asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will amend the appropriate section of the Prison Rules 1964 to ensure that letters written by prisoners to their Member of Parliament are not subject to censorship.

I am urgently examining ways of reducing such censorship. I do not, however, envisage prison governors being left with no powers in this matter, particularly in order to ensure that a prisoner makes full use of the prescribed channels of complaint before approaching a Member of Parliament.

I am glad to know that the matter is under review, but does my right hon. Friend not accept that this form of censorship is a quite unneces- sary interference in a relationship between a Member of this House and a constituent? Moreover, in a case with which I am familiar a prisoner was prevented from telling his Member of Parliament of developments which would vitally affect his future in prison. Is not the use of censorship in circumstances such as that quite improper? Does not this raise some doubts about the motives of the prison authorities?

I do not think so. I understand the attitude of my hon. Friend and I am aware of the case to which he has referred. It is my desire to reduce censorship in relation to both communications with Members of Parliament and other communications, where this is reasonably possible. It is important, however, that prisoners should use the established channels of complaint within the prison and, indeed, outside the prison—for example, boards of visitors—before they complain to Members of Parliament about an issue which has not had the opportunity of being investigated on the spot.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that Members of Parliament who visit constituents who are, unfortunately, in prison, can have an interview with the prisoner without the governor or deputy governor insisting on being present?

That depends on the security category of the prisoner. I shall certainly consider what the hon. Member has said in my general review of these issues. It is important that when prisoners have exhausted methods of complaint they must be free to communicate with Members of Parliament. Although we always facilitate visits by Members of Parliament, it is not desirable for them to be treated totally differently from the way in which relations and other individuals who visit prisoners are treated.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem is not merely that of censorship of prisoners' letters but of the prevention of prisoners writing to their Members of Parliament? Is he aware that recently I received a letter from a constituent in prison six months after it had been date-stamped by the prison authorities, and that since then the same prisoner has sent six letters which have not arrived? By what authority do prison governors prevent prisoners from exercising their right of communicating with their Members of Parliament? They are still electors and citizens.

Yes, they are electors and citizens. My hon. Friend has communicated with me on this matter. I pointed out to him that the date stamp on a letter is, of course, the date when the writing paper was issued and is not necessarily the date on which the letter was written. If there have been abuses here, I shall investigate them most carefully, because there can be no doubts about the right of a prisoner to write to his Member of Parliament. However, there can also be no doubt that it is desirable that the proper mechanism for the investigation of complaints in the prisons should first be used.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to make a statement on his proposals for a new procedure in cases of complaints against the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now completed the process of consultation concerning his proposed legislation on police complaints.

The consultations have now been concluded. I am making some changes in the details of my original proposals in the light of the views which have been expressed. I intend to make a further statement before the Summer Recess.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and for giving us an idea when he will announce his proposals. In formulating those proposals, will he bear in mind that many hon. Members wish to ensure that there is an independent element throughout the complaints procedure and that it is not used merely as a last resort in certain investigations? As this is a matter of some importance, will he ensure that his final proposals are made in the form of a statement to the House and not merely in a Written Answer or in some other way?

Yes. The principles underlying the scheme I put forward last July were that an independent element, in the form of a statutory commission, should play an effective part in the procedure before a decision is taken on disciplinary action, and in certain cases in the hearing of disciplinary charges. These principles will be maintained. At the same time, I am anxious not to have too heavy or costly a bureaucratic structure. The principles I have outlined will be maintained, and I think that, as I made a statement to Parliament last July, it would be appropriate for me to do so orally on this occasion.

While appreciating that the 11 months of discussion are at last over, and being grateful for that, may I press my right hon. Friend further on the timetable for legislation to implement these proposals? What possibility is there that this can be done within this parliamentary year and, most particularly, by the time that the counterterrorism proposals are taken off the statute book in November?

I do not think that there is any possibility—I am surprised that my hon. Friend should think that there was—that this legislation could be carried through in the course of this parliamentary Session. But I can assure my hon. Friend that it is one of my highest priorities for next Session.

Will the Government try to avoid giving the impression of facilitating or encouraging complaints against the police? Does the Home Secretary accept that Government and Parliament ought to do everything to encourage the police and boost their morale in carrying out their very difficult duties?

Yes, of course, and I endeavour in all possible ways so to encourage the police. But it has now been accepted on both sides of the House, from the time when the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) announced a scheme—a scheme somewhat different from mine—for an independent element, that the position would be that it was desirable that justice should be seen to be done as well as it is, in most cases, I believe, being done at present, and that the position of the police in the legitimate discharge of their duties would be strengthened rather than weakened by this.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that much of the disquiet that arises is caused because of the suspicion of secrecy. Will he say whether the new proposals allow for perhaps one or two independent observers to be in at grassroots investigations? The suspicion is that there is a certain amount of whitewashing before the investigation takes place, and perhaps an independent board of people selected from the local community could restore its confidence. I believe that the police are being maligned when it is unnecessary.

