asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will outline steps which he has taken designed to strengthen the police force.

The recent pay award was designed to attract recruits and to reduce the premature loss of trained police. Recruiting publicity is continuing at a high level. Increased investment in equipment, transport and telecommunications is also planned.

Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the principal problems is that of wastage through premature retirement? Would that not be one of the most promising lines on which to try to advance?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, the pay award was framed with that consideration very much in mind. I am happy to say that the wastage situation was better last year, and I am hopeful that this trend will continue.

How far below establishment are present force levels, and how does the estimated recruiting target for this year compare with the annual average for the years 1965–70?

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I am not able to answer the second part of his supplementary question without notice. On the first part of his question, the establishment of the police force on 31st March this year was 109,000, against a strength of 94,000. Therefore, there is a difference of 15,000, which is large.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement on a pay increase for probation officers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a further statement on pay increases for probation officers.

Following the reconstitution of the staff side of the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service, a further meeting of the Committee took place on 18th June. The staff side representatives did not then accept the employers' offer, which I described in my reply to a Question on 20th May by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), but negotiations are continuing.—[Vol. 817, c. 1496.]

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that a strong probation service is absolutely essential if we are to reduce the almost overwhelming pressure on the prisons? Would it not be possible to offer an interim pay award accompanied by the setting up of an inquiry to look into the whole state of the probation service?

In a sense this is negotiation of an interim award since it comes in the middle of an exceptional 21-month period. I thought that the offer made by the employers' side was designed to be consistent with the Government's declared and retained intention to strengthen the probation service.

If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that as an alternative to prison sentences—which many people ought not to have—three ought to be a considerably expanded and strengthened probation service, will this system not collapse completely unless something can be done to keep probation officers within the probation service? Is he not aware that many probation officers are moving over to local government services, in which they can get very much better pay?

There is a Question later on the Order Paper which deals with the number of people leaving the probation service, but the pay offer that was made was designed very much with that point in view.

Is not the service so important that its remuneration should be comparable with what is being paid in local government social services? Is this not the crux of the matter, and in these circumstances should this not be treated as a special problem?

I agree with that. We have very much in mind comparability with local government social service scales. Although the probation service is on a fixed scale, local authorities have a recommended one; many authorities pay higher than the recommended scale, and this creates a practical problem.

Does the Home Secretary not realise that the offer made is not nearly competitive enough to encourage recruitment? Would he not look at this matter seriously in view of possible deterioration in the service since an increase in numbers is highly desirable?

Although the hon. Member asserts that, I do not accept his judgment. I think that the offer made, which was not only 8½ per cent. but also included a £70 allowance, which has been ignored in public comment, was designed to meet the requirements of the service and, I believe, would have done so.

Is it not likely that the new negotiating team will meet the same fate as the old one if it agrees to an award anywhere near 8½ per cent.? Has not the point been reached when it is necessary for the Home Secretary himself to take charge of the situation and bring about a radical reappraisal in the pay scales for this most important public service?

I would not like to comment while negotiations are continuing, though I would like to point out that the 8½ per cent. when taken with the £70 allowance amounts in total to a figure more like 13 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers are employed per 10,000 population in England and Wales; and how many are employed per 10,000 in the Rother Valley constituency.

At 31st May, 1971, 0·58 and 0·4 main grade officers respectively.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that probation officers in my constituency and the surrounding area are carrying extremely heavy case loads at present? What steps is he taking to secure further appointments so that the position may be improved greatly?

I understand that at present there are three vacancies in the team of probation officers serving the area in question. It is expected that these will have been filled by mid-September. I hope very much that that will happen.

Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the cost of keeping a man in prison compared with that of keeping him out of prison by means of the probation service makes it economic lunacy to allow the situation which has developed in the probation service to continue?

I do not agree, and the figures do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest trends in recruiting to, and resignations from, the probation service; and if he will make a statement.

According to returns from probation authorities, 134 established officers joined and 70 left the service in the first five months of this year. The corresponding figures for the same period last year were 111 and 73.

