asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to require proprietors of self-service and supermarket stores to obtain the approval of the police before instituting prosecutions for shoplifting.

No, Sir. The right to institute a private prosecution is a long-standing one and there is no justification for restricting it in respect of shoplifting.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have received a telegram from the President of the National Union of Small Shopkeepers which shows that thousands of shopkeepers are extremely concerned at the right to prosecute being left in the hands of the shopkeeper? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the doctrine of "Let the courts decide" means that thousands of innocent shoppers are put in peril and fear for long periods? Will he at least warn holiday shoppers of the risks they face and of the need to take great care to avoid any sort of suspicion attaching to them?

I do not accept that at all. The position of a shopkeeper is the same as that of other individuals. There has always been a right for an individual to bring a private prosecution if he wishes to do so. The position of the small shopkeeper is the same as that of a supermarket or self-service store. If he chooses to bring a prosecution which is proved to be unfounded he might well end up by having to pay the costs of both sides.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a real problem here? One county police force is refusing to take cases brought by one chain of supermarkets. The police and others feel that supermarket proprietors are using the courts to do their dirty work for them and that they should be spending more time on prevention and less on cure. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that an increasing number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are becoming concerned about this problem?

I accept that in the end the policy is determined by the chief constable of the police force concerned, and it is right, as my hon. Friend says, that there are wide variations in practice between one force and another. Some forces undertake the conduct of prosecutions while others prefer to leave it to the individual shopkeeper to bring the prosecution. What I do not accept is the use of the phrase "the courts are doing their dirty work for them".

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the main points here is that shops in some way attract shoplifting by the way in which they set out their goods—

indicated assent.

—the provision of piped music and so on? Would it be possible for the Home Office to indicate to shopkeepers that they ought not deliberately to lure shoppers into committing crimes?

One accepts at once that the temptation is often present because of the manner in which goods are displayed. I do not think anyone would doubt that that is one of the major causes of the substantial increase in shoplifting. In the end, however, it must be a matter for the individual shopkeeper to decide how he lays out his goods and the way he conducts his business.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost per prisoner of building new prisons at the present time.

Including the cost of industrial workshops and other associated buildings, a little over £6,000.

As the Home Office has placed a target of that size per prison place on all new prisons, and since the rehabilitating function of prisons is unproven, is it not manifestly absurd that there are only six adult probation hostels? Will the right hon. Gentleman set up controlled experiments in particular areas to see whether a full complement of probation officers and hostels can replace prisons in the majority of cases?

Those are the sort of objectives which are comprised in the Criminal Justice Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the general arrangements at Her Majesty's prisons for visiting; and if he will make a statement.

I am not satisfied. Considerable improvements have been made, and will continue to be made. But shortage of accommodation is still a problem at many prisons.

Has the Home Secretary looked at a visiting order recently? Is he aware that those of my constituents who have occasion to travel from Sheffield to visit the prison in Leeds can do so only once a month between the hours of 1.45 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.? According to the visiting order which I have, they may do so for only a small period of time—20 minutes. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman or his Administration to show more humanity, because I know they do that to the fullest extent. But when will it be possible to permit more flexibility in visiting arrangements, particularly for young wives who have to leave children behind and must make special arrangements?

We certainly do what we can. All these problems of the prisons spring from the great overcrowding which has been a problem for several years. This we are tackling with considerable vigour and with the biggest prison building programme ever undertaken in this country, coupled with measures envisaged in the Criminal Justice Bill to ensure that a number of people are punished by means other than imprisonment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the regulations for visitors to Brixton prison? Some people from Northern Ireland have travelled a great distance and have had great difficulty in visiting remand prisoners there. When a change of underclothing was recently brought for one of the prisoners it was only after an appeal to the magistrates that the underclothing was allowed into the prison.

Remand prisoners have, as is right, greater visiting facilities than convicted prisoners. I should be very happy to look into the particular case the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what progress is being made towards provision for the care of young children while visits are taking place? Action on this problem is needed very urgently.

I cannot say offhand what progress is being made, but I shall look into the matter and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiries are made and what criteria applied when applications for the keeping of falcons are considered by his Department.

Applications for licences to import birds of prey, or to take them from the wild, are considered in consultation with my right hon. Friend's Advisory Committee on the Protection of Birds. Factors taken into account include the availability of the particular species and the expertise of or available to the applicant.

I am grateful for that information. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of anomalies have arisen as individuals who possess suitable skills and can offer proper accommodation have been refused licences, whilst others no doubt inspired by the film "Kes", have been given licences despite the fact that they have neither the necessary skills nor suitable accommodation available?

