asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with present facilities and arrangements for allowing representatives of the Press and broadcasting authorities to visit Her Majesty's prisons; and if he will make a statement.

Subject to the need to maintain security and to avoid undue interference with the work of the establishment, it is my policy to grant such facilities and considerable efforts are made to assist the Press and radio and television authorities.

I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has done in this matter. Does not he agree that frequent and regular visits by the Press and by television authorities could help to expose some of the conditions under which both prisoners and prison officers live and perhaps prevent some unpleasant occurrences?

I think that it is appropriate that representatives of the Press and television should have opportunities to visit these closed establishments. But clearly one must have regard to the needs of the establishments themselves. For example, if a film company asks to operate inside a prison for a week, it becomes a little difficult to meet such a request.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to his policy in respect of the admission to this country of the dependants of Commonwealth immigrants already here.

I have nothing to add to past statements on this matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether those past statements mean that he is or is not prepared to allow unrestricted entry to the dependants of immigrants already here? If that is his policy, how does he define dependency for purposes of this application? How, in view of the difficulties which the Inland Revenue has encountered, does he check on genuineness?

That is a subject for a speech and not for a Parliamentary Answer. But I can sum up by saying that to prevent a man's wife and children from joining him here leads to social problems in the community. The only way to prevent those problems is to allow families to be reunited. Indeed, it is only common humanity to do so. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I am here echoing the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and I agree with them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the annual average rate of entry of dependent immigrants over the last five years.

Slightly under 40,000.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the cost to the social services of this number of people over the last five years?

I answered a Question which touched on this subject the other day. I cannot give the figure in detail, but from an article in the Economic Review it appears that there was a study which indicated that for immigrants the cost of health and welfare was about national average, of education and child care a little above and of social security benefits well below the national average.

What average rate of entry of dependants does the hon. Gentleman expect over the next five years?

It is impossible to give that figure. While it would be very rash to give a judgement based just on this year, for figures of this kind do not always follow the norm, the figures are lower than last year.

; On a point of order. In view of the vagueness of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Notice should be given in conventional form.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dependants entering this country in the last two years received or expect to receive full-time education.

I do not have exact information but estimate that, of the Commonwealth citizens admitted for settlement in each of these years, about 25,000–30,000 were under 15 years of age, a proportion of whom would be below the age of compulsory school attendance.

Does not this make an estimate of the amount of money needed for education by these immigrants running into tens of millions of pounds?

To get absolutely correct figures for all immigrants is extremely difficult, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department of Education and Science takes sample checks and has sufficient figures to deal with the problem.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that people coming from overseas to work in this country should have the right to draw their families around them when they are legitimately their families, and that in the long run this is the most civilised way to do it?

That is a view which has been expressed not only on this side of the House, but by the Leader of the Opposition.

How does the Home Office define dependent immigrants? Is there any limit to the number of dependent immigrants to one immigrant?

I cannot give a statistical definition, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman. Dependants are allowed in.

Presumably, the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given in the last two Answers relate to some supposed definition of immigrants and dependants. Surely those are contained in the 1962 Act; or is he relying on something else?

No, the same definition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in setting up a register of dependants in which immigrants claiming wives and children as residing overseas can enter their claims.

I am not yet satisfied that the compilation of a register of dependants would yield the advantages claimed for it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that last summer he said that he would consider this matter very seriously? I hope that he will be able to make up his mind soon. A number of immigrants come from territories where illegitimacy is rife and where it is difficult to distinguish between legitimate and lawful families and those which are not. Is it not necessary for the immigration officers to have a register to which they can work when these so-called families arrive?