I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Does he agree that, taking into account the conditions of service in this profession, the fact that there has not been a mass exodus is a tremendous tribute to the dedication of probation officers throughout the country? At a time when the Government, to their credit, emphasise the rehabilitation of offenders, is there not something rather sordid about exploiting the good will of social workers?

I cannot accept the wording of the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I recognise the great devotion of all members of the service to their duties. It is right to point out that, despite what has been said, recruiting this year has been better than last year and that wastage this year has been slightly less than last year.

Is the Home Secretary aware that there is still a desperate shortage of probation officers throughout the country and that his own relatively progressive ideas in this sphere are likely to be frustrated unless he takes positive action to put the situation right?

One must not exaggerate. The total output of students for training this year will be about 350 compared with only 270 last year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the first meeting of the Erroll Committee took place; and when he expects to receive its recommendations.

The Committee first met on 5th April. It is too early to say when it will report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern about the independence and scope of the Committee in view of the fact that he has already made up his mind and announced that our licensing laws are archaic? If the Committee decides that they are not archaic, does that not leave the right hon. Gentleman in a curious position, half-way up a gum tree looking stupid?

I am prepared to take that risk. I think that the laws are archaic. If the Committee comes up with the view that they are perfect, I and many others will be very surprised.

Is the Erroll Committee paying some attention to the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission that the tied house system should be abolished or considerably amended?

I think there is a reference in the Committee's terms of reference to the views of the Monopolies Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the concern expressed in the fire service about the nature of question number 3 in the essay paper set by the Eastern Fire Authorities Examination Board for the leading fireman examination on 24th March, 1971; and what steps are open to the Government to ensure that such questions are not set in other fire service examinations by areas or the Central Examinations Board.

Arrangements for conducting the leading fireman's examination are for fire authorities or for local examination boards appointed for the purpose by groups of fire authorities. The Fire Services Central Examinations Board has, however, at the Home Office's request, drawn the attention of the Eastern Fire Authorities Examinations Board to the concern expressed about questions of the kind referred to by the hon. Member.

Are we to take it that the information sent out by the Home Office expresses the Department's concern that such a question should be set for a promotion examination in the first place? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the concern expressed by the fire service is genuine and not manufactured?

Yes, I do. I think the question was not very tactful.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operation of the law regarding stray dogs; and whether he will make a statement.

The police do what they can to enforce the law on stray dogs but they have many other and more pressing duties.

While I accept, to some extent, the hon. Gentleman's answer, is it not true, nevertheless, that there are about 100,000 stray dogs loose in the country at any one time? To many people, this is a serious problem, especially at holiday times when dogs are dumped on our roads. Many people do not regard this as a laughing matter. They feel that the law should be enforced and that the person who dumps a dog should never again be granted another dog licence.

I accept that this is a serious matter, and the hon. Gentleman was quite right to point out on the wireless this morning that Section 1 of the Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, makes it an offence for an owner to abandon an animal, whether permanently or not, in circumstances likely to cause suffering.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Abandonment of Animals Act may apply to the unfortunate stray dog named "Sandy" which appears to have been left at Chequers by the previous occupant?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accused persons in each of the last three years pleaded not guilty, respectively, in magistrates' courts and on indictment; how many, respectively, were convicted; and in respect of each figure, in how many instances the accused was legally aided.

In 1970 12,721 persons who appeared for trial on indictment in England and Wales pleaded not guilty; 6,397 of these were convicted. The figures for 1968 were 10,251 and 5,487, and for 1969 10,837 and 5,405.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the piece of information that he has not given was the whole point of my Question? If we are to be reminded consistently that the cost of legal aid rises year by year, will not our consideration of its cost effectiveness be more informed if we have the information?

I said that the information which I suspected the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted was not available in the form that he required. In the higher courts, only 2·3 per cent. of all defendants are not represented. The number represented on legal aid in magistrates' courts has gone up substantially.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will convene a conference of chief constables to consider improved methods of controlling vandalism.

My right hon. Friend is in regular touch with chief constables about matters of this kind and does not feel justified in convening a special conference.

Do the figures show that some areas are very much better in controlling vandalism than others? Would it not be a good idea for bad areas to get advice from the better ones?