I have no evidence that the present arrangements are seriously wrong, but if the hon. Gentleman will send me details of cases I will certainly look into them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in alleviating overcrowding of people who are remanded in custody.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the steps he is taking to reduce overcrowding of prisons by persons remanded in custody.

I am pursuing a number of measures aimed at reducing the number of persons remanded in custody; my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is taking steps designed to enable cases to be dealt with more quickly; and I am continuing action to improve conditions in remand prisons wherever practicable.

Will the Government consider hostels for people who are remanded in custody only because there is nowhere else for them to live?

Certainly, and recently I went to the opening of the first bail hostel in East London. The Criminal Justice Bill gives the Government power to provide money to support these activities.

Is it any wonder, with 684 prisoners on remaind in 476 cells in Brixton, that demonstrations are taking place on a scale not known for years? Will the Home Secretary really exert himself and do something to improve conditions, because these demonstrations will continue and the task of prison officers be made even more difficult unless they are improved?

I made a statement about conditions in Brixton some time ago. These conditions are being improved. One thing should be made clear about the demonstrations to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There were no demonstrations at all inside Brixton prison yesterday, and outside demonstrators were outnumbered by Press men.

Can the right hon. Gentleman make any comment about the recent disturbances at Strangeways gaol in Manchester?

Not without notice.

While welcoming the steps which the Home Secretary has been taking to deal with this problem, may I ask whether he has been able to take any action to persuade the courts not to refuse bail except in cases where they have reason to believe that, as a consequence, the person in question might not answer bail or might be a danger to himself or the community? Is there any possibility of opening remand accommodation in any of the existing training or open prisons to give some immediate relief in the present difficult situation?

I will look into the second point made by the hon. Lady and communicate with her. There are subsequent Questions on the first point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were in custody awaiting trial on 1st April, 1972; and what was the corresponding figure on 1st April, 1971.

In England and Wales, 2,781 on 31st March, 1972, and 3,007 a year earlier.

Without wishing to preempt tomorrow's debate, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assist by saying whether the difference is represented by the numbers of crimes committed, by delays in the hearing of cases or by a reluctance to grant bail?

I do not think I can give an analysis of the position. The figure is encouraging, but offhand I cannot give an analysis of the various reasons.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has issued relating to complaints by detained individuals awaiting trial who have been denied certain personal facilities.

Prisoners who wish to complain about their treatment in prison have the right under the Prison Rules to see the Governor, a member of the board of visitors or a regional director. They may also address a petition to me. If they are not satisfied they may then write to a Member of Parliament.

The question is not about prisoners but about people who have been arrested but not tried. The Home Secretary has got it wrong. I am concerned about those who have been arrested and who complain that while they are remanded in custody they have not been provided with proper facilities to maintain themselves in a clean and respectable way.

My answer covered all prisoners. Whether people are detained awaiting trial or convicted, they are prisoners because they are in prison.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that adequate numbers of places are available in junior detention centres; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight).

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think it satisfactory that Eastwood Park in Gloucestershire should cover one-third of the catchment area of England and Wales?

My right hon. Friend recognises the present difficulties which the courts are facing. I am the first to accept that there are shortages of places in junior detention centres.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now consider the use of voting machines in parliamentary and local government elections, and if he will make a statement.

In December, 1970, after a study had been made of the use of voting machines, my right hon. Friend's conclusion was announced that they would not offer enough advantages to outweigh the radical change in our traditional voting methods which they would require. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He sees no reason to take a different view now.—[Vol. 807, c. 1457.]

In spite of the Parliamentary boundary changes, constituencies are growing all the time, with larger local authorities coming into being under the Local Government Bill. Will my hon. and learned Friend look again at the possibility of having a pilot scheme? Will he also have a fresh look at American experience in this sphere?

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not at present feel able to recommend any such change to Parliament. He has decided against making any further study of voting machines at this stage, and by the murmurs of assent which I heard when I gave my original answer I have the impression that that is a decision of which the House approves.

At the risk of being considered an old Conservative, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to take it from me that some of us on this side of the House, having looked at the American system and particularly bearing in mind recent experiences of the use of voting machines in that country, very much welcome his right hon. Friend's decision in this matter, a decision which is probably applauded by the majority of hon. Members and the country as a whole?

The number of names on the ballot paper in America and the number of candidates for whom one must vote at any particular time make for different considerations there than apply at parliamentary elections in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to chief fire officers on the implementation of the Fire Precautions Act, 1971, with respect to hotels and boarding houses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he is now giving to chief fire officers about the implementation of the Code of Fire Precautions Practice for Hotels and Boarding Houses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he is now having with chief fire officers about the application of the Code of Fire Precautions for Hotels and Boarding Houses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has given to chief fire officers about the application of the Code of Fire Precautions for Hotels and Boarding Houses.

