asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from chief constables as to how many police have been injured and how much costs has been involved in the provision of police in connection with the demonstrations, disorders and riots at the Springbok Rugby football matches to date.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated aggregate cost to public funds of providing extra police at all of the Springbok matches so far played.

In England and Wales, 68 policemen have been injured. The total additional cost to public funds of the police duty undertaken so far is £25,000.

Is it not disgraceful that these riotous assemblies are costing thousands of pounds to the police, ratepayers, and the clubs, and if groups like the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign and the International Marxist Group are inciting violence, should they not be prosecuted under the Public Order Act, 1936, which makes it an offence to organise a display of force in pusuance of political ends?

I would not dream of answering the last part of the question without notice. As for the rest, there is no doubt that demonstrations take up a great deal of police time and money.

May I declare an interest in this matter since I was present at the first demonstration at Twickenham and hope to be present at the next one on Saturday. Now that we are reduced to the stage of playing football matches behind barbed wire, playing them in secret places out of public sight, or playing them under massive police guard, would my right hon. Friend not agree that the time has come to put an end to this squalid farce and that the public authorities should cease altogether to have anything to do with this business?

I have said before and I say again that it is not for the Government to cancel events of this sort otherwise they may be drawn into cancelling other events. It is a matter of individual judgment as to how far demonstrations help the cause of those whom they are supposed to support. For my part I have no doubt that violent demonstrations and interruptions of games do not support the cause of breaking down racial discrimination in South Africa.

When a deliberate attempt is made to provent the holding of a perfectly lawful sporting function, does it not play into the hands of the disturbers of the peace if the organisers of the game have to pay for the police protection which such an organised attack on the game necessitates?

No, Sir. That would carry us much too far. I certainly would not agree with that.

Is the Home Secretary aware that although great numbers of footballers would march on the pavement in support of peaceful demonstrations, they object when people invade their football pitches?

I am aware of that. My own agent in Cardiff last Saturday organised a peaceful demonstration which kept away from the football ground. I am glad that he did this in order to show our disagreement with the policy being pursued in South Africa. I hope that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor anybody else will try to interfere with that right. It was a peaceful demonstration which did not interfere with the game.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if a group of people, for whatever motive, deliberately decide to disrupt a lawful activity, it is for the police as part of their general duty in maintaining law and order to prevent a breach of the peace?

I would not disagree, but that principle extends far beyond rugby football games. It also extends to Association Football games and many other activities where clubs are now required to pay for police protection in the arrangements which they make every Saturday.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constables responsible as to how many statements arising from incidents at the Swansea versus Springboks Match on 15th November have been made under section 49 of the Police Act, 1964.

One hundred and ninety-two complaints have been made against police officers on duty in Swansea at the time of the match.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the incidents at that game are still causing serious perturbation in South Wales and that it is in the interests of everybody, not least of the police, that he should now consider holding an independent public inquiry into the statements which have been made?

Allegations and criminal charges have been made in this matter. Some of them are to be heard on 4th February. It will not be possible to complete the Section 49 inquiries until the court proceedings are ended. I do not believe that any inquiry other than those two is necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police have been diverted from other duties to perform special duties at each of the Springbok football matches played so far.

As the reply includes a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is a slightly odd sense of priorities to divert a large number of policemen from the valuable normal duties which they perform to protect a football team whose presence in this country is unwelcome and obnoxious to many thousands of citizens?

Hear, hear.

The cheers were so loud that I did not realise that my hon. Friend had finished his question. I think that these policemen could be better employed on other duties, or even in having a rest day at home, but some of the responsibility for this rests on demonstrators who announce that they intend to interfere with a game. When they do that, the clubs have a right to ensure that they will be protected from such interference.

Is the Home Secretary aware that many of those who do not wish to associate with South Africans or to give encouragement to the South African regime nevertheless think that it would be quite wrong to prohibit any function merely because it required police protection?

I have dealt with that.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the work which the police are doing is not—as was suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley)—protection of a football team, but preserving law and order in this country?

Yes, and I have attempted to make that distinction on many occasions. There would be no need to attempt to preserve law and order if the demonstrators did not attempt to interfere with the game.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the time available before legislation is introduced to implement the Report of the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions, he will urgently consider the question of the integration of the magistrates' courts into the new courts system.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which my hon. Friend gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) on 18th November—[Vol. 791 c. 284.]

Is there not an overwhelming case for a unified court service? In view of the grave shortage of courts, will not the efficiency of the circuit administrator proposed by the Beeching Commission be seriously impaired if courts in every town are not under his aegis but under that of some other person?