I think that quite often they are being maligned when it is unnecessary, though I think that occasionally, as with any service, there are matters which need to be brought to light. My hon. Friend, of whose knowledge in these matters and whose support of the police and other public authorities I am well aware, may, on reflection, think that it would be fairly cumbersome to introduce a board of this sort or a committee of citizens right from the beginning. It would be almost impossible to proceed in these circumstances with any effective investigation or any effective application of police discipline. It would be very cumbersome—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I assure my hon. Friends that if we could not have the police investigating any complaint when made against a police officer without having a committee of people brought in from outside right from the beginning, it would be very difficult. But what I wish, and what I have announced, is that the independent element shall play an effective part in the procedure before a decision is taken about disciplinary proceedings. In other words, it will be there from a very early stage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will initiate discussions with chief constables with a view to creating a code of practice concerning the use of uniformed police officers to arrest citizens for non-payment of small fines.

No, Sir. The present arrangements are largely deter- mined by the practical considerations in the area concerned and we know of no cause for general criticism.

May I raise a cause for particular criticism? Does my hon. Friend recall the case of a Mr. Lock, in my constituency, to whose home two uniformed police officers came in a general purpose van with a warrant to arrest him for a disputed balance of 50p for a parking fine? Does not my hon. Friend consider this to be a shocking misuse and waste of the time of police officers, and does not he realise the effect of such a visit in a working-class neighbourhood upon neighbours and others?

I can well understand the emotions that went through Mr. Lock's mind. I have written to my hon. and learned Friend about this matter. He will recollect from that letter that there had been three previous visits by plainclothes officials—who did not arrive in any form of police vehicle—before the van arrived.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will refer to the Criminal Law Revision Committee the recent decision of the House of Lords in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Morgan and others with regard to the law relating to rape.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet come to a conclusion on his consideration of the present state of the law on rape; and what action he proposes to take.

As I announced on 17th June, I have decided that the recent House of Lords' judgment in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Morgan ought to be viewed not solely as a legal issue but in a wider context. Accordingly, I intend to seek, as a matter of urgency, the advice of a small independent group, comprising, at most, five people, representative of both sexes and of legal, medical and lay opinion, on whether a change in the law is necessary. I am very glad to be able to announce that Mrs. Justice Heilbron has agreed to chair this small advisory group. It remains my intention to ask the Criminal Law Revision Committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the law relating to sexual offences.

is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two steps which he proposes to take will be welcomed in view of the anxiety which has been caused by the recent decision of the House of Lords? Will he ask both of the committees of inquiry to consider not only the substance of the law but the burden of proof with regard to this very difficult matter?

I am grateful for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. I would not wish him or the House to think—indeed, it would not be a satisfactory way of proceeding—that we were having two committees proceeding simultaneously to deal with the same problem. This is a small group. I would rather use the phrase "a group of advisers" than the word "committee". The group will consider this matter over a period of a few months and will report to me primarily upon the question of the law following the decision of the House of Lords. But it could be a question whether there are one or two other matters relating to the law of rape which might be taken into account in this quick interim report. The Criminal Law Revision Committee, which is a standing body, will proceed to consider the law of sexual offences generally, in accordance with its normal programme which, while not dilatory, is a little more leisurely than that which I envisage for this group.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his offer of assistance in relation to my Private Member's Bill is warmly appreciated, and his decision to set up an independent inquiry will be widely acclaimed? In particular, his decision to appoint Mrs. Justice Heilbron as chairman will be warmly welcomed. I hope that I am not putting it too strongly if I ask the Home Secretary whether he will now consider, in view of the importance of this matter to women, appointing women as a majority of the group.

I am always against becoming committed too firmly to these sexist discriminations, but I have started by appointing a distinguished woman judge as chairman. I have indicated that the committee will be small. I certainly regard it as desirable that women should be well represented on it.

I welcome the Home Secretary's appointment of this committee. Will he impress on it the urgency of this matter and understand that some of us view with a little concern the suggestion that it will be some months before it reports? Is it not possible for it to report on this matter within a matter of weeks rather than months?