Chief fire officers have received copies of two Home Office circulars to fire authorities and of the Department's published guide dealing with the application of the Act to hotels and boarding houses, and will have a copy of a further circular about to be issued to fire authorities recommending local consultations with hotel and boarding house keepers. Many of these officers have attended special conferences on the Act at fire service colleges.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great dismay and apprehension that has been spread among hotel and guest house keepers as a result of the publication of these regulations, on the basis that if they are to be adhered to to the very letter the cost in some cases could be prohibitive? Why has it taken so long to institute further consultations with chief fire officers to interpret the regulations properly?

Consultations have been going on all the time. I am aware of the concern and that is why we are issuing, in I hope two weeks time, a further circular. However, the paramount consideration must be the safety of the public. Subject to that, fire authorities may require only what is reasonable in the circumstances of each particular case.

While we agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the paramount consideration, may I ask whether his forthcoming circular will take into account the fact that it is neither realistic nor necessary to insist on the same sort of fire-fighting apparatus and means of escape in many existing small hotels or boarding houses as in large new hotels?

I hope that this will become better known. The code which the Questions mention is an indication of general standards to be aimed at but it is not intended to be an absolutely rigid requirement.

The Home Office has our full support in dealing with many buildings which constitute death traps, one-quarter of them in London rather than at the seaside. As many fire brigades still have an enormous backlog of work in dealing with the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say what steps have been taken to ensure that there is adequate staff in the fire service and in architects' departments to deal with the new responsibilities?

I hope we will make steady progress. The Act is to be applied urgently but not unreasonably.

May I remind those who are protesting about the new regulations that burning visitors is the worst possible advertisement for any city or resort? May I also remind chief fire officers that some hotels, even some with famous names, have a deplorable record when it comes to the provision of warning systems and fire escapes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. The important thing is to get these further local discussions going urgently.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study he has made of the implications for the tourist industry of the implementation of the Fire Precautions Act.

Possible implications for the tourst industry were fully taken into account in the consultations leading up to this legislation. But the primary need was to take responsible steps to ensure the safety of guests in the event of fire.

Is my hon. Friend aware that no one who questions him about the problem in any way questions the Act itself or the need for it? Is he aware that in many areas the industry is a major employer of labour, particularly in the South West, in Scotland, and in Wales, and that there are jobs at stake? It is the little man who is likely to be hurst most. In his consultations with chief fire officers will my hon. Friend stress that the regulations must be implemented with care and not too rigorously, too vigorously and too quickly?

I have already said that the Act must be applied reasonably. I am aware of the misgivings. It is because I believe that closer consultation locally will help to remove them over the next few weeks that we are sending out another circular in a few weeks' time.

Will the Minister now answer my question about recruitment of staff? The London Fire Brigade is 500 short. What steps are being taken to keep establishments up to present requirements as well as to meet the requirements of the Fire Precautions Act?

I cannot promise any direct improvement. I hope that the staff will continue to grow so that it will be possible for fire authorities to take the Act in their stride. It necessarily means that the implementation of the Act is bound to be gradual.

Will my hon. Friend promise to look at the implementation of the Act very carefully and to lend a willing ear to any justifiable pleas for help that may come from small hoteliers?

Yes, certainly. I shall be glad to meet any other hon. Members who are bothered and also to accept invitations to resorts during the summer to see matters for myself.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment if he will take steps to postpone the elections for the new district councils, arranged for Thursday, 12th April, 1973, until at least six weeks after the elections for the new county elections.

My right hon. Friend has now decided, after consultation with the local authority associations, that the first elections to the new county councils should be held on 12th April, 1973, those to metropolitan and Welsh district councils on 10th May and those to non-metropolitan district councils in England on 7th June. He appreciates the advantages of a rather longer interval between the first two dates, but it is important for the new district councillors to have an adequate period of shadow office.

While appreciating that my hon. and learned Friend has put back the date of the first elections till eight weeks after publication of the electoral registers, a move which will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, may I ask whether he still intends to allow only four weeks between the two sets of elections? If so, will he confirm that nominations for the district elections will not close until two weeks after the county elections? In regard to the elections in June, will he have another look at the arrangements in view of the fact that thousands of people may be on holiday, including proportions of certain towns enjoying their tradition wakes week?

