asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire into the circumstances in which Mr. George Pottinger, serving a sentence of five years' imprisonment for corruptly receiving gifts whilst in the Civil Service, is receiving favoured treatment, details of which have been sent to him, in the course of the prisoner's appeal.

The prisoner did not receive favoured treatment during the hearing of his appeal, and the details in the newspaper report to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention are either incorrect or misleading.

I am glad of that assurance, but will my right hon. Friend say whether other prisoners in similar circumstances would be allowed to transfer from the prison to the Appeal Court by private car, or would normally be put in Brixton Prison overnight, as was suggested in the newspaper report? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that Mr. Pottinger has not been and will not be treated more favourably than any other prisoner purely by virtue of his social status?

I do not think that he should be treated either more favourably or less favourably by virtue of that. I give the assurances which my hon. Friend wants. The vehicles used for the journeys to and from the Appeal Court were vehicles which were under contract to the Prison Department and are habitually so used for the transport of prisoners. To take another example, it is perfectly true that Pottinger occupies a single room at Ford Prison, but so do more than 100 other prisoners. One hundred out of 106 prisoners over 50 are in this block. There is no evidence of special privileges having been given. If such evidence were brought to my notice, I should look into it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of newspaper reports that Mr. Pottinger may be transferred to a prison in Scotland? If so, does the right hon. Gentleman say that there would be nothing unusual about that, and that no special privilege would be involved?

I am not aware of such reports, and the matter has not been under my consideration, but prisoners are frequently transferred between England and Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation designed to assist the Charity Commissioners more effectively to scrutinise the accounts of registered charities.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend believes that adequate powers are already available under the Charities Act 1960.

Is the hon. Lady aware that there is concern either that the powers may be inadequate or that the commissioners may be unable effectively to use these powers in respect of many small charities whose funds are in investments with low rates of return, some of which have not submitted annual accounts or have not been required to do so? Would not legislation help on these and wider questions of qualifications for charity status?

The Charity Commission is an independent body and its decisions are subject to review by the courts and not by Ministers, but my right hon. Friend will be willing to discuss with the Charity Commissioners, who have day-to-day responsibilities in this area, any suggestions relating to the administration of the present law on charities.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the time has come for new legislation to enable the Charity Commissioners to know much more clearly which organisations merit charitable status? Should there not be much firmer guidelines, so that the commissioners know what is or is not a pressure group, and what is or is not a political organisation? At present, many organisations which do excellent work are not given the benefit of charitable status.

I note what my hon. Friend says, and I repeat that my right hon. Friend will be willing to discuss any change in the law with the Charity Commissioners.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now announce his proposals for an independent review element in the investigation of complaints against the police; and if he will make a statement.

I shall be announcing my proposals shortly, before the Summer Recess.

That is a welcome announcement after the year that was wasted by the working party. I pay tribute to the extent to which some of the interested parties, such as the Police Federation, have moved. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be two equal criteria—the extent to which the police are prepared to operate any system that is introduced and the extent to which the public have confidence that a genuine independent review element is involved?

Yes, indeed; I attach great importance to those principles—both to the fact that the system should be accepted and well operated by the police and that it should command confidence among the public. It is precisely in the endeavour to find the right balance be-between those two principles that I have taken a little time to give further consideration to the matter.

Although I agree that the investigation of complaints against the police is of extreme importance, will the Home Secretary look at the other side of the coin—the protection of the police and the public—which is of even greater importance? Is it not time for the House to consider whether, for the murder of policemen and for bombing, the death penalty should be restored?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in getting into a supplementary question a publicity-attracting one which has no relationship to the Question on the Order Paper.

Will the right hon. Gentleman refute the suggestion that the working party wasted a year? Will he also give an assurance that when he announces his proposals he will choose from the alternatives which he has put forward?