As the hon. Gentleman indicates, there are many factors in this matter. I have examined it, as I undertook to do some months ago. I do not think that the increase in work which would be involved would bring any great benefit at the moment, but this is one of the matters which could well be discussed in the Select Committee on Race Relations which I believe the House will agree to set up very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the additional cost incurred by the Metropolitan Police in consequence of the demonstration on Sunday, 27th October.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department caused by the Trafalgar Square demonstration on Sunday, 27th October.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will announce the estimated cost to public funds of measures to maintain order and prevent damage during the recent demonstration in London against the Vietnam war.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the approximate cost of police and other services to the taxpayer resulting from the demonstration in London on 27th October, 1968.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost of all the police and other measures, including the erection of protective barriers and the clearing up of debris, necessitated by the demonstrations on Sunday 27th October last; and what part of this cost is to be met by the demonstration organisers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the extra cost to the Metropolitan Police, Government Departments and local government authorities, caused by preparations for dealing with the demonstration in central London on 27th October.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost to public funds of the Vietnam demonstrations on Sunday, 27th October; and to what main heads of expenditure is that amount attributable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated total cost on the Home Office vote arising out of measures taken in regard to the demonstrations in London on Sunday, 27th October.

The additional costs of the arrangements by the Metropolitan and City of London police for the demonstration on 27th October would be of the order of £81,000 on the assumption that no man will take time off in lieu of overtime payment. No police were brought in from outside the Metropolitan area. For the Home Office, additional staff costs and other expenditure amounted to about £1,200. I have no information about the expenditure falling on other bodies.

To what extent does the right hon. Gentleman think it possible to give police officers a day in lieu, so that the full amount of £81,000 is not incurred? Can the right hon. Gentleman comment on the wildly exaggerated estimate, given by Mr. George Gale, of a cost of £500,000? Will he draw the true figure to Mr. Gale's attention?

The question of time off must, to some extent, be at the discretion of the man himself and the needs of the work that must be done. The matter must be left to the Commissioner to decide. I have no idea where the figure of £500,000 came from. Perhaps the Chairman of the Police Federation was taking the total cost of all the policemen involved that day but, of course, their wages would have been paid whether they were on duty for the demonstration or not.

In view of events abroad, does not my right hon. Friend think that far too much fuss has been made about the additional cost?

I think that it would be better to spend £81, 000 on another children's home, for example, but I regard the maintenance of the right of free speech as very important.

When the ordinary individual wishes to apply for police assistance because he is holding a meeting which requires police help in looking after traffic, for example, he is expected to pay for that help. Would it not be only fair to ask the organisers of demonstrations to make some contribution towards police expenses?

I do not think so. It would, of course, be very difficult to know where to draw the line. In view of the well known disorderliness of the Conservative Party conference, I would presumably have to ask the Conservative Party to pay for police protection. I think we must draw a distinction between public meetings, political meetings and the rest, and I think that we had better leave the matter as it is.

But should not the extra cost of the police be borne, at least partly, by those who threaten and orgainse violence and not by the law-abiding home-owners in the area concerned?

I do not think that the figure of cost, unwelcome as it is, should be put into the scale against the desire of between 20,000 and 30,000 of our people to demonstrate their views, whether one likes them or not, on the subject of peace and war.

Is the Home Secretary aware that while the majority of people in this country would fully agree with that, they are also extremely unwilling to have to pay out of their own pockets towards the cost? Can we have some estimate of what was the cost to Government Departments and public authorities other than the police of protecting themselves, and what was the cost to private persons?

I dare say that everybody pays taxes which he does not like and I dare say that a number of demonstrators were also taxpayers. But I do not think that we can split it up in this way. I said in my original Answer that the cost to the Home Office was £1,200. It would take a disproportionate amount of time and effort for all my colleagues in other Ministries to get the cost to their Departments.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people think that this money was very well spent in maintaining the famous British traditions of freedom of speech and peaceful toleration, but would he enable those members of the public who wish to express their appreciation in a particular form to do so by giving them the address of the Police Benevolent and Orphans Fund?

I am sure that contributions of that sort would be welcomed, but I do not wish particularly to encourage donations for what the police regard as being part of the day's work.