To deal first with the second part of the question, the difficulty is that it is impossible to bring forward the date of 7th June because of the administrative arrangements that have to be made with regard to the warding of the non-metropolitan districts. If one were to put back the date, the only possible thing to do would be to put it back to the autumn, which would leave too short a period between shadow councils being formed and taking over their responsibilities the following April. On the first part of the question, I am informed that the interval that has always existed between county and county district elections has been only a month. Therefore, the same provisions will apply next year as have applied in the past for county and county district elections.

Would the Minister consider holding elections for all the councils on the same day?

We have given consideration to that, but the date of 7th June cannot be brought forward. The only way that that could have been achieved would have been to put back the date of the metropolitan district elections to 7th June. As, amongst other things, those authorities are to be education authorities, it was felt that this was narrowing still further the time lapse between elections next June and the taking up of responsibility next April. When they have to appoint chief officers of departments and when many other matters have to be dealt with, we decided that we were not justified in reducing that period any further.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to make the voting rights of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom elections conditional on the granting of voting rights to British citizens in Eire on a reciprocal basis.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if a United Kingdom citizen goes to live in Eire it is five years before he can even apply for naturalisation papers and that until he gets those papers he is not allowed to vote in a parliamentary election there, whereas Eire citizens coming to the United Kingdom merely have to be resident at a certain address here for three months to obtain a vote? Does my right hon. Friend consider that this is fair?

I agree that there is no reciprocity here, but that applies in a number of Commonwealth countries as well. This arrangement has been going on under legislation for nearly a quarter of a century. I do not know whether, if we started afresh, these arrangements would apply. At present I am concerned to take no action that would in any way make more difficult the task of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I should he happy to consider at any time anything which I thought would contribute to solving the Northern Ireland problem.

Is the Home Secretary aware that I am loth to be party to a mean, narrow, ungenerous, uncharitable Question?

Nonsense. Rubbish.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is reciprocity in local elections?

I am not sure about local elections. I entirely repudiate the hon. Member's description of the Question. There is nothing mean or narrow-minded about asking whether it is reasonable to continue an arrangement which is unreciprocal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Irish Republic is not a member of the British Commonwealth? Will he also say whether in the present situation he thinks that a measure such as this would help to show the Government of Eire that the British Government mean business?

As I have already said, it I thought that a measure of this kind would help solve the problem of Northern Ireland, I should look at it in a totally different light.

Once again I applaud the Home Secretary's line on this matter because it is quite obvious that there is no argument simply on the grounds of incompatibility between these two positions. A liberal attitude on voting rights has always marked the United Kingdom's relations with the Republic of Eire, which is admittedly non-reciprocal but which, if changed at this time, would be open to grave misinterpretation.

If I welcome so many commendations from the Opposition benches it may cause me a certain amount of embarrassment. In looking at this problem in a very difficult situation one has to reach an assessment as to whether any particular move will or will not help in Northern Ireland. Perhaps my judgment is wrong and perhaps the judgment of my right hon. Friend is wrong. But, at any rate, having reached our judgment we should follow it up.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of letters he has had during April, 1972, on the subject of the non-payment of alimony awarded by court order.

Four, Sir.

In giving credit to Home Office Ministers for recent legislation on attachment of earnings orders, may I ask whether they imagine that they have done anything to reduce the number of these awful cases which arise? How about the Home Secretary introducing in the Queen's Speech next year legislation along the lines of the Ten Minute Bill which I introduced, which is not perfect but is at least another step in the right direction?

We are aware—we are repeatedly reminded at monthly intervals by the hon. Gentleman—of the fact that there are still many women who have a maintenance order in their favour but that it is not being met. The hon. Gentleman has always been good enough to appreciate that this is a very difficult problem. In the end it comes to how one obtains money from a man who either does not have the means or has a determination not to pay. We are doing what we can to improve the existing arrangements.

Has not the time come when Parliament should intervene in the system whereunder it is practically impossible, according to precedent, for the courts to grant more than one year's arrears of maintenance? Is there any good reason why a claimant should not be able to go back well beyond 12 months?

I was not aware of any such regulation. I shall certainly look at this position again with regard to arrears or whether one writes them off. When the court has to assess what is the reasonable practicality of whether they will be paid, we do not gain advantage for deserted wives by sending many husbands to prison for non-payment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present strength of the National Voluntary Civil Aid Service and how the training of the civil aid units is progressing; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the service has some 15,000 members, about one-third of whom are organised and trained in 249 operational civil aid units.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which shows that it has not grown much in the last few months. Will my hon. Friend take every possible opportunity of expressing the full support of the Government for these voluntary services, and will he encourage local authorities to support them?