There is little doubt that some of the arguments of the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions in favour of a directly controlled court system apply to the magistrates' courts, but the basis on which the magistrates' courts are organised is different from that of the superior courts.

Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that, before these proposals are implemented by legislation, there is a full debate on the proposals in the House? Is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House are very disturbed that attempts are being made to implement part of the Beeching Report by administrative actions and through other Bills without anyone knowing what is going on?

The question of a debate in the House is not for me, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's views will be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in putting to use funds available under the urban aid programme; and what part the Community Relations Commission have played in helping him to plan this programme.

Local authority expenditure of £8 million has so far been approved. The main purpose is to improve living conditions in areas of special social need; it is not a programme just for immigrants. The Community Relations Commission has arranged a series of regional conferences to discuss the relationship of the programme to its own work and that of local community relations councils.

Since the Community Relations Commission has been in operation for a year, would the hon. Gentleman say what allocations of these urban funds have been made on its recommendation, since it has special considerations to bring forward in areas of special need?

It must be borne in mind that representations for money from the urban programme come from the local authorities. They are not determined centrally. The most important way of bringing people involved in community relations into this matter is for the local community relations organisations, knowing their local areas, to play a part in lobbying their local councils who put in for schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent rearrangement by which the Community Relations Commission now has a full-time executive chairman, he will provide the Commission with additional funds to help develop the work of local community relations councils.

It is for the Commission to consider what grants are required to support the work of local councils and funds are provided within its budget each year after consultation between the Commission and the Government. The Commission has let me know its estimated requirements for 1970–71 and I have these under consideration.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises the importance of developing the work which has been started. Will he be able to meet the full requirements of the Chairman of the Commission, with whom I spent part of the morning?

I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman spent part of the morning with the Chairman of the Commission. That is what I asked him to do not so long ago. As regards its estimate, that is a matter for internal Government discussion, and I cannot give a final answer to that. However, total expenditure has risen. In 1967, it was only £77,000. This year, it will be £300,000, and there is a demand for a further increase next year. This is on a rising curve.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about new design principles to be embodied in the prison building programme announced in the White Paper, People in Prison.

The main aims will be to provide a full range of specialised facilities in a modern setting; to plan for a degree of freedom of movement within a secure environment; to standardise design wherever possible and to ensure value for money by firm control of costs and standards.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, if tension within prisons is to be reduced, it is essential to build up a good relationship between prison officers and prisoners and that our old-fashioned prisons are not built to serve this purpose? Will he further agree that if prison officers are to be mere turnkeys, spending a large amount of the working day locking and unlocking doors, it is essential to introduce modern electronic devices to reduce this? Will he further agree—

Order. I know the hon. Lady's interest in this matter, but questions must be reasonably brief.

Would my hon. Friend consider the removal of the disgusting slopping; out processes in our prisons?

The days of prison officers being just turnkeys are long past. Many of these points of changing atmospheres in our prisons are being taken into account and will be taken into account even more as new prisons are built.

Will those principles be implemented in the second new prison, which is to be constructed at Gartree in Leicestershire? If so, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to keep in close touch with the local authorities?

The answer is "Yes" to both questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now implement Recommendation No. 34 of the Report of the Estimates Committee on Prisons, Borstals and Detention Centres.

This recommendation was accepted. It has been pursued since October, 1967, mainly through liaison with the Women's Group on Public Welfare, on which a wide range of national women's organisations is represented.

What progress has been made as a result of the consultations? This is some time ago. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that very useful work could be done by women's organisations in this respect.

Very valuable work is done. The Home Office Adviser in After-Care represents my right hon. Friend at meetings of the Women's Group on Public Welfare. She has addressed the group and contributed to its newsletter. Much is being done.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that paragraph 191 of the Report, which included this recommendation, pointed out that the W.R.V.S. already provides homes for people discharged from Borstal? Does he not agree that there is a need for more voluntary provision of homes for ex-prisoners?

That is the case, but it is being done.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the problem of vandalism in areas where extensive house demolition is taking place.

The police are doing all they reasonably can to cope with the problem and I do not believe that a special inquiry will help.

Will my hon. Friend issue special advice to local authorities, local education authorities, and magistrates who have to deal with offenders so that they may more effectively deal with this very serious problem?

I do not think that it is for the Home Office to issue advice in this way. From my personal experience, one way would be to see that the problem did not arise so much. In some instances, clearance areas are left clear too long, and such an area becomes a vandal's dream of home. That is the part of it which should be looked at more closely.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for vandalism there were in 1966, 1967 and 1968; and what percentage these convictions represent of known offences.