I do not quarrel with the cost on this occasion, but will the Home Secretary say how much money as a maximum he would consider justifiable for a repeat performance on another occasion, or for any other similar large-scale demonstration?

I do not see how I could possibly answer such a question.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the cost to democracy, following demonstrations in Chicago and Mexico and parts of Europe, was very cheap in view of the defence of democracy in Britain on 27th October?

I am sorry that there has been this focus by a small group of hon. Members opposite on cost. The benefits to the country of the absence of social tension following the demonstration cannot be measured in terms of the cost.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of foreign students who entered the country for the demonstration on 27th October.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the total number of foreign students who came by legal and illegal means, respectively, to take part in the demonstration on 27th October.

About 70 foreign nationals are known to have arrived with the intention of taking part in the demonstration. I have no evidence about illegal entry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been widespread claims by the demonstrators that a number did enter illegally, and that this is much resented by many citizens? Can he throw no light at all on these claims?

I did not see any of them. I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that I found that a number of claims were made, which cannot always be substantiated.

Will my right hon. Friend state whether any foreign aliens were arrested on the demonstration?

Yes, they were, but there is a later Question about that. It was a very small number indeed. If the House likes I can give the figures now. There was one German, one Australian and two American schoolboys, aged 15 and 16.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the organisers of the demonstration on 27th October satisfied the police that they would be able to control the demonstration; whether he is satisfied that such control was effective; and if he will make a statement.

Arrangements were agreed with the organisers on the route to be followed by the main body of demonstrators. Apart from some minor incidents and inconvenience to traffic, this self-disciplined precession gave the police no real cause for concern. The police were unable to secure any such agreement with those who were responsible for the separate and smaller procession to Grosvenor Square, where the organisers seemed unable to control their supporters and much disorderly behaviour took place.

Did the main organisers give no undertaking at all with regard to Grosvenor Square? Was it not obvious, anyhow, that certain elements were bound to exploit the situation and go there?

The organisers of the main demonstration indicated that they did not intend to go to Grosvenor Square, and they did not go there.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members attended both as observers and actually marched on the demonstration? Is he further aware that the main demonstration was perfectly orderly, and that I believe that the organisers of the demonstration should receive the congratulations of everyone? Obviously in all such demonstrations there is a certain element which joins and which cannot be controlled by anyone, irrespective of who they are.

I agree with a large part of what my hon. Friend says, and I am very grateful to hon. Members from both sides of the House who undertook the task of observing what was taking place. I found it very useful to hear their comments. It is true, in the case of any demonstration, that one cannot control who turns up, but in this case there was a separate factional group, determined to march on Grosvenor Square and, as the event turned out, to make trouble there. This was not a case of isolated individuals who joined the demonstration. With regard to offering my congratulations to the organisers, I do not think I really wish to embarrass Mr. Tariq Ali.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that although this thing went off far better than many hon. Members had anticipated, organisers of demonstrations cannot shrug off responsibility for what happens when they deliberately organise a demonstration of a size which enables dissident elements to behave in an unruly fashion?

This is true of any gathering of persons. On the previous day there was a football game organised between Birmingham City and Derby County. In the course of that, a lot of supporters of one of the teams ran riot and a number of arrests were made. I do not think that I can be expected to join any cry that we should ban football matches. One has to have a sense of proportion; one has to balance, on every occasion, whatever the purpose of the demonstration is, the need to preserve law and order and the right to demonstrate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy on demonstrations in London arising out of the events of Sunday, 27th October.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the London demonstration of 27th October; and what information he has about plans for further similar demonstrations.

I have reviewed the position following the demonstration in London on 27th October, and conclude that at present there is no need to modify existing policy, namely to balance the traditional rights of free speech and assembly against any possible threat to public order. Future cases will be judged on their merit at the time.

I pay tribute to the police, and incidentally to the Home Secretary for his handling of the demonstration, but is not the likelihood of a repetition of the sort of provocation which: took place in Grosvenor Square in itself a grave threat to our constitutional liberties, and should not the Home Secretary be now considering contingency plans to avoid such a situation again?