Yes, certainly. I hope that local authorities will make maximum use of local help from these voluntary societies. I hope to discuss this question further with county civil defence officers during the next few weeks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics he keeps of injuries to children caused by guard dogs; and what trends these reveal.

Information is available only for 1970, when 39 children under 14 years of age were known to the police to have been bitten by guard dogs in England and Wales.

Is is not time that a clear statutory obligation was imposed on the keepers of guard dogs to fence their property and to display adequate pictorial warning notices, and also to place them under liability, where they fail to do so, in regard to injuries to child trespassers?

It would be possible to introduce such legislation, although the regulations might be difficult to frame successfully. The view of the police is that legislation relating specifically to guard dogs is not necessary and would not necessarily be helpful.

Is it not correct to say that not one owner of one guard dog which caused injury to any of these 39 children was prosecuted? Is not the law at the moment utterly powerless to deal with the situation? In that case, whatever the views of the police should not the law be changed?

Guard dogs are at present under the same control as any other animal and there are powers to take the owners before the courts if the dogs are not kept under proper control.

Were any taken to court?

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly how many owners of guard dogs were prosecuted. I would do so on notice.

Is there not a case for putting dogs into the category of ferae naturae so that children or adults who are injured by them are not met with the defence that the dog is allowed one bite and so that the owners of guard dogs would be subject to strict legal provisions in regard to injuries caused by guard dogs?

I must make it clear that by no means the majority of accidents in which children or adults are bitten by dogs are caused by guard dogs. The problem is one generally of controlling dogs rather than one necessitating specific action against those dogs which are described as guard dogs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand centres for women there are in England and Wales.

Three, Sir. Women and girls on remand are also held at Holloway prison.

I understand that reply and appreciate that in certain cases it is necessary to remand women in custody, but does the Home Secretary agree that, in view of the time, the cost and the social difficulties that are often involved in transporting women very long distances from the courts to remand centres, either remand centres should be established nearer to the courts or, better still, efforts should be made to reduce the number of remands, especially for minor offences?

This is a problem but, fortunately, the number of women and girls who are remanded or committed in custody is few. We cannot justify more than these three centres. There are other priorities in the prison building programme which are more urgent. The question of avoiding remanding in cutody, wherever possible, is well in the minds of magistrates. A working party is at present considering the whole subject of bail, and it will consider this aspect.

Does not the paucity of the figure my right hon. Friend mentioned illustrate once again the extreme folly of the Home Secretary in the last Government closing down Brockhill remand centre for women in the Midlands? Will my right hon. Friend seek to get over the problem of a remand centre for the Midlands, for which we have constantly appealed?

I know that there is a particular difficulty in the Midlands. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on 27th April.

Will the Home Secretary take a particularly close look at the position in Holloway, where a very high proportion of women who are remanded in custody are subsequently either discharged or sent for non-custodial treatment? Does not this indicate that far too many women are being remanded in custody who might well be given bail?

I am not entirely convinced about that. This is a general problem affecting men prisoners as well as women prisoners. I see the desirability of not having people committed to gaol wherever possible and there are provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill in this regard. On the other hand, I often receive representations from the police to the effect that people who are released on bail sometimes commit other offences or intimidate witnesses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now consider restricting the admission to the United Kingdom of dependants of immigrants permanently settled in this country to wife or husband and children of school age or under only.

No, Sir. I can see no sufficient grounds for varying the existing practice, which is of long standing.

A statistical table published recently in the Daily Telegraph showed clearly that 1,912 dependants and settlers came to Britain in December 1971. I refer particularly to the one voucher holder, 26 other settlers and 523 dependants. With the strain on our education, social and welfare services should not my hon. Friend look at this again?

No. The dependants arriving in any month are not necessarily connected with the voucher holders who arrive then. I assure my hon. Friend that, leaving aside the special case of the United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa, the annual rate of dependants now arriving here is down to half what it was five years ago.

I congratulate the Under-Secretary on the firmness of his reply. Is he aware that I come from an area which has a very high degree of immigration and that the problem is one of integration rather than of entry? The hon. Gentleman's decision will be widely welcomed by those of us who are working very hard to secure integration in my area.

I appreciate that. I appreciate also the uneasiness still felt by many people about the numbers coming in. That is why I have tried to make it clear that the general trend of arrivals has been declining for a number of years.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has given voice to some totally misleading statistics? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the average number of dependants joining those coming here is about four to five, taking a number of years together?