No, Sir, I do not agree that the working party wasted its time; I think that it may have operated on too narrow a basis. There are two important principles beyond those enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) to which I propose to stick. One is that the police should retain responsibility for investigating complaints against themselves; and the second is that there should be no question of double jeopardy. I repeat that the working party did not waste its time, but perhaps went too narrowly in respect of its terms of reference. I hope to be able to build on its work.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although we are anxious not to lower the morale of the police force, we must realise that members of the public are distressed by some of these investigations? The public agree that what happens in the police force in most cases requires little investigation, but they are concerned that in some respects there is white-washing—and this view is also taken by members of local authorities and watch committees. I hope he will bear in mind that as the mechanics of the system are gone through it is important to see that justice is done.

It is important to preserve the correct balance. Clearly, there can be abuses in the police force, as they occur in any other body. It is important that where they occur they should be investigated, and people should see that they have been properly investigated. That is why the case for the independent element is strong, and it is equally important that we do nothing to undermine the general morale of the police who are carrying out their duties properly, as overwhelmingly the majority of them are doing. It is also important that we should in no way give the impression that we do not value their services.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers designed to reduce the amount of illegal importation of offensive weapons and firearms from abroad.

No, Sir. Additional powers are not needed, though I recognise that enforcement may present difficulties.

In view of the fact that the police have confiscated over 500,000 illegal weapons, such as pistols, in this country since the war, most of which were improperly imported, is there not now a good case for a tighter control on passengers' luggage coming into the country, including random checks and possibly some form of electronic surveillance?

I am willing to consider any matters put to me. This is to a large extent a matter for the Customs and Excise, who are responsible not to me but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—although, in a sense, I am responsible for the consequences and, naturally, I pay great attention to this matter. The Customs and Excise are well aware of the dangers involved and, given the total number of people involved, have considerable success in managing to exercise controls along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since yesterday's outrage at the Tower of London there will be far greater pressure to take much more seriously offences involving the bringing of weapons into the country? Is he further aware that one of my constituents was killed yesterday and several of the family were injured in the explosion at the Tower? I have been visiting those constituents and people in my constituency this morning. There is a great sense of outrage and a feeling that the Government must put all their resources into making sure that this does not happen again.

I am aware that the lady who died in yesterday's outrage was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). I note what he said, which is a reiteration of comments from all parts of the House when I made my statement yesterday evening. The Government's position—which, if anything, is intensified by yesterday's incident—is that we have a determination to use any powers which, on a sensible consideration of the situation, we feel will help us to restrict the dangers to which we are subjected. We would be willing to introduce measures of control which would be conducive to that end. I reiterate that point of view, as did the Conservative Government before me. Unless we can be clear how any such measures would help, it is not necessarily sensible merely to propound in general the desirability of tighter security.

Will the Home Secretary accept that, although he is willing to introduce powers which he is convinced will reduce the dangers to our citizens, the vast majority of people are convinced that it is more than ever imperative that we should reintroduce capital punishment for these crimes which cause death and mutilation among so many of our citizens? Will he put the matter to the test by bringing in a Bill?

No, I shall not bring in a Bill which I do not believe to be correct—any more than I believe the hon. Lady would do if she were occupying my office—or, indeed, any more than the Conservatives did when they were in Government. I am not convinced on this matter. I am aware that in present circumstances it is easy for people to feel strongly on these matters—I sympathise with their strong feelings—but it is important that decisions should not be taken in the heat of the moment. I find it difficult to see the argument that terrorism would be uniquely responsive to a capital deterrent. I think that of all capital crimes it is probably the one which would be the least uniquely responsive. If hon. Members think about this matter, they may come to the conclusion that there is considerable force in this point.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is bitterness and anguish in the hearts of ordinary people about what is going on? I agree that any frenetic approach would be wrong, but because it is repugnant that people should seek to smuggle arms and offensive weapons into the country, the situation should be subject to the most severe scrutiny and anybody caught should be subjected to the most excessive punishment along civilised lines, since the idea behind these moves is to harm innocent people.