There are groups of people, who go under the names of Maoists, anarchists, Trotskyites and half a dozen other small factions, who are determined to provoke trouble with established authority, mostly in the person of the police, on any occasion when they can find suitable excuse for so doing. I have no sympathy with these people, nor have the overwhelming number of people in the country. A careful watch must be kept of any intentions that they may have.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the vulgar behaviour in Northern Ireland against Roman Catholics who wished to demonstrate was far more disagreeable than what happened on 27th October?

The Prime Minister has answered a number of questions on this subject and I am at this moment in discussion with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland on the matter.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the ordinary citizen does not understand why, when he cannot even snap his fingers under a policeman's nose without being arrested and charged, organisations which announce in advance that they intend to stage a riot at a given time and a given place and then do so are allowed to go scot-free?

No one was allowed to go scot-free on this occasion. A number of arrests were made and some of the cases are at this moment sub judice. The police will continue to arrest those who are responsible when they think it appropriate to do so in the execution of their duty.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his sensible attitude on this matter will command widespread support throughout the country? Is he fortified in his attitude by the knowledge that at the recent Conservative Party conference there were the most astonishing disorderly incidents in which dissident elements had their testicles twisted by some delegates? No legislation was required then; the whole thing blew over. Will my right hon. Friend continue in the way that he is going at present?

Without pursuing the rather unfortunate and, I should have thought, unworthy tone of the last supplementary question, either in spirit or physically, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepts that one of the factors which he must weigh is that, whatever the legitimate intentions of the main organisation, there must be some limit to the number of times that we expose the public to inconvenience and the police to physical assault? Among the arrests to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, does he include the man who was shown in the photographs as kicking a policeman in the face?

I am not sure what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intention is, but I have already made clear to him that I shall continue to judge future cases on their merits. That seems to me to be the limit of my obligation. Everything that I have said has indicated that what we must weigh on every occasion—and we must weigh it coolly and not in any emotional way—is the threat to law and order against the rights which have been built up over the centuries to demonstrate and to free speech.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan Police were engaged in control and other duties in connection with the Vietnam and other demonstrations in London on Sunday, 27th October, 1968; how many police and civilian casualties, respectively, occurred on that date; what estimate he has made of the total cost of the precautions and consequences falling on public funds including local authority services such as litter clearance and hospital services; and whether he will make a statement.

The answer to the first part of the Question is 8,846; and to the second 74 and 47. As regards the third part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave earlier this afternoon.

While I endorse absolutely what the Home Secretary said earlier about the rights of free speech, may I ask him whether he is aware that the overwhelming majority of law-abiding taxpayers and ratepayers in this country strongly resent the extortionate cost of quelling these disturbances and call upon him, as Home Secretary, to prevent a regular repetition of them which may occur from his namby-pamby policies?

I fully appreciate that the hon. Member must try to get a little back for the mistaken forecast which he made before the demonstration, but if I am being asked to weigh this up on the basis of £s, shillings and pence, I must repeat that it is necessary to weigh the cost of physical preventive measures of this sort against the cost which might be incurred if demonstrations were banned—including the cost of the ensuing trouble which might arise.

Is it not a fact that the popular Press and the not-so-popular Press in the form of The Times were largely responsible for whipping up the wild exaggerations about this demonstration—ably abetted, apparently, by briefings from Scotland Yard?

I know nothing about briefings by Scotland Yard, although I have seen that some organs of the Press have alleged that this was so. I will not comment on the activities of the Press in this matter. I have quite enough troubles of my own on my plate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reserve supplies of water equipment, tear gas and associated riot control equipment he now has available for Metropolitan Police use in maintaining law and order and quelling civil disturbance, commotion and disorder in London.

This equipment is not considered to be necessary.