Yes. That average holds true at present for United Kingdom passport holders coming from East Africa, where it is much more normal for the dependants to come with the head of the family. That is a much more accurate average.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the net gain or loss in the strength of police forces in England and Wales, including the Metropolitan Police, in the first four months of this year; how this figure compares with the comparable period in the years 1969, 1970 and 1971; and whether he will make a statement on the police recruiting campaign.

There was a net gain of 1,356. This compares with 562 in 1969, 784 in 1970 and 854 in 1971. During the coming financial year national recruiting publicity will be maintained at its current level, and police authorities will have my full encouragement to go in for local publicity.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is not this a very encouraging trend? Does it not show that complete wisdom of the Government's reversing the policy of the Labour Government of restricting police recruitment? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for the first time in police history a significant number of graduates are entering the police service?

I would like to see still more graduates entering the police service. The general figures show clearly that the Government have carried out their undertaking to strengthen the forces of law and order.

Can the Home Secretary say how many police forces are still below establishment and what is the total shortage at the moment?

I should say that most of them are below establishment because establishment often is the ideal at which one is aiming. But the police forces generally are increasing in numbers more rapidly than they were a few years ago and I hope to improve on this in the future.

How far are these very good figures offset by the fact that after no recruiting during the war there were heavy intakes in 1946–47 which are now coming up for completion of 25 years' service and for retirement in larger numbers than usual?

These are net figures. The particular problem to which my right hon. Friend refers was very much in our minds when reaching agreement in the Police Council on pay a short while ago. The new pay scales have been pretty effective in dealing with the serious problem of potential wastage.

If recruitment for the police is improving, particularly in the Metropolitan area, would the Home Secretary be prepared to consider re-establishing those very admirable police teams that formerly toured schools teaching children road safety?

That is a slightly different point which I note well. But in the Metropolitan area the increase has not been as satisfactory as in other parts of the country and this is a matter which is giving me some concern.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to licence the operation of computer dating bureaux.

The possible threat to privacy from the operation of computers in the private sector is one of the matters which have been examined by the Committee on Privacy, whose report my right hon. Friend expects very shortly.

The Home Department has been giving that answer for the last 12 months. The application form for Dateline computer dating includes some 52 attitude questions including questions on Communism and sex—[AN HON. MEMBER: "They go well together."]—without a shred of guarantee of anything like confidentiality. Is the Under-Secretary aware that this is one of the more respectable of the operations in this market at the moment? Will he do anything to stop many of these organisations which are nothing more than pedlars of personal profiles?

I hope the hon. Gentleman noticed our answer on Tuesday saying that we hoped to publish the report in five to six weeks. But we have not received any complaints in the Home Office about the operation of these bureaux. Nobody who is asked the questions is obliged to answer them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will send a circular to magistrates to advise them of the need to grant bail wherever possible rather than remand in custody.

I have no doubt that magistrates are conscious of their responsibilities in this matter. I should prefer to await the report of the Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts before considering whether any further guidance is necessary or desirable.

Is the Home Secretary aware that some magistrates accept police objections far too readily without going more fully into whether or not they can grant bail? Does not the Home Secretary think that a circular indicating to magistrates that they should grant bail in all circumstances unless there are very serious objections to the contrary would help in this matter?

This is a difficult matter and there are considerations pointing in different directions. I would rather await the report of the working party.

Some courts seem to insist upon unreasonable terms being attached to bail as a matter of policy, so that because the accused is unable to comply with those terms he is remanded in custody. Will the Home Secretary ensure that this matter is looked at?

We will certainly do that.

I appreciate the need to await the report. Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary not give too much credence to the somewhat sweeping generalisations made against magistrates who are trying to do their duty as capably and honestly as they can?

I agree. If we are to do anything it must be to help the magistrates, and I know that they welcome help and guidance they can be given. Sometimes it is argued that a court should have relased a person on bail and sometimes it is argued that it should not have done so. But this is complicated and when we have the report of the working party we may be able to give the courts some assistance.

Are not the worrying figures that we heard earlier about overcrowding in prisons evidence that there is far too much remanding in custody of people who are not subsequently given custodial sentences? Is it not time for further advice to be given to magistrates about this?

No, it is not evidence that there is far too much but is merely evidence that the Government are right in seeing whether we can find ways and means of reducing the numbers.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Chadderton, Lancashire.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is the most acute concern in Lancashire that entry into the Common Market will cause a flood of cheap cotton yarn imports and that this will gravely threaten 30,000 jobs in the spinning industry? Have not the Government already decided to sacrifice Lancashire interests purely as a bargaining counter in the wider negotiations?