Yes, and there is a constant exchange of views between chief constables on matters of this kind. They are well aware of the problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is grave disquiet in local authorities about the amount of vandalism going on where the police are unable to help, quite apart from that on British Railways, which have their own police? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to look again at this serious matter?

I do not underestimate the problem, but the Criminal Damage Bill which is at present before Parliament provides a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for anyone convicted on indictment of intentionally damaging or destroying another person's property.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider, in consultation with his right hon. and hon. Friends, the possibility of establishing a high-level committee of inquiry or Royal Commission to examine the root causes of violence and vandalism in modern society?

Yes, certainly. But the hon. Gentleman knows that the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University is undertaking a study into this matter at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the delay in carrying out a compulsory purchase order leaves property vacant and subject to extra vandalism?

Yes, I am. This is a serious problem for the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the proposed safety regulations about electric blankets will be in operation.

By the autumn.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department is to be congratulated on advancing the date for bringing in this Order? Is he aware that he is also to be congratulated, contrary to what I was about to do, on resisting the pressure of the trade to postpone the date?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says. There is no intention of postponing this. The necessary consultations have to be carried out, of course.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take with regard to the call for tougher action against seasoned professional criminals, made by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in his report for 1970.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a Question by the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 17th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 126–7.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of organised crime increasing? If he is satisfied with the Commissioner's report that prison holds few terrors for this hard core of criminals, I hope he will not hesitate to make life in prison a good deal more uncomfortable for them.

I am not sure that I share that view. I am concerned not so much with the total growth of crime, which is slackening off, as with the growth of violent crime, which is advancing rapidly. The courts have available considerable powers of punishment, and it would be wrong for a Home Secretary to try to lay down guide lines as to how they should operate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his original reply, to which he referred, was unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that at the moment it is often quite profitable not only to commit a crime but, even when one gets caught, to find that there is no punishment or penalty to be paid for it? I see a look of consternation on the right hon. Gentleman's face.

I expressed consternation that I have not been able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman by my answer. Broadly speaking, penalties available to the courts for punishment of serious crime are substantial. If there are any individual suggestions which the hon. Gentleman wishes to make, I should be glad to hear them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase the efficiency and profitability of the Tote.

I am aware of the problems confronting the Totalisator Board and I am in touch with the Chairman about them, but I am not yet in a position to say more.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in a good profitable year the Tote has been expected to plough its profits back into racing and that in a bad year it has been expected to stand the losses? Would it not be a good thing if he could arrange for some money to be given to the Tote for a computer so that it could increase its efficiency in off-course cash betting and compete on equal terms with the large bookmakers?

I am concerned about the difficulties facing the Tote Board. It is true that in the past when it has been doing better it has carried a pretty heavy proportion of the levy. I am studying this matter and I should be grateful for any helpful suggestions.

Is my right hon. Friend sure that the Tote Board has enough power to show the same initiative as it did with the jackpot and as it has recently shown in reducing the lower limit for credit betting?

Yes. I was glad to see the recent moves which it made in consultation with us. I am studying all other possibilities which can be brought to my attention to enable it to strengthen its business.

Will the Home Secretary tell the House for how many years the Tote has not paid the annual levy to the Horserace Betting Levy Board and what is the total sum involved?

I cannot give the exact figure. In the past the Tote has been required to make a contribution of 25 per cent. of the total cost against the share of betting turnover of 5 per cent. It is only in the last year or two that it has not been in a position to make a contribution. It may be rather more than I said. I cannot give the exact figure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he proposes to have with community relations organisations in connection with the Immigration Bill, and, in particular, concerning the registration provisions of the Bill.

My right hon. Friend proposes to consult the Community Rela- tions Commission before making regulations about police registration.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that change of attitude, because he refused to give an undertaking to that effect during the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill. Does he not think it would be appropriate to convene a series of meetings of community relations councils on a regional basis to attempt a dialogue between the Minister and those most directly affected with the day-to-day work of creating harmony between people of different races?