I do not think that it would be significant—if I may say so, with respect to the hon. Gentleman. I wish to be in a position to make a clear decision about the Government's attitude on this matter by the beginning of next Session. It would not be practicable to legislate in this Session, or, indeed, perhaps, even desirable to rush too much on a question on which there are considerations which need to be taken into account. But what I envisage is that this committee should report to me, by 30th September, perhaps, but certainly by 31st October, and that having also seen the shape which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) would wish his Bill to assume, we would then be in a position to decide whether we could give support to that Bill or whether we should produce a Bill of our own—or whether, if the committee so reported, we might have to take a different view. There is no question of the committee's deliberations causing delay beyond the beginning of next Session.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that, whilst we warmly welcome his decision on this matter, we should be even more delighted if there were some hope of extending the grounds of consideration to include the question whether further victims of rape should remain anonymous? That is a matter which prevents a great many women from reporting either attempted rape or rape.

There are certain considerations on both sides of this argument. There are strong considerations in favour of what my hon. Friend suggests, but there are also strong considerations the other way. I would not wish to prejudge the question whether the committee will be able to consider that aspect as well as the essential question which I wish it to consider expeditiously.

Is the Minister aware that there is great anxiety, some misplaced, and great misunderstanding, some quite remarkable? Is he aware that after the laudable attempt by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) last week to protect the victims of rape by a Bill entitled "Rape (Anonymity of Victims)" I received a letter from an irate constituent protesting at what, in her opinion, was a scandalous attempt by the Conservative Party to legalise rape?

That is a matter for the hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with, not for me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the operation of the law in regard to drug offences.

In general, yes, Sir.

Is the Minister satisfied that the law as it stands has a sufficient deterrent effect upon young people in regard to drug offences, bearing in mind the seeming rise in the incidence of such offences? Will the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to legislate to take so-called soft drugs out of the ambit of the law?

The Government have no intention of legislating in the way the hon. Gentleman indicates. The maximum penalties available for the misuse of drugs are adequate to deal with any cases.

Is my hon. Friend aware that much confusion and much unevenness of sentencing is caused by the failure of the statute law satisfactorily to distinguish between hard drugs of addiction and drugs that are socially unacceptable? Will he consider the premise that the pres- ent state of the law is far more likely to bring users of the latter comparatively innocuous drugs into contact with pedlers of potential killers, such as heroin?

I know that there is a respectable body of opinion that agrees with my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I do not.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the outcome of the police pay negotiations.

At a meeting of the Police Council on 4th June agreement was reached on new pay scales for all ranks up to and including chief superintendent. From 1st September 1975 the basic pay of a constable will be £2,400 and that of a long-serving constable £3,402. Chief superintendents in London will receive a maximum of £7,860. The new pay scales reflect substantial improvements at all levels and correct a number of long-standing anomalies in the pay structure. I hope that this settlement will help to maintain the recent welcome improvements in the trend of police manpower figures.

I thank the Home Secretary for giving those details to the House and I recognise that this settlement must, like others, be taken in the context of our economic difficulties, but does he realise that there is still unease and dissatisfaction among policemen? Does he know that many police forces, including the Metropolitan force and provincial forces like the Northumbria force, are paying out in overtime large sums of money that would be better spent on ensuring the recruitment and retention of forces up to establishment, with the forces working reasonable hours?

I note the hon. Gentleman's last point. The average increase is 29.8 per cent., which is as much as it would be easy to justify in present circumstances. It is not possible to say that we are against excessive pay increases except for one particular example that we have before us at the time. The increases vary between 24 per cent. and 41 per cent. They deal with the anomaly of promotion from chief inspector, in which grade overtime is paid, to superintendent, to which my attention had been drawn. It gives constables a starting salary which, while no doubt on present standards is not munificent, is not derisory, and gives them the opportunity to move up reasonably rapidly. I never claim that any settlement is perfect, and I never expect the police to accept it as such, but in all the circumstances it is not an unreasonable settlement.

The proposed increase for a constable is nearly £10 a week. Will my right hon. Friend compare that offer with the offer made to the NUR for the lowest-paid railwaymen and advise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the outcome of the comparison?

No, Sir. I am dealing with police settlements, and in answering a question about that it would be wrong for me to make general statements about other pay claims which are pending. The police settlement has been negotiated and accepted, and I have given the House as much detail as I can about it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce a Freedom of Information Bill.

The Government are considering, in the light of the Franks Report and other considerations, the law and practice on both the protection and disclosure of official information. I have no firm statement to make at present, but I hope to legislate in the course of the next Session.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the latest episode of the Crossman Diaries saga illustrates how urgently necessary it is for him to introduce legislation to establish the fundamental principle of the public's right to know and to put an end to this long-running Whitehall farce of excessive secrecy? Does the Home Secretary realise that there is something ludicrous in the spectacle of the Government trying to clamp down the door of official secrecy on the book version of the Crossman Diaries—

Order. The hon. Member must not raise that issue. It is sub judice.

As the Attorney-General's decisions in this matter have been political, surely it is in order to raise the matter on the Floor of the House of Commons?

No. In