? First, do we recognise that a state of war exists between Israel and the Arab nations? Secondly, if that be so, is not the supply of arms to the belligerents a clear breach of neutrality? Thirdly, does not a breach of neutrality of that sort justify an end to the cease-fire?

I do not think that it would be helpful if I were to try to answer those questions, because they all proceed from the first question about the legal status as to whether there is a state of war or not. Before getting into that very difficult field, I should like notice of the question and indeed to have it put either to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or to the Foreign Secretary. I do not think that it would be right to rush into these very difficult matters, because it might cause further difficulty.

The Foreign Secretary seems to have tried to define in New York the frontiers which Israel should observe in future as a result of the war. Is not that very unwise? It may be, as the Prime Minister said, that the Foreign Secretary did not mean to say this. Therefore, may we have the full text of his speech placed in the Library so that we may judge and return to these matters in future?

I confirm what I said in my main Answer. I am placing the full text of the speech in the Library. The right hon. Gentleman is right that one should study the full speech. But my right hon. Friend was not attempting to define the frontiers, the boundaries, the borders of these States. These must be matters for an international settlement. He was saying that they cannot be just unilaterally declared as a result of the fighting, but that there must be discussions, and he was wanting to make proposals which would help to get a solution by avoiding further unilateral action at this time.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the manner in which the speech was made at the United Nations indicated that an attempt would be made to deal with Jerusalem alone first and that the speech has deeply shocked everybody, particularly in view of the fact that for the first time in 19 years members of all religions are able to practise in their Holy Places? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that Israel is the only nation which so far has been and is able to make that possible in the Holy City?

I can assure my hon. Friend that in New York my right hon. Friend, neither by what he said nor by the manner in which he said it, tried to lay down from Britain's point of view, still less internationally, what the future status of Jerusalem should be. What he was saying was that the Israel Government should not undertake unilateral action now by legislating for the annexation of the Old City of Jerusalem. He was not prejudging, any final settlement. I certainly take, as most hon. Members will, what my hon. Friend says about opening up all the Holy Places of three religions for those who adhere to them. This is an extremely important and historic development. Certainly it is of fundamental importance. But proposals which one knows were going on for immediate legislation on the Old City might have prejudiced a final settlement, created much more bitterness and made a reasonable final settlement much more difficult.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory reply, and in the absence of an early debate, I give notice that I propose to raise the matter of the Foreign Secretary's speech at the United Nations at an early date.

rose—