I take note of what my hon. Friend said. The Question is poised between discussing firearms and discussing explosives, which is a rather different matter. If people are caught bringing firearms into the country, of course steps will be taken. It is an offence to bring rifles, pistols or revolvers into the country without proper authority, but the law has to be applied and on certain occasions people may bring weapons into the country provided that they declare them. For example, they can bring in rifles or shooting guns for legitimate purposes. The law has to be properly applied, but it will be applied as stringently as possible.

Will the Home Secretary accept that I have no quarrel with his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), but that I doubt whether many of his Labour colleagues sitting behind him are right to dismiss so cavalierly what my hon. Friend said? Does he accept that he and I—who have up to the present, and, so far as I am concerned, still, shared the same point of view about capital punishment—have failed so far to persuade the majority that we are right. We still have a job to do to persuade the public, a large number of whom agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, namely, that, particularly in the case of dedicated terrorists, what is happening at present may not be the appropriate treatment. Will he accept that some of his hon. Friends should not dismiss so derisively the widespread views of the public?

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman began by saying, but I thought that he was trying to have it both ways towards the end of what he said. I think that one is bound to state clearly to the public what one believes to be the case. I regard the horror of yesterday's event as such that, if I believed that the restoration of capital punishment would prevent a repetition, I should be bound to overcome my deep-seated repugnance for such a penalty. But I am not so convinced. I do not begin to be so convinced. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), I think that there has never been effective evidence that it is a unique deterrent. Least of all do I believe that it would be a unique deterrent against the lunatic fanatics with whom we are dealing in these circumstances. I cannot be unaware—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) or anyone who may occupy my position in the future could not be unaware—of the difficulties under our judicial process which would have to apply, in which we would have terrorists imprisoned for several weeks and possibly months, under sentence of death, and the consequences which could follow from that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has had asking him to introduce proposals to improve the law in relation to postal voting.

We have received representations about extending the entitlement to further categories of electors; applying the facility to local government elections; and possible improvements in the arrangements for the dissemination, delivery and recording of application forms and ballot papers.

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that there is increasing frustration amongst many thousands of British people who are able to have only one holiday a year—often at a time not of their choosing—and who are denied their democratic rights? Will she urgently reconsider the present unjust and illogical rules, which prevent such people indulging in postal voting at an election which is not called at the time of their choosing and over which they have little control?

The problems of those unable to vote because they are away on holiday must be weighed against the increased risk of abuse inherent in any extension of postal voting. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between bona fide holiday makers and those who claimed to be such. It would be a very hard administrative problem to check on it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he is doing to speed up the machinery for hearing appeals against refusal to extend or vary a permit to stay in the United Kingdom.

Steps have been taken to increase the staff dealing with immigration appeals, and to introduce certain procedural simplifications in the Home Office. In addition, more adjudicators have been appointed on a part time basis. I am considering whether further improvements are possible in the longer term.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that that answer will be very welcome to the many citizens who, for anything up to a year, have been living under the threat of deportation? Has he seen my correspondence with his hon. Friend the Minister of State concerning a constituent of mine who is a West Bank Palestinian and who, unless he visits his country this summer, will lose his residential qualification, but cannot leave this country until his appeal has been heard? Will my right hon. Friend consider instituting an emergency procedure for advancing appeals in such cases? Is there any real purpose in refusing a year's extension permit if it takes 10 months to crank it through the appeals machinery?

The delay arises because the appeals machinery is being used increasingly. Additional staff are being appointed in both the Midlands and the North. One has recently been appointed in Scotland. I am aware of the particular difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. Whether it would be possible to treat someone in this position out of turn raises certain difficulties, but I am prepared to look into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take or has taken in respect of illegal immigrants who have applied for indefinite leave to remain in this country as a result of his statement in the House of 11th April 1974 and have been found ineligible under the terms of the statement.