As I said when the House was discussing the Immigration Bill, the correct channel of communication between the Home Secretary and the community relations councils is through the Community Relations Commission. The councils themselves know that any view which they express, directly or through the Commission, will be carefully considered.

While welcoming such consultations, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is quite improper for community relations organisations in receipt of public funds to create political agitation, with the assistance of groups on one side of politics, against the Immigration Bill?

I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend has a later Question down about this matter.

Yes, indeed I have.

Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis)? As local authorities, education authorities and library associations have conferences, and as community relations people are now part and parcel of our ordinary local authority set-up, will the hon. Gentleman encourage them to have an annual conference not merely on this issue but to make it an established fact and put them on the same basis as the other organisations which I have mentioned?

How they conduct their business is a matter for them. The Question relates to representations to my right hon. Friend. As I said, the correct channel for such representations is through the Community Relations Commission.

Will the Minister make it clear that these community relations bodies are entitled to express a view about what they conceive to be the likely working of the Immigration Bill?

Having been disinclined to be drawn into giving an answer to a later question in reply to my hon. Friend, it would be discourteous to do so now in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement relating to the review of the Firearms Act, 1968.

The review is making good progress, but I cannot yet estimate when it will be completed.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. When the review is complete will he make a statement to the House? Will he also consider points which have previously been made in the House by many hon. Members on both sides who are perturbed about the mild sentences which have been dished out to hardened thugs who carry firearms? Is it not time we made it illegal and imposed heavy penalties for carrying a gun in any circumstances?

That suggestion would involve certain difficulties. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the outcome of the review will be communicated to Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek powers to enable him to make regulations regarding the custody and feeding of captive whales.

My right hon. Friend has no information to suggest that legislation for this purpose is needed.

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to the recent unruly conduct of a certain male whale in my constituency which resulted in a grown man being dragged unconscious to the bottom of a pool in Dudley Zoo and having to spend three days in hospital? Does he realise that with the spread of dolphinariums and such things throughout the country it is essential for the protection of small children that there is adequate supervision of the animals and that the possibility of danger to the public is limited?

I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but legislation would not have any effect in this sphere.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new work industries are proposed for Her Majesty's prisons.

In general, prison industries will continue to rely on developing the woodworking, engineering, clothing and textiles, weaving, laundry and metal recovery industries. The scope for expansion in electro-mechanical and plastics work is being explored.

I welcome that reply. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the top priorities within the prison service should be the introduction of constructive new work industries, especially for long-term prisoners? I suggest that it is time we did away with mail-bag sewing and brush-making which still abound in so many prisons and are of no benefit as such to either prisoners or society.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to secure an extension of work within prisons. This has to be viewed in conjunction with the present problem of overcrowding, but within those terms we are doing the best we can to expand the prison industries.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money is owing in unpaid overdue fines to magistrates' courts in England and Wales at the latest convenient date.

I regret that this information is not available.

My hon. and learned Friend will note that my Question asks about overdue fines. Will he say why such a large sum is involved and, indeed, why any fines are unpaid?

As I said at the beginning, and I apologise to my hon. Friend for this, it is impossible to find the answer to his Question because the figures that we keep do not distinguish between fines that are overdue and those for which time for payment has been given. My hon. Friend asked why anything is ever overdue. The answer is that people do not carry out the commitments which they are required to by the courts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to make available to magistrates a summary of Section 31 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, dealing with the relationship of fines to the means of the person on whom the fine is imposed.

My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that courts need to be reminded of these provisions, to which they have ready access.

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the courts have no need to be reminded of this. May I point out to him that a recent Home Department circular has been sent to courts in respect of the absence of any uniformity of fines in motoring offences? If a circular of that kind can be sent to the courts, why is it not necessary to send circulars to magistrates to draw their attention to the Section of the Act to which I have referred?

The uniformity of fines is a different matter. The Home Office has no reason to believe that the requirement of the court, when fixing a fine, to take into consideration, among other things, the means of the person being fined is being disregarded.

Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that many courts are still imposing fines that are ludicrous in relation to the person's means? When fines of £60 to £70 are imposed on an unemployed labourer with many children or on a person who has been deprived of his livelihood because he has lost his licence, one wonders how the fines will be paid.