Does the Home Secretary realise that the continued use of police horses on these occasions is deliberately provocative and likely to lead to disorder? Will he not consider alternative methods of carrying the police at the places at which disturbances are occurring, and bear in mind that police horses are reminiscent of Waterloo—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and reminiscent of Peter loo in certain circumstances as well as of Waterloo? Does he not realise that he would be far better off without their continued use?

The hon. Member referred to continual demonstrations. In fact, there have been two demonstrations this year—two Sundays out of 52. We must keep this matter in proportion. As for the use of horses, I rely very much on the Commissioner's view on such matters. He believes that on the occasion of the last demonstration—and I had some opportunity to see it myself—the presence of horses for particular reasons, into which I need not go, had a very stabilising influence. I do not want to jog his elbow in relation to the methods which he employs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that nothing is more calculated to provoke disorder than the irresponsible and hysterical questions of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? Will he accept that the police methods in London rather than those in Londonderry ought to be the pattern in a democracy? Will he also accept that tear gas is certainly not necessary because the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is quite capable of moving me to tsars at any time?

Having read the well-merited praise of the police in the Motions put on the Order Paper by the Opposition and by my hon. Friends, having also read the comments in the foreign Press about the behaviour of the police on that afternoon, and having seen that most of them regard this as having given a very useful lesson in how this kind of exercise should be conducted, I can only say that I regard most of the questions from hon. Members opposite this afternoon as extremely niggling.

Having regard to the numbers of the police in relation to the numbers of the demonstrators, will not the Home Secretary reconsider his policy of checking police recruitment and bring the Metropolitan Police up to their proper establishment?

I regret to say that the Metropolitan Police have not been up to their proper establishment since 1945. I do not think that I can be expected to bring them up to establishment in the course of the next 12 months. Substantial recruiting for the police is going on, and it will increase during the next 12 months.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to receive the report of his Department's committee on death certification.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State to a Question by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) on 24th October.—[Vol. 770. c. 333]

As that reply indicated a long wait, will the hon. Gentleman use his influence to ensure more faithful observance of the coroners' rules and to discourage certain of Her Majesty's coroners from spreading alarm and despondency about the pill and anything else which enters their heads?

I have not been long enough in this job to have formed a view on the pill. The report should be received some time next year.

Mrs. Short.

I assure the House that there are no practical experiments with the pill in the Home Office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he now has for the accommodation of men and women prisoners needing conditions of top security.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made about the detention of male prisoners in this category in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) on 24th October. The small number of women prisoners who are in Category A will continue to be detained at Holloway.—[Vol. 770, c. 333–4.]

Would not my right hon. Friend accept the view that it is only a very small proportion of women prisoners who need conditions of top security, or who need closed prison conditions at all? Will he consider alternatives which could be used and which would keep a woman within her own home and her own family, so releasing existing women's prison accommodation to relieve the overcrowding of male prisons?

I am glad to say that there are only four women in Category A and I do not think that I could recommend that they should be dispersed to their own families. They are not isolated, but are with several others in one wing of Holloway Prison.

As men's prisons are a matter of major importance, may I urge on the right hon. Gentleman the importance of pressing on as quickly as possible with providing a sufficient number of maximum security prisons so that dispersal of those now in security wings could be carried out?

Yes, Sir. I accept that and I hope that during the course-of the next 12 to 18 months some of the Category A prisoners will be transferred to Gartree, Leicestershire, Hull and Albany in the Isle of Wight as security in these establishments improves. Work is, well advanced on the new wing at Chelmsford Prison which I hope will also pro-vide additional accommodation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to introduce more modern locking and unlocking methods in prisons under his control.

Electrical locking and unlocking systems have now been tried out successfully in an existing prison. Similar systems will be provided in all new security prisons and any existing ones which have to be substantially reconstructed.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. As prison officers now spend so much of their working day simply locking and unlocking doors, will he take all steps to bring about the introduction of electronic devices so that prison officers can use their time more profitably on rehabilitation work?