As I said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on 20th June, where a person applies under the terms of the announcement which I made on 11th April and is found to be ineligible to benefit, his case is considered in the light of all the relevant circumstances. It is not possible to generalise about the way in which such applications are dealt with, but each case is very carefully considered on its individual merits.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it appears from that statement that some at least of those who apply and are found ineligible are deported? Does he not feel that in respect of those people the amnesty has proved to be not an act of mercy but a trap?

This is a new approach to it. Certain difficulties arise here but the law has to be applied, though we endeavour to do so with humanity where there is a genuine misunderstanding. What is manifestly the case is that the figures which were put forward—mainly from the Opposition benches and from outside the House—about the numbers involved have proved to be grossly exaggerated. In fact, 61 have been given permission to stay and 82 have been found to be ineligible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are serious anomalies, such as the case of my constituent, Mr. Harjail Singh Bains, about whom I am in correspondence with the Minister of State? People who have been in this country for six, seven and eight years and who thought that they were eligible for the amnesty find that they are not. Is there not a strong case for a compassionate response and for my right hon. Friend to vary deportation orders?

That is why I say that each case is considered carefully on its merits. That is not a form of words; it is the reality of the position. We consider cases in that way. The amnesty was intended to apply to those who had been caught by the retrospective aspects of the 1971 Act, and it does not apply more widely, for example, to seamen deserters and overstayers. But where these came to light and there is genuine misunderstanding, we try to apply a mixture of sense and humanity.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what further action this Government have taken on the lines that the previous administration were developing to counter current and future illegal immigration, not only by means in this country but by co-operation with the authorities overseas?

We have followed up what the hon. Gentleman himself did during his visits there. As I indicated on 11th April and as I have repeated since, stringent measures continue to be taken, with considerable effect. It is also of great importance, if we are to counter this effectively, to have the highest degree of co-operation not only with Governments overseas but with the recently arrived immigrant community here. I think that the measures that I have taken will help to secure such co-operation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to how many persons he has refused entry to Britain in connection with the meeting of the Terrorist International in Belfast.

None so far, but as I said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 27th June—[Vol. 875, c. 533–4.]—I shall not hesitate to use my powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to prevent the entry into the United Kingdom of anyone subject to control who there is reason to believe may engage in acts of violence or encourage or incite such acts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is not altogether satisfactory and that it is highly offensive to the British people that known international terrorists should meet on British soil to plot and plan against free and democratic people? Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the seriousness with which people view this matter?

Of course I recognise the seriousness with which people view this matter. But some people, like the hon. Lady, who claim to be great upholders of the law, seem to have no regard as to whether I should proceed by means of the process of law or not. They seem to have no regard to the fact that what I can do and shall do is to apply the law, and apply it fairly. I cannot invent laws. The case of the Official Sinn Fein which may be organising a gathering, partly in Dublin and partly in Northern Ireland, is not a matter for me.

If the Home Secretary will be a little less frivolous, may I ask, with regard to the matter of visas, whether he is in touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and whether the police in this country are in touch with the Garda in the Irish Republic? There is to be, as he has said, a curtain raiser in Dublin to the gala in Belfast? If so, co-operation between our two countries, who face the same perils, is important.

Yes, indeed; I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I can assure him, without going into the details, that we have taken considerable preparatory steps to deal with any difficulty that may arise in this way.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates receiving the report of the working party which he is setting up to examine the means adopted by local authorities and others to prevent drowning accidents and to effect rescues in inland and inshore waters, and to make recommendations.

The working party is expected to hold its first meeting on 23rd July. It is too soon to say when its final report will be made, but action on important findings need not await the preparation of the final report.

Is the hon. Lady aware of the concern which her reply will cause in view of the number of accidents which have occurred arising from the use of power boats close to shore lines? Will she consider whether there could be an interim report in order to take urgent action on this matter before the high risk season, which will be upon us by the time the working party has first met?