The number of persons convicted in England and Wales of offences classified as malicious injuries to property or malicious damage was 17,668 in 1966, 17,297 in 1967 and 18,687 in 1968. These comprise both indictable and summary offences; for the latter category, statistics are kept only of persons prosecuted, so that a comparison with the number of known offences of this kind is not practicable.

Will not my hon. Friend do a bit more about this? It seems to be a rising trend or at least an unfortunately stable one. Is the situation more serious now than it was ten years ago?

I do not think that these figures show that it is much more serious. Certainly it is as important. Most chief constables are aware of the problem that has arisen, and each different area has its own nuance in this problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on bail applications and the position of the police.

It is for the courts to deal with bail applications and for the police to bring any relevant matters to their notice.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that at the moment many people are being held in prison when they have not heard the charges against them, including a man who was held in prison for 11 weeks on a petty pilfering charge? Is there not a need for a thorough review of the bail system?

I do not think that there is. The Criminal Justice Act, 1967, introduced restrictions on the powers of magistrates to remand in custody. It has brought a small but significant reduction in the proportion of persons remanded or committed for trial in custody. I would not wish to go any further than that.

Will my right hon. Friend look into the question of bail applications pending appeal? Is he aware that, in one case, a man served five months of a nine-month sentence, which meant five-sixths of his actual sentence, and was acquitted on appeal? Will he ensure that such a thing does not happen again, especially as the man concerned had been convicted on a first offence?

I am not aware of those facts, but obviously that is an unsatisfactory position. I do not argue from the particular to the general in this matter. There are a great many cases where it is necessary to remand people in custody.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will hold consultations with the Department of Health over the distribution and treatment of psychopathic and mentally disturbed prisoners now serving sentences; and if he will make a statement about the efforts being made to deal with this problem.

There is close liaison with the Department of Health and Social Security on this question. Plans are in hand to improve the treatment facilities for prisoners not admitted to a hospital. These include the provision at Parkhurst prison of a unit for psychopathic and other disturbed prisoners.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such abnormal men create enormous difficulties for prison administrators? While I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said, may I ask whether he thinks that more effective steps should be taken to segregate them from more normal prisoners?

Under Section 72 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, on medical advice, my right hon. Friend may direct the transfer to hospital of an offender serving a sentence. But psychiatric illness is not as simple of definition as might be thought at first sight.

Does my hon. Friend feel that his Department is inhibited in any way, for reasons of liberty of the subject, in ensuring that police stations in the vicinity of the place where a psychopath's family normally lives receive details of that psychopath's problems and movements?

That is a different matter. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, it would be better if we could look at it. because it raises wider issues than freedom of the individual.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware how deeply anxious some of these mental health hospitals are about the duties imposed on them, and to deal with which they feel they have wholly inadequate facilities?

There are problems in this sphere. However, I think that we are getting the right balance in an area of medical development which is growing the whole time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he is taking to increase the recruitment and retention in service of police officers.

The aim for the current financia' year is to recruit about 7,500 police officers in England and Wales, which on recent experience of retirement rates would result in a net increase of 2,000. After consultation with the local authority association's expenditure on national advertising to encourage recruiting has been doubled and will now amount to £300,000 for the year.

I thank the Home Secretary for that Answer. Is the right hon. Gentle- man aware that, despite his Answer to me a month ago, the rate of premature resignations in the Cambridge area this year is nearly double the rate in the period 1960–65 and that police pay has fallen far behind the formula laid down by the Willink Commission in 1960? In view of these two facts, will the right hon. Gentleman take a fresh and urgent look at the whole problem?

There is a further Question about the Willink formula later today—[Interruption.] It will be answered, even if it is not reached.

The police will receive a reduction in their working hours from 42 to 40 on 1st April next. There was an increase of 3 per cent. in their pay on 1st September last, and there will be negotiations this year for a further increase in pay. Therefore, these matters are being taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the percentage of persons ultimately arrested and convicted for reported crimes of housebreaking and house burglary for the past three years for which figures are available.

Information in this form is not available. The percentages of offences of housebreaking and burglary cleared up in the last three years in England and Wales were: 1966, 32·4; 1967, 33; and 1968, 33·2.

Are not these figures woefully low? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the arguments on capital punishment, violence or growing hooliganism, the chief crime against society today is housebreaking, which is on the increase? Will he give further consideration to collecting these valuable statistics?

The hon. Gentleman will notice that there is a modest increase in clearing up these cases. He must take into account that, by their very nature, it is more difficult to detect larcenies and break-ins than, for example, perjury or bigamy where there might be a higher proportion of detection.