The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong, and he is quite unjustified in raising fears of that kind. The present situation is that the Government have taken action to have both a system of quantitative restrictions and the tariff at the same time. This will be of great benefit to the textile areas. The Community also has its own protection against low-cost imports and obviously when we become a member we shall share that same position.

indicated dissent.

If the hon. Gentleman shakes his head he had better look at the proportion of imported textiles in the Community compared with the percentage in this country. Here the figure is at least three times as high. The Community protects its own industries in this way.

Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that on the textile scene on the other side of the Pennines, Britain's entry into the Common Market is very warmly anticipated? As for a visit by my right hon. Friend to Chadderton, would he not be very welcome there because the order for an extra squadron of Nimrods will considerably improve the employment situation.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

If the Prime Minister contends that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is wrong, can he indicate what consultations took place with the British textile industry to protect it over yarn imports?

I have said that we are satisfied with the Community arrangements. The British textile industry will not suffer from the exaggerated fears that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has been trying to instil.

asked the Prime Minister which Minister he proposes will be in attendance on Her Majesty the Queen on official visits to countries in membership of the European Economic Community.

As for any State visit abroad, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary would normally be in attendance: but if he is prevented from accompanying the Queen he would recommend that another Minister should take his place.

Why does not the Prime Minister go himself? Does he not think it would have been more dignified and honest if he had chosen to make the official speeches in France that Her Majesty was compelled to make like a clockwork doll in order to satisfy the Prime Minister's excessive EEC obsessions?

On state occasions Her Majesty makes the speeches herself and she does so on the advice of her Ministers.

Can my right hon. Friend arrange for the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) to be in attendance on Her Majesty, since if he saw how dedicated she is to her work and how popular she is abroad he would be converted from a rabid republican to a raging royalist?

It might have that effect on the hon. Gentleman but I also must consider the position of Her Majesty.

I am not in any way criticising Her Majesty during her recent state visit, which we all recognised was on the advice of the Prime Minister. But does not the Prime Minister think that such visits are premature, particularly in the context of the proposal for European entry, in view of the votes we had in the House last night? Would it not be better to keep Her Majesty away from the inevitable involvement and controversies which must continue as long as the matter is before Parliament and the country?

No, Sir. I think it was generally agreed that the visit was well timed, and I believe the reception Her Majesty had in France bore that out.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite a representative of the Small Businesses Association to join his future discussions with the Confederation of British Industry.

These discussions are concerned with economic policy issues affecting industry as a whole, and it has not been necessary to bring in representatives of particular sectors of industry. But my right hon. Friends and I are very willing to consider representations from the Smaller Businesses Association.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that the 1¼ million small firms in this country, which employ one-third of the country's work force, are of tremendous importance to the national economy? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the small firms are extremely grateful that the Government have accepted all but five of the Bolton Committee's recommendations? Will he carry on with the good work?

The fact that we have already taken decisions on 25 of the recommendations of the Bolton Committee and agreed with 23 of them is sufficient demonstration of the importance we attach to the small firm.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Home Department and Environment Department in the operation of joint computerised filing systems of personal information.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the integration of the police computer and the Department of the Environment vehicle licensing computer represents potentially the most massive agglomeration of personal information information this country has yet seen? As the tyranny of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover in the United States has just ended, what will the right hon. Gentleman do to stop the same sort of tyranny happening over here?

I see no possibility of that tyranny happening. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not exaggerate. There has always been a relationship between the arrangements for vehicle records and vehicle owner records and the police. When the computer system is developed this can be maintained much more efficiently and satisfactorily. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not indicate that he is opposed to efficient and prompt detection of crime.

Does the Prime Minister accept that if there is spare computer time it might well be used for general purposes, such as recording the solution of problems for the aged and the education and employment of handicapped people, so that the problems of the handicapped and the aged are not resolved for the first time every time and we can have a record of the solution of the problems?

That aspect of the organisation of computer facilities is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We have the Central Computer Agency at the Civil Service Department, and the job of the agency is to co-ordinate computer arrangements exactly in the way that I think the hon. Gentleman wants.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the English Law Officers and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on questions of law reform.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill expressly excludes Northern Ireland and that consultations with the Northern Irish Law Society have only just begun? Can he explain why there was this delay when the Bill was published a considerable time ago? Will he give an undertaking that when future law reforms are contemplated they will be introduced contemporaneously in Northern Ireland and in this country?

The explanation is that until last month virtually all law reform in Northern Ireland was a matter for the Northern Irish Government. Since then my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been greatly concerned with the changes which have gone on in Northern Ireland, and particularly in the establishment of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. He has been to Belfast many times, for a great part of each week, in order that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be brought into action as speedily as possible. These other matters can now be attended to, but it was necessary to have an order of priorities.

asked the Prime Minister how many petitions have been presented to him since 18th June. 1970.