It would be improper for me or for any Minister at the Home Office to comment on fines imposed by courts in individual cases. That must be a matter for the discretion of the court.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has now reached regarding an inquiry into the A6 murder.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a further statement on the case of the late James Hanratty.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a further statement on the holding of a judicial inquiry into the conviction of James Hanratty.

I have read the recently published book by Mr. Paul Foot and I have studied a full and detailed analysis of all the information now available in my Department about this case. It is not my function to retry a case on the basis of evidence and arguments previously considered by the courts, but only to consider whether there is any information that was not before the courts which might justify me in recommending the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy. Before coming to a decision on whether any further action is required on my part I have thought it right to ask Mr. Foot whether there are any significant new factors to which he would especially wish to call my attention. I shall make a further statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I think I speak for all in the House who have shown a keen interest in the case when I say that I welcome the close attention which the right hon. Gentleman is giving to what many people consider to be new evidence. Without suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should in any way skip over any vital matters, may I ask him to bear in mind the great interest and concern, particularly to the Hanratty family, in his making his announcement as soon as possible?

This is an immensely complicated matter. The volume of documentation is tremendous, and I am determined to carry out my responsibility of making up my mind on whether there are new factors which should be taken into account.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but may I ask whether he will arrange to meet Mr. Foot very soon? There has been considerable delay since this matter was first raised in the House. In the light of Mr. Foot's book, and in the event of the right hon. Gentlemen having a discussion with him, will he be prepared to discuss the matter with hon. Members who have shown a special interest in the case?

I shall be glad to discuss the matter with hon. Members who have shown an interest in the case, and I am looking forward to hearing from Mr. Foot on this matter, but in defence of the Home Office and of myself I must tell the House that the documents run into millions of words, and one cannot sort this thing out in a short time.

I welcome the close attention which the right hon. Gentleman has given to this matter throughout. Would he accept that an inquiry into whether there should be an inquiry cannot equal in length or depth, and certainly not in fairness, the public inquiry itself into the guilt or innocence of James Hanratty? May we expect the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman's decision before the Summer Recess?

I shall not make an announcement until I have satisfied myself that I have been into every particular. I shall make the announcement as soon as possible, but I cannot say when that will be.

I thank my hon. Friend for his decision. May I ask him to confirm that his decision is no reflection on the concern and anguish experienced by previous Home Secretaries when asked to review this case?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think I am following the precedent of my predecessors, who were always willing at any time to consider anything new that might bring new factors into the situation.

Will the Minister confirm that the study will not be confined to what appears in or is referred to in the book itself? In particular, will he check up on a document—namely, the first statement by Miss Valerie Storey—which was not available to Mr. Paul Foot, and, as I understand it, was not produced either at the committal proceedings or at the hearing itself?

That is one of the features of the case, certainly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to make a statement on his investigations into matters concerning the use of guard dogs.

I have now received reports from chief officers of police. In 1970 rather more than 200 attacks by guard dogs were reported to the police in England and Wales. This includes attacks by dogs with handlers and attacks on employees or trespassers in the guarded premises. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are not satisfied on the evidence so far available that it would be desirable or feasible to prohibit the use of unattended guard dogs, which are widely owned or employed to protect property and to deter theft and vandalism; but a more detailed analysis is being made of the incidents known to the police, and we shall consider, in consultation with chief officers of police, whether there is any other effective action that could be taken to reduce the number of incidents.

May I express the appreciation of the House, and of people outside, for that report. No one has suggested that people should stop using guard dogs. What hon. Members and the public outside have said is that there should be stricter control of the people in charge of them. We pay tribute to the way in which the police look after their guard dogs, but there are some organisations and persons who should not be in charge of any dog, let alone a guard dog. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider some system of special licence so that these people—[Interruption.] Hon. Members know that no one stops me from barking. This is a serious matter, because some organisations use savagery and thuggery against the dogs in their so-called training of them. These people ought to be licensed. Ought there not to be some stricter control over some of these organisations?