Does the Minister agree that this disturbing lack of detection of crime, particularly in the London area, is probably a major cause of crime, because so many people are getting away with it?

I have given figures which show that the detection rate is going up. I repeat that, by their very nature and the development of housing over a wider area, detection is made very difficult in this sphere.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made to carry out plastic surgery on an ear of a constituent of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, which was injured whilst the constituent was serving a term of imprisonment.

The hon. Member's constituent claims that the ear injury was the result of an accident. It was dealt with immediately, and the man concerned is now on the waiting list at the Withington Hospital, Manchester, for treatment by plastic surgery.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that what he said is most unsatisfactory? My constituent had the unfortunate experience of losing half an ear in a brawl at Parkhurst, for which he was not responsible. As he was released from Strangeways on 8th December, is it not unfair that, having paid the price for his crime, he should now have to try to rehabilitate himself with half an ear? What are the Government proposing to do about that?

All I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the nature of the accident is that the prisoner reported to an officer at Parkhurst with an injured left ear on 10th December, 1968. He refused to say more about its cause than that he had fallen on an iron staircase at Parkhurst. He was dealt with medically at that time. I accept that there have been problems in obtaining follow-up treatment, but the treatment is now available.

On a point of order. In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received in regard to British Standard Time in winter months; and what replies he has sent.

Since 1st April, 1969, I have received 134 letters. I have informed those who have written to me that their views will be taken into account in the comprehensive review of British Standard Time to be undertaken next spring.

Does the Home Secretary appreciate that there is real concern about this matter? Could he give the members of the public some advice about how they can best pass on to him their views and feelings on the matter?

I do not think that there is any difficulty in communicating with me. I have received many letters, although far fewer than when I gave the last Answer on this matter—about a quarter of the figures I gave last time. I am sure that everybody knows how to get in touch with me if they wish.

As there is evidence that public opinion is still changing on this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that the time to start collecting opinions is when the experiment has run its full course?

We undertook to collect opinions after two winters' experience, although the experiment runs for three. I think that two winters will give us a fair indication. I agree that opinion seems to be, if not changing, a little more stabilised than it was a year ago.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis about hooliganism on late buses between Loughton and Epping; and whether he will make a statement.

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that such incidents have lately been less frequent, but that the police continue to pay special attention to the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the communication and Press cutting sent to him by the hon. Member for St. Helens about the case of the late Mrs. Gertrude Gaunt, who died at her home in Hardshaw Street, St. Helens, as a result of a fire caused by a paraffin heater; and, in view of this and other recent cases, if he will introduce new regulations for the control of such heaters.

My information is that the fire to which my hon. Friend refers was not caused by an oil heater. The Oil Heaters Regulations, 1962 and 1966, already prescribe safety requirements for all portable oil heaters offered for sale in this country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am deeply anxious about the use of this type of heating, especially by old people? Will he issue local instructions, especially at places where old people draw their pensions, about the need to take special care with oil heaters?

We do a great deal of advertising in general in this respect. I most certainly will have a word, through the proper channels, with the local chief fire officer. But I am sure that a visit from my hon. Friend, who knows this area well, to have a word about fire prevention precautions, would be worth while.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define the nature and topographical jurisdiction of the new section in his Department for improving the efficiency of the police; what steps are being taken to include in its functions a study of police forces in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The new organisation will take over the work previously done by the Police Research and Development Branch and extend it into the field of programme-budgeting and management services. As an advisory organisation it will be available to assist police forces in any part of the United Kingdom. Forces in Scotland will be welcome to co-operate in its work and will be kept fully informed of the results of its studies.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that whatever reorganisation he carries out elsewhere, the police in Aberdeen act with efficiency and success with the result that Aberdeen, for that reason and others, is a most orderly city of good citizenship and happiness—even during football matches?

I am happy to receive that encomium on behalf of Aberdeen. I only regret that I am not responsible for that force.

Did I understand the Home Secretary to indicate that here was another organisation for which Scotland was not to have full autonomy? Will he bear in mind that the Scottish police act as a unit and are very proud of this position? Will he clarify the matter?

The hon. Lady is always looking for bogies under every bed. I am sure that she will be relieved to learn that Scottish officers have been playing a full part in the past in the Police Research and Development Branch. I am not altogether aware that crime in Scotland is so different from that in any other part of the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made under the relevant amalgamation schemes for the local supervision of police forces in the 36 areas in which police areas do not now coincide with a single local authority area.