I am aware that my hon. Friend has served on the Sub-Committee on Social Affairs and I am aware of that Sub-Committee's recommendations about time and motion study.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to increase security in prisons following the recent attempt to escape by certain prisoners in the top security wing of Leicester Prison which was so nearly successful.

This escape attempt was prevented, but it pointed to the need for high-quality staff, better training courses and some further modifications in security procedures. Action on these matters is in hand and work is well advanced on the programme of major improvements to the perimeter security of closed prisons.

In view of the fact not only that this escape was prevented by sheer good luck but that there were further escapes from Durham Prison three months later, does not the Home Secretary agree that it is necessary to look again at the recommendation of the Mountbatten Report that there should be a separate top-security prison?

I have already answered a Question about that this afternoon. I do not agree with the hon. Member's analysis.

In view of the fact that since then there has been a successful escape from the security wing in Durham, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he has received a report on that escape and whether, following that report, he is satisfied with the present arrangements for security in these wings?

The hon. Member has a later Question down on that matter. As he knows, I put out a statement about the escape as soon as we had discovered the reasons for it. I must point out to the House that we have the continuing, ever-present difficulty of balancing perfect security against a humane régime. It is very difficult to combine both, but I am sure that it is the correct policy to try to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future use of Reading Prison.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates that the use of Reading Prison on its present site, will be discontinued.

This establishment will shortly cease to be used as a borstal institution. After modernisation work and improvements to the security system have been completed, it will be re-opened as a prison for about 180 prisoners. It is impossible at present to forecast when this site will no longer be needed for prison purposes.

While understanding the grave shortage of accommodation facing the Home Secretary, may I ask him nevertheless not to prejudice the medium-term future position, and to keep his option open on the eventual run-down of this establishment, because it is in a very important part of the County Borough of Reading?

I can give an undertaking that this matter will be kept continually under review but the adaptations will cost a substantial sum. I know that the view has been expressed that it should be put to another use.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an indication of the difference in cost between modernising the prison at the present site, and rebuilding on an alternative site?

Although the buildings at Reading are old, they are still structurally sound. With the present overcrowded position in prisons generally, and the likelihood that the prison population will rise, full use must be made of all existing accommodation. In addition it must be remembered that under the Prison Act, 1952, with the rights of pre-emption, the Exchequer would not benefit to the fall from the sale of the existing site.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be in a position to make available to Easthampstead Rural District Council the vehicles and equipment formerly used for Civil Defence for the proposed Emergency Rescue Service; and whether the transfer will be made without cost.

My right hon. Friend is prepared to provide the Council with the equipment it requires on the terms applicable to all local authorities. I should not be justified in making a transfer free of charge.

Can the Under-Secretary think of any simple way of explaining to a group of volunteers, who merely want to give service to their locality, why they should pay again for equipment which has already been paid for out of public funds?

The equipment provided was formerly used by voluntary workers, and is available to the full-time services. There are voluntary organisations which require people to join them. I would hope that people who were formerly in the Civil Defence Corps would find their way into the St. John Ambulance Brigade, with which I have some connection.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving policemen had embarked on university courses in 1962, 1964, 1966 and 1968, respectively; and what he is doing to encourage police entry to universities.

I estimate that, for England and Wales the numbers of police officers following full-time, three-year, degree courses at the beginning of the academic year were, respectively: 0, 5, 28 and 68.

In view of the first-class results obtained from this imaginative scheme, will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the scheme to those authorities who have, so far, been less enthusiastic?

Some 16 universities in England and Wales have so far taken police students. There does not appear to be any difficulty at all in that respect. Scotland is a matter for the Secretary of State.

While agreeing that the figures given by the Under-Secretary are certainly encouraging, would he not agree that it is far more helpful to pursue the idea of policemen themselves going to universities through the Police College, rather than hoping to recruit police from people who have become graduates?

I would not go so far as to say that those two matters are of necessity mutually incompatible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposals for changes in the law relating to local government elections which he has recently circulated to certain local authorities.