I am sure that the working party will wish to view the adequacy of the present arrangements for controlling power boats. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to supply any evidence or information he wishes to put to the working party.

asked the Secretary of State to the Home Department what financial help will be given in the current financial year to local authorities in England and Wales to enable them to discharge their responsibilities under the Civil Defence Act 1948 and the Local Government Act 1972 for dealing with emergencies in war and peace.

Under the Civil Defence Act 1948, the estimated expenditure in 1974–75 on grants to local authorities is £1,630,000. Expenditure under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 does not qualify for Home Office grant.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the sum of £1,630,000 is totally inadequate to enable local authorities to perform their statutory duties in these matters, particularly as some of them are already in great financial difficulties and are making great demands upon their ratepayers? Will the hon. Lady ask her colleagues in the Government—especially in the Treasury—to reconsider this allocation, as it at present means that local authorities will not be able to carry out their statutory duties?

In 1974–75 local authorities are likely to spend about £2 million in all—which is an increase of 11 per cent. over the 1973–74 amount—and £1·5 million of the £2 million will be reimbursed by specific grant.

Is the hon. Lady aware that we are talking about the last-ditch defences of this country, which are inadequate enough as it is? Will she reconsider this, because unless the amount is increased local authorities will not be able to provide training facilities to make use of the large number of public-spirited people who wish to make a contribution to public welfare in this way?

Extremely good progress is being made in the establishment of county emergency planning teams all over the country since local government reorganisation, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that many hon. Members on the Government side of the House regard increased expenditure on civil defence as a colossal waste of money? Does my hon. Friend not agree that in view of the cuts of £111 million announced by the previous Government last December, relating to health and social services, any money to spare should go to these services, and in particular to the nurses?

I appreciate that there are different views on this matter. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to consider the need for a statement on Civil Defence in the context of the promised defence White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement outlining his programme to deal with the urban situation.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I intend to consult local authority and other interests on a new strategy for tackling the problems of those living in the most acutely deprived urban areas. I am circulating an outline of the approach in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It involves the preparation and subsequent implementation by selected local authorities, in collaboration with all those concerned, of comprehensive community programmes containing an analysis of the needs of the area considered as a whole and proposals for meeting them. These programmes are to be developed through a series of trial runs, and financial arrangements will be discussed with the local authorities.

The Home Secretary's announcement will be warmly welcomed, particularly in view of the fact that the Chairman of the Community Relations Commission—Mr. Mark Bonham Carter—has recently said that a co-ordinated programme is urgently needed to deal with the mass of growing problems in the inner cities. Are the Government to apply to the European Social Fund for some financial help which may be available in this excellent enterprise?

I do not understand that that is involved in the financial preparations for this exercise, but we should be only too glad to receive appropriate funds to help in dealing with the major problem of acute deprivation in certain cities. What is envisaged is an important move forward in the co-ordination of strategy. I hope that in the near future it will be possible to get two projects going in Scotland and three or four in England and Wales.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but will he give an assurance that he will liaise closely with my hon. Friend the Minister of State dealing with urban affairs in implementing the scheme, bearing in mind the outstanding work which has already been done by the Minister of State?

Yes, indeed. The responsibility for co-ordinating strategy on these matters of deprivation and urban poverty rests on the Home Secretary, but I certainly join in my hon. Friend's tribute to the work which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has done. We shall certainly keep in touch with him and with the other Departments concerned. This is intended essentially to be a co-ordinated strategy, bringing Whitehall Departments more closely together than hitherto.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's intention to carry on with what we were preparing in this field will be very welcome? Will he consider, as one of the next steps, the possibility of developing an action programme of special help for, say, three urban areas of the most deprived sort, of which one could be in London, one in Birmingham and one in Liverpool? Will he keep this in mind as a possibility?

I shall keep it in mind as a possibility. I do not wish to be committed to exact areas at the moment, but I shall consult closely with local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of offenders who, in the last two years, have been sentenced to carry out work of value to the community as an alternative or an addition to other punishments; if he will state the areas in which such penalties have been awarded; and whether he will encourage proposed extensions to the arrangements for such sentences.