In these areas the statutory responsibility for maintaining an efficient police force rests on combined police authorities. At least two-thirds of the members are members of local authorities in the area.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is real anxiety lest these police amalgamations should lead to a reduction in accountability as regards the police? Is he also aware that there is a growing and regrettable tendency, now that watch committees have disappeared, for people to look more to the Home Office and to the central Government as the bodies responsible for the police? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this again to see whether anything further is required?

On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, hon. Members are responsible for people looking to the Home Office, if I am to judge from the matters on which I am asked to intervene. On the first part, I agree that this is a possible consequence of amalgamations, but, as two-thirds of the members of every police authority must come from the local councils, I hope that they will maintain a great deal of contact with local communities.

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

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my hon. Friend gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 4th December.—[Vol. 792, c. 348–9.]

As the Answer to that Question was "Next year", may I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I asked the same question last year, in 1967, and in 1966, I received the same answer, namely, "Next year"? May we now know whether this will be next year? Does he agree that the whole matter has become more urgent with the advent of heart transplants and other matters?

It shows a remarkable consistency in answers. It is still "Next year". We are very well aware of this.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that I wrote to him about a month ago about Mrs. Kim Nevitt who was pronounced dead on a Liverpool beach by a surgeon, and was then brought to life again in a Liverpool mortuary? Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that it will not be next year before I receive a reply to my letter, and that I shall not have to wait for the report of this Committee?

It is now 18th December. It may be 1970 before a reply is given, but I apologise if there is any delay. I shall look very carefully at the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to reduce the risk of addictive drugs being stolen from chemists' shops, hospitals and doctors' surgeries.

My right hon. Friend is preparing regulations under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 about the storage of drugs in chemists' shops. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is about to give further advice to hospitals. The implications of the Regulations for doctors' surgeries are being studied.

Will my hon. Friend consider the advisability of crime prevention officers visiting all those premises where addictive drugs are normally kept, with a view to making recommendations on how greater security can be achieved? Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will be of some reassurance to those people who are becoming increasingly concerned about young people being involved in crimes which carry with them not only the risk of their leading to further crimes but also the risk of drug addiction?

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point, and when we discuss the regulations which will arise under the legislation I have no doubt that more right hon. and hon. Members will be able to bring their wide experience into the discussion.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that, in addition to the premises already mentioned, precautions are taken on manufacturers' premises to deal with this important problem?

That will be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government will undertake not to accept or ratify any article in the Treaty of Rome which would have the effect of providing workers from European countries with greater freedom of entry to this country than is now permitted to Commonwealth citizens.

There are material differences in the present arrangements for controlling the entry of aliens and Commonwealth citizens based on the different nature of the two types of immigration. The precise arrangements required under the Treaty of Rome must be a matter for negotiation, but it would not be surprising if it is found right that there should be differences in the future.

What I am seeking from my hon. Friend is an assurance that there will not be freer movement for aliens within Europe than there will be for British citizens of the Commonwealth. Will my hon. Friend give such an assurance? Will my hon. Friend accept that if he is not able to give such an assurance we shall fight him and press him until he is ready to give it?

I think that before fighting it would be a good idea to understand the subject. I think that my hon. Friend is mistaken in his analysis. One point that he must take into account is that until Commonwealth citizens who come to this country have been here for five years they are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This matter of citizenship is extremely complicated, and my advice is that it is not worth fighting about.

How does my hon. Friend get the idea that the Clause in the Treaty of Rome which refers to the free movement of labour in the countries of the Six is a matter for negotiation? Has he any authority for saying any such thing? How is it possible to reconcile the fact that an Italian labourer can come to this country without any hindrance or restrictions and yet that is denied to Commonwealth citizens?

As I understand it, all nationals from the member States of the E.E.C. will continue to be subject to immigration control. My right hon. Friend has widened the matter into an even wider and more difficult field of movement. I think that that, too, should be investigated before we argue.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the Obscene Publications Act.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on 15th December.—[Vol. 793, c. 247.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a lot of pornographic literature is going through the post at present? If he does, will he do something about it? Has he seen the extraordinary card issued by the Labour Party which says,

"Darling, now we are 18 we can do something we have always wanted to do?"

I do not think that that is pornographic, except in the hon. Gentleman's mind. If he would like me to supply a series of these cards to his Young Conservatives, I shall be very happy to oblige.

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the more serious part, because this is a serious matter, I agree that there is a great deal of pornographic literature being distributed at the moment. The Director of Public Prosecutions has instituted proceedings, or is about to, in connection with a recent book.