This information is not available.

Whatever the number, is the Prime Minister aware that it will be increased by at least one when the British public discover that it is the Government's clear intention to extend the value added tax to food? Is he aware that his Ministers dealing with the Finance Bill have refused to deny that contingency plans have been made and that this is a complete break with the pledge made by the Government at the General Election?

It is nothing of the sort. My right hon. Friend the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer made absolutely plain in his Budget Statement what the position of the VAT is, and this is embodied in the Finance Bill.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that after the introduction of the VAT what can best be described as the basic necessities of life will be taxed far less than they were and are under the existing purchase tax and the old selective employment tax?

Taking the two together, Yes, Sir.

Would the Prime Minister care to give a pledge that the agreement not to tax food is permanent?

The Government's policy has been very clearly stated, and was stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget, that VAT will not apply to food. That is the position.

asked the Prime Minister if he will call a Heads of Government meeting of European Economic Community and European Free Trade Association countries.

I have no plans to propose such a meeting.

Should not the Prime Minister have plans to call such a meeting, if only to reassure those EFTA members who responded to Britain's call to set up EFTA, and who will not be able to join the enlarged Community, that they will not be deserted? Should he not also take cognisance of the Vedel Report commented on in today's Guardian and call a meeting to have the report examined because of the dangers to democracy and the sluggish administration in the EEC? Should not the Prime Minister call such a meeting if only to tell those in Europe that the British workers and trade unions are an essential part of the British community and that he has misrepresented them very much over the past year?

A meeting is not necessary for any of those matters. First, the Heads of Government of the EFTA countries know that they are not being deserted, because they are not. There has just been a meeting of the EFTA countries, on 4th and 5th May, and the communiqué stated quite clearly that all the Ministers welcomed the successful conclusion of the negotiations by Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom for membership of the Community and the signature by those countries of the Treaty of Accession in Brussels on 22nd January this year.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Lord Privy Seal on the subject of Civil Service conditions at Margate, on Wednesday, 10th May, represents Government policy.

Yes, Sir.

In the light of Sir Henry Hardman's committee to which Lord Jellicoe referred, will the Government do anything to disperse some of the 100,000 headquarters civil servants from London to other parts of the country?

That will depend on the recommendations of the committee.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Treasury and the Departments of Trade and Industry and Employment over the arrangements for the value added tax centre.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on two occasions that Members from development areas need not be concerned about the siting of the centre at Southend because the numbers to be employed there would not be large? Is he aware that there have been two recent statements by Treasury Ministers that 6,000 additional staff will now be required for VAT? Does he agree that in the circumstances a large number will be employed in the centre? Will he consider transferring it to a development area such as mine, where that number of jobs would be a godsend?

What I have said all the time is that the Central Unit for VAT must be alongside the Customs and Excise at Southend. All the discussion about VAT shows that for its efficient operation that is necessary. But I have also stated that the bulk of the staff will be in offices throughout the country, including the development areas. Of course, the bulk of the staff cannot all be in development areas, because they must be spread over the whole country.

Will the Prime Minister consider publishing a brief White Paper or making a statement in Parliament, in HANSARD, saying exactly what has been the total effect of transfers of central staff of the Civil Service to other areas, particularly development areas, over the past two years?

I shall gladly do that, and show the distribution.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make it a practice of his Administration that Cabinet Ministers retire from office at the age of 65 years.

No, Sir.

Will the Prime Minister make an exception in the case of his right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor? Is he aware that many people are very worried, because the Lord Chancellor is titular head of the judiciary and we do not know when he is making a speech as head of the judiciary and when he is making a party political speech? It is becoming increasingly confusing.

I do not agree with making such exceptions. Even if I did, it would not affect my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor because he is not 65.

To take that slightly flippant question about the age of retirement into its more serious wider context, will my right hon. Friend consider giving some fillip to those who wish the ages of retirement not to be reduced but, if anything, to be raised, since we are now reaching a state of affairs in which there is no will any more to employ a person who has been retired early or even to employ a person who has been forced to leave a job over the age of about 45 or 50?

If my hon. Friend is referring to members of the Government, I can only say that I have not found that they need any fillip to carry on in office. If he is referring to retirement generally, that goes beyond the present Question and I would not wish to answer without notice.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that one interpretation of his speech at the Conservative women's conference yesterday is that he was hinting at an early General Election, which, if that be so, would soon lead to the resignation of the entire Government, regardless of age?