The relevant statutory provisions came into force on 1st January 1973. Up to 30th June 1974, 1,190 offenders had been made subject to community service orders in the six experimental schemes in Durham, inner London, Kent, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire and South-West Lancashire. I am anxious that this form of treatment should be extended to other areas as and when they are able to make the necessary arrangements, and my Department has recently opened discussions with interested organisations with this aim in view.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that there will be a general interest in that answer, if it can ever be read. Will he urge that officials of the courts in other areas of the country shall engage in early consultation with local authorities so that effort-demanding projects can be identified and work can proceed?

I shall indeed. I am most anxious—as I took the opportunity to say in a speech that I made about six weeks ago—to stress the importance that I attach to developments along these lines. I should like to see an extension of the scheme in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we welcome what he has said? Will he further consider whether it would be in the interests of this scheme in particular to give emphasis to long-term prisoners in this kind of remedial treatment? Does he further accept that there is a strong case for seeing whether life imprisonment should not be life imprisonment, as an alternative to capital punishment?

I shall certainly study, without commitment, the extent to which long-term prisoners can be used in this way. I understood the motive of the hon. Gentleman's last question to be that life sentences should always last for life. I do not think that I would accept that view, although, as any Home Secretary would, I would naturally proceed very cautiously in letting out people where I thought that there was danger to the public. But to say in advance that life sentences should always last for life would impose a difficult burden on the prison service, apart from everything else. Hope, I think, is an essential ingredient in human life.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his policy on the detention of criminals claiming political motivation.

There is no special policy: they are, in principle, treated in the same way as are all other convicted offenders.

That answer seems slightly at variance with what the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday about hunger strikers—a decision which many of us will applaud. Does he not agree that if certain people insist on calling themselves political criminals and regard themselves as enemies of the State, we ought to consider imposing on them the same penalties as are still imposed on people convicted of treason, or, alternatively, that the penalties for treason should be reviewed? Will he give his attention to that point?

I see no contradiction between what I have just said and what I said yesterday, when I thought my proposals for doing away with forcible feeding in prisons—in, I hope, the majority of cases—were sensible and right on their merits. They do not necessarily apply specifically to political prisoners, although they do in certain cases. We do not recognise the status of "political prisoner" in this country, and there is certainly no ground on which one can suddenly announce that someone who so announces himself has ipso facto become convicted of treason. If the hon. Gentleman pauses for a moment to consider the matter I think that he will agree that there can be no basis in law for such a suggestion.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to resist these demands for capital punishment for political crimes? Is he aware that there is a desire on the part of members of the IRA to appear as martyrs and that nothing would please them more than to parade outside Pentonville at 9 o'clock in the morning with dark glasses and black berets, in a form of political uniform? Does he not agree that to accede to the hon. Member's request would make the situation far worse than it is?

There is a certain amount in what my hon. Friend says. We want neithers martyrs nor offensive political parades. But in all these difficult matters—I understand how strongly people feel outside and in this House—there is room for rational thought as well as for instant suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the progress of police recruiting so far during 1974.

Recruitment to police forces in England and Wales during the first five months of 1974 was 2,755.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the first priority must be to improve the strength of forces in some of our major cities, including London? What action does he propose to take to reduce the disturbing number of experienced policemen who are now resigning from the service before reaching retirement age?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the major problem is in London and one or two other forces. As for the strength of the force in the country as a whole, it is nearly 25 per cent. higher than was the case eight or 10 years ago, and that is a substantial improvement. But there are difficulties in London. The position in the police force as a whole is that recruitment was at about the same level at the beginning of this year as it was last year, and that wastage is a shade, but only a shade, lower, so that the increasing wastage trend which had existed for a little time seems to have flattened out. I do not deny that there is a real problem here, and by means of the London allowance and other methods we keep it closely under review.