Is it not a fact that the Obscene Publications Act is not working properly at all? Is it not the case that prosecutions appear to be launched against books of at least arguable artistic merit, whereas pamphlets and magazines which have no merit other than that of titillation seem to escape it? Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter again?

I am not a lawyer. I read what the lawyers say to me about this matter, and I fully accept that the attempts which they and the House made in 1959 and 1964 have not been very satisfactory. If they would like to have another go at it, I should be happy to co-operate, but they have not made much of a fist of it so far.

Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the strange conversion of Doctor Spock on this subject?

I read what he said, and I find myself in agreement with him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the present state of the law it is lawful to advertise for a French waiter to work in Great Britain, but it is unlawful to advertise for an Australian or British waiter to work in this country; and whether he will introduce legislation to get rid of this anomaly.

Parliament decided that it would not be practicable to avoid the distinction to which the hon. Member refers without frustrating the whole purpose of Section 6 of the Race Relations Act, 1968. Any amendment would need to overcome this basic difficulty.

To help to sort out this nonsensical situation, will the hon. Gentleman consider asking the advice of Mr. Spike Milligan next Friday evening?

If race relations could be solved by joking and laughing it would be an excellent thing, but I happen to think that this is a much more serious and intractable problem. I also believe that solving this legal problem is almost impossible. It would not have arisen if hon. Members, when considering the Bill, had not forgotten that some people might put forward daft questions to the Board. That is what happened in this instance and it led to this problem. I did not think that anyone would be silly enough to put a question like this to the Board.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter was discussed in Committee in great detail and that he is correct in his assumption that it was not expected that people would deliberately try to denigrate the Act in this way, but that this difficulty was foreseen and discussed in great detail at that time?

My hon. Friend confirms what we all know. There is great difficulty in trying to get this problem legally correct in an Act.

This question was foreseen by those of us who were on the Standing Committee and it was pointed out at that time that exactly this type of situation was likely to arise.

It was pointed out, but it was also pointed out that if the Bill were drawn more loosely it would greatly weaken the powers of the Board to carry out the job it was set up to do.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the six areas set out in his Department's Press statement of 9th December, from whom the Gaming Board of Great Britain is seeking the views of local authorities on the demand for gaming, are the only areas under consideration for addition to the list as set out in Statutory Instrument Number 1110; and on what criteria were the six areas selected.

My right hon. Friend has not yet received the Board's final advice, but he understands that it does not at present contemplate recommending the addition of any more areas in addition to the six named. The Board has consulted those local authorities where responsible local representations have been made and where it appeared that the Board's general criteria might be met.

Would not the hon. Gentleman accept the principle that if we are to permit gaming at all he should treat every area of the country in the same way?

When discussing this matter in the House my hon. Friend stated what were the views of the Government. They have been put to the Gaming Board. I think the matter should be left in that way now.

Will my hon. Friend express to the Gaming Board the appreciation of hon. Members representing those six areas because the Gaming Board asked for their opinions as well as for those of the local authorities? Is not that a precedent which other bodies ought more often to follow?

The Board will take note of what my hon. Friend said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the last occasion on which the pay of a police constable conformed with the Willink formula; what has been the shortfall in each succeeding year; and what is the difference between the present pay scale and the Willink formula.

As the answer is somewhat complicated, I will write to the hon. Member.

I am grateful for that reply. Should the right hon. Gentleman find that there are unfortunate consequences due to falling behind the Willink formula, will he look at the matter urgently?

It is important that there should be a proper level of pay for the police and procedure is laid down under which there will be negotiations for such an increase in the next 12 months. This is particularly important because a big programme of recruitment of police is under way. In the light of requests made to me by local authorities for more police to be recruited next year, I am able to meet all demands of those they wish to recruit provided they reach the required standard.

asked the Secretary or State for the Home Department what has been the total number of resignations and retirements from the police service in each month in the latest convenient year; how many resignations of officers of more than three years service have taken place; and what was the predominant reason given for the resignations.

As the answer is mainly in the form of a tabular statement, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Minister of Sweden, Mr. Olav Palme, to London for talks.

I last met Mr. Palme, as well as the then Swedish Prime Minister, during my visit to Sweden in July; there are no plans for a further meeting at present, Sir.

In any forthcoming discussions with Mr. Palme will my right hon. Friend convey to him our good wishes on his attaining this high office in Swedish and European political life? Will the Prime Minister also convey the admiration which many of us feel for the stand taken by the Swedish Democratic Government in condemning American aggression in Vietnam, a course of action which my right hon. Friends would do well to emulate?