We have written to the local authority associations on proposals to abolish the non-resident qualification for electors and, in England and Wales, the qualification for candidates based on property.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what reaction he has had from the local authorities to the proposals in Clause 15 of the Bill apart from that from the Greater London Council, the largest of them all, which has said that it is against them?

Most of the local authority associations which replied were against them. Scotland is in rather a different position. But, in the end, it is up to the Government to decide what to do, and what we have decided is in the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of social work staff, child care officers, family caseworkers, and other similar workers, employed by children's departments of each local authority on the last available date in 1968, giving the percentage of staff who are professionally qualified caseworkers, those with social science, and similar qualifications and those without appropriate relevant qualifications in 1968.

In England and Wales, 3,038 whole-time staff were so employed on 31st March last. Of these, 34·6 per cent. held a recognised professional qualification, a further 5·8 per cent. the Declaration of Recognition of Experience, and a further 19·5 per cent. a university degree, diploma or certificate in social science. I am sending details to my hon. Friend and placing a copy in the Library.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Would it be possible to examine the question of future trends in recruitment both with regard to the possibility of implementing the Seebohm Report and to seeing whether improvements can be made to encouraging recruitment in the service?

I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's representations. However, I remind him that the total currently employed is 345 higher than it was last year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for using the premises formerly occupied as the Women's Wing at Brock hill Remand Centre; and whether he will consider their use for Borstal boys at present serving their sentences at Win-son Green Prison.

The intention is to use these premises to provide increased accommodation at Brock hill for young offenders, including those who now go to Win son Green Prison to await admission to borstal allocation or recall centres.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many very knowledgable people consider it quite crazy to have closed the women's branch of the remand home? However, his reply will give a certain amount of satisfaction to my constituents.

This matter was the subject of an Adjournment debate some months ago. The wing was closed, not for the purpose of providing additional accommodation for boys, but because the Department found it impossible to provide adequate nursing cover for women and girls.

Will the hon. Gentleman admit that there was absolutely no statute and no rule which forced him to close Brock hill to women? Bearing in mind the need for accommodation and the grievous suffering inflicted on women without this accommodation being avail able, will he now say that he was wrong and will consider reopening it to women?

We were forced to close it not by statute but by circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish figures showing the numbers of babies which have died in recent years as a result of pram accidents.

I have information only for 1967. Twenty deaths associated with prams have been recorded. Sixteen of these were caused otherwise than by structural faults in the prams; two by folding prams; and two by the prams overturning.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the inquiry he set up into pram safety following the evidence on pram danger sent to him by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire.

There is no formal inquiry. My Department is in consultation with the British Standards Institution and is making certain other inquiries about perambulator safety. I shall write to my hon. Friend about the results of these inquiries as soon as possible, but meanwhile I would strongly urge all manufacturers of perambulators to ensure that their products comply with the requirements of British Standard 4139:1967.

But would not my hon. Friend consider the need for a more formal inquiry? After all, 500,000 citizens are in prams at the moment. This is a form of transportation which we all use at one time or another.

The proportion of accidents in prams is considerably less than that among older citizens. Nevertheless, we intend to keep the safety of perambulators under close review. If it is found that prams are being marketed which do not comply with the British Standard, the possible need for legislation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1961, will be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has given to local authorities in awaiting the implementation of the Seebohm Committee Report.

I have informed local authorities seeking to make changes in the organisation of children's departments which require my approval that I would consider it unwise to take action which prejudges the outcome of present consultations with the local authority associations about the recommendations of the Seebohm Committee.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's remarks. Is he aware of the deep anger and anxiety in some London boroughs of staff who feel that schemes are likely to be implemented shortly, thus short-circuiting the Seebohm Report?

I am aware of that. There is a great deal of disquiet among a number of children's committees and the professional children's workers. It is for that reason that I have advised local authorities that meanwhile they should not take this action.