If people use savagery and thuggery, they are committing an offence, and if it is known to the police they will be prosecuted. On the general question of licensing dogs, the reaction to the hon. Gentleman's question shows that it is not an easy one to answer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there never was a need for an inquiry into the use of guard dogs, which only do the job they have been trained to do, but, rather, the inquiry should be directed to those parents who allow their children to run wild on the streets without supervision and, in consequence, endanger them?

That is a very much wider point. I think that there is concern about this. There have been incidents of a tragic character and it must be my concern, wherever possible, to prevent tragedies from happening.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been released on parole conditions from Her Majesty's prisons during each of the past three years; and how many have had to be recommitted to prison because such parole conditions have been broken.

During the 12 months beginning 1st April, 1968, release on parole was approved for 1,559 prisoners serving determinate sentences in England and Wales and 43 persons on parole were recalled. The figures for the 12 months beginning 1st April, 1969, were 1,840 and 94, and for the 12 months after that 2,610 and 166.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Will he assure us that every case will be judged on its own merits and that if there are any special rules for allowing people out on parole, he will review these rules from time to time? Will he bear in mind that the impact of the first 14 days in prison is a greater cure for first offenders than letting them stay in longer and therefore getting used to the prison sentence?

There are no rules other than that no one may be released on parole before he has served a third of his sentence or 12 months, and that the Home Secretary can release no one on parole unless recommended to do so by the parole board. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, within those terms, the parole board looks at every case which is referred to it on its merits.

Would my hon. and learned Friend not agree that those figures show the outstanding success of the parole system, that there is, therefore, no justification for believing that professional criminals are being released on parole, and that any who pin their hopes on that are likely to be disappointed?

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. I believe that the scheme has been very successful. The fact that the recall rate is about 5 per cent. bears that out. On the second part of the question, I can confirm what my hon. Friend said. I would remind the House that of the 2,201 cases in which parole was granted in 1970, only 43 involved an offence of robbery with a sentence of six years or more.

Could the hon. and learned Gentleman give us a little more information about the reasons for recall in the small number of cases in which it was applied? Was it normally because other offences had been committed or for more technical reasons?

I can assist the hon. Member only to this extent, that of those who have been recalled, only about half had actually committed further offences. The other half would be in breach of other terms of their parole licence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now take steps to distinguish, in the crime statistics for the purpose of identification, between thefts from supermarkets and thefts from non-self-service shops.

My right hon. Friend is not at present satisfied that the extra staff and expenditure which would be needed to record additional information of this kind would be justified.

But is my hon. and learned Friend aware that supermarket shopping has brought about a fundamental social change in the last few years, which has brought problems to a number of people? Is he further aware that some supermarkets are now employing security firms which seem more intent on cure than on prevention? Would he seriously have a long hard look at this, because a small but significant number of people are finding themselves in very great difficulties?

I am fully aware of my hon. Friend's concern and interest in this matter, but I do not think this would justify keeping statistics in the way he asks.

Does my hon. and learned Friend admit that there is no technical difference between the amount of shrinkage in both types of store mentioned in the question?

I cannot answer that without further notice.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increased entry of East African Asians, and the shortage of jobs and accommodation, he will take steps to announce a date for the general suspension of immigrants for settlement.

No, Sir.

As an opponent of capital punishment, may I point out with apologies that the word "immigrants" in the Question should be "immigration".

I made a carefully thought out statement about this problem which involved a simultaneous increase in the permits to United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa and at the same time a substantial reduction in the quota available to unskilled people from the right balance, and public opinion has largely accepted that it has succeeded.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a special obligation on this country in regard to stateless people, and that among them are people of very high educational level? Would he see to it that no impediment is placed in their way in finding their way to middle-class areas like Chigwell?

I do not quite see that the question of stateless persons comes into this question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) is a red herring? I am not disputing my right hon. Friend's decision on East African Asians; I am asking him to say that the time has now come to receive no more immigrants for permanent settlement.

I do not think that is right. A total ban on immigration for permanent settlement is wrong. We have announced what we are doing about the reduction of certain forms of immigration. But my hon. Friend must recognise that his Question placed this proposal of a general suspension firmly in the context of East African Asians.