My hon. Friend ought to know that of course I communicated to Mr. Palme, who is a friend of mine of many years' standing, my congratulations and those of many of our people on his assumption of the premiership and leadership of his party a few months ago. I discussed all these matters with him on many occasions, most recently last July. Our policy on Vietnam was stated in the debate in this House by myself and other Ministers and by many hon. Members as recently as last week.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a Royal Commission to examine the problems of caring for the disabled.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 14th October.— [Vol. 788, c. 200–1.]

Has the Prime Minister seen an Answer given to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) earlier this week in which it was stated that the unemployment rate of the disabled had risen from 7·6 per cent. in November, 1964 to 10·9 per cent. in November, 1969, an increase of nearly 50 per cent.? That is a most distressing increase. I should like to know what the Prime Minister has in mind to improve job opportunities for the disabled.

I do not believe that the Royal Commission suggested by the hon. Member would provide the assistance required over the wide field which perhaps the hon. Member has in mind. He will be aware of what has been done to provide new alternative jobs for the disabled. There is the problem which is of great concern to all of us to get people scheduled as disabled and to deal with the young disabled. The hon. Member will have welcomed the statement made by the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, yesterday about what we are doing in the matter of allowances for the disabled.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while I welcome the Government's proposals, they will help less than 5 per cent. of the disabled? I think it quite wrong to delay the establishment of a Royal Commission. Is not the case for a penetrating analysis into the longterm problems of the disabled clearly established? Will he look at this problem again and reconsider his decision?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the replies which I gave on the last occasion and the reply which I gave to his supplementary question. I said then that I did not think that a Royal Commission could do more to establish the facts and that we were collecting the facts. I am now in a position to say that they are mainly in and that we hope to be in a position to publish the first part of the information arising from this survey next month. Once we have all the facts, possibly we can make progress, as my hon. Friend would like us to do.

Can the Prime Minister explain why on 24th January last the Government Whips were put on against the Disablement Commission Bill, at that time a Private Member's Bill of mine which was supported on both sides of the House, resulting in a majority of only four?

The hon. Member knows that on a number of these questions we have had to take the view that, however well-intentioned certain Bills were, they were not drafted in a way most likely to help in those problems. No doubt the hon. Member will have welcomed the fact that a fortnight ago the House gave a Second Reading to, and the Minister gave a welcome to, the extremely good Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). Here again it will be necessary to recommend many changes in individual Clauses. The hon. Member should also give a welcome to what has been done for the disabled as outlined in the statement made this week.

Is not a substantial part of this increase due to the rapid contraction of the coalmining industry, because the coalmining industry carried a bigger percentage of disabled people than any private employer?

Yes, Sir. That is why the Labour Government after the war did so much about building the Rem-ploy factories for those disabled in the coalmining industry, and it is the reason for all we have done to step up the Remploy programme. It is certainly a fact that a considerable number of those thrown out of employment by colliery closures are disabled. The House will have noticed the great contrast between our treatment of those thrown out of employment over the age of 55—[HoN. MEME ERS: "Oh."]—I hope that hon. Members have noted the contrast, because the Tory Party did nothing for miners over 55 who were displaced.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell), the Prime Minister appeared to say that the only reason the Government Whips were put on against that Bill was its defective drafting. Why could not this have been dealt with in Committee?

I should be very glad to look at the facts in relation to the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. That was my impression about that and many other Bills, which are introduced out of real care, concern and compassion but which are not always the right answer to the problem.

asked the Prime Minister what further steps he is taking in the light of the discussion at the National Economic Development Council meeting on 16th December, to improve the co-ordination of Ministers concerned with the housing programme.

There was in fact no such discussion. My right hon. Friends already work very closely together on this matter.

Even if the expected discussion did not take place yesterday, is the Prime Minister satisfied with a situation in which about 150,000 families are still inadequately housed who by now would be adequately housed if the Government had fulfilled the housing programme which they promised at the General Election?

The hon. Gentleman, whilst regretting the fall in the housebuilding programme, should recognise that only once in their 13 years did the Tories do better than this year, and that was in the 1964 Election year.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement by the Director-General of the N.E.D.C. about the burden on the British economy, and, therefore, the direct effect on the housing programme of the costs of the British Army of the Rhine, which, in his opinion, are not covered by the offset agreement?

That goes a very great deal wider than a Question asking me about a discussion which took place yesterday which in fact did not take place yesterday.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory and short nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up an inter-departmental inquiry into the extent to which the advertising industry is controlled by United States companies.

This matter is kept under review; and I do not think that a special inquiry is needed at present, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact of keeping the matter under review has not prevented a situation in which only two of the top ten London advertising agents are now British-owned? Is not this a very serious development, in view of the very great influence of advertising agents nowadays, not only nationally, but internationally, and also in view of the key position they hold in communication?

I am not certain that they hold such a position in the ecenomy generally as would justify the same attitude being taken to them as one might take in regard to inward investment in some of our key industries. I should have to check the figures given by my hon. Friend before commenting on them. There is no reason to suppose that American-sponsored advertising agents do not work as hard for British clients as they would for American clients.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the valuable contribution of American management and techniques to industry in Britain generally?

I have mentioned this on a number of occasions and have set out the criteria by which we judge inward investment and management generally. This Question, however, was about advertising, I am not sure that we have got all that gain coming to Britain by learning too much from American advertising methods.

asked the Prime Minister if, in his forthcoming meeting with President Nixon, he will discuss cooperation between the British and the United States Governments with a view to the introduction of legislation to require international companies based in the United States of America, with plants in the United Kingdom, to guarantee a higher proportion of key jobs in the parent company to nationals of countries, such as the United Kingdom, where plants are placed.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a Question by him last Tuesday.—[Vol. 793, c. 1131–2.]

Has the Prime Minister had brought to his attention a Fabian research pamphlet by Mr. Louis Turner, with the suggestion that a Parliamentary Select Committee could usefully examine ways of devising a code of conduct for multi-national firms in Britain?

I know about the Fabian pamphlet, and there is some valuable stuff in it. I do not believe that a Parliamentary Select Committee would be the right way to handle this question. I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest, and I referred to it at Question Time last Tuesday, because he has in his constituency a substantial number of well-established American firms. As I said then, if all of them in his constituency would do as well as the best in his constituency, we should all gain by it, and so would the firms concerned.

In view of Questions which are being asked, including the present one, which seems to be directed against American interests, may I put it to the Prime Minister that a large number of American companies employ a considerable amount of labour in Britain, to the benefit of the economy generally?

That is certainly true. I remember just after the war the very considerable American investment in certain parts of Scotland and other development areas which we welcomed then and which have been of great strength to this country. We have to apply certain criteria in deciding whether we welcome it or not. Employment of labour is one of the criteria. The bringing of certain forms of know-how and techniques is another. The Americans are the first to recognise how much they owe to British technique and know-how in the development of their own industry.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the various Government Departments in their relations with the Confederation of British Industry.

Yes, Sir.

Has the C.B.I. in its preparation of the Report on the Common Market which was published today had the benefit of consultation with Government Departments? If so, will the Prime Minister remind the C.B.I. that in addition to the deficit on the balance of payments which it mentions and describes as a price tag, it should not forget to add the problem of the repayment of £3,000 million debt which also has to come out of the balance of payments surplus?

Perhaps, as it is Christmas, the hon. Gentleman will allow me to begin my Answer by saying what I always feel— that we admire his ingenuity in getting a Question down three weeks in advance and always managing to get a very topical supplementary, as he has done again today. We have the feeling that he had a different supplementary in mind at the time of tabling the Question. I think that I know what it was on this occasion.

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that there has been consultation with the Government. We have given the C.B.I. help in the survey, though most of the work has been done by the Confederation and it must take responsibility for its final report.

On the second part, I do not think that it is for me to express an opinion. There is a lot of good sense in the document. The Confederation's estimates about the balance of payments and agricultural costs must be its own until we can put forward our own Government White Paper.

Will my right hon. Friend consider reprinting the C.B.I. document by Her Majesty's Stationery Office so that it will be available to hon. Members who cannot otherwise obtain it without having to buy a copy?

This is a very helpful suggestion, but I am not sure that I want to impose an additional load on Her Majesty's Stationery Office at this moment in time. I am sure that the C.B.I. will take note of the point made by my hon. Friend and I am sure that it would be happy, out of its own not insubstantial resources, without circulating the document to all M.P.s, to send a copy to any Member of Parliament who wished to read it without paying the price.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the working of the Official Secrets Acts; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir.

is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent White Paper, while going some way forward in foreshadowing a more generous dissemination of official information, was hardly world shattering in its proposals? In view of the use that everybody makes of the word "participation", has not the time come to set up perhaps a Royal Commission to look into the whole workings of the Official Secrets Acts?

I do not think that it would be possible to go into all the points raised in the White Paper on information and the public interest by way of question and answer. There have been other opportunities for the House to do that. I do not think that this is a question of the Official Secrets Acts. Those Acts are not a barrier to greater openness about Government business, as my hon. Friend suggests. They are concerned with unauthorised disclosure of information. That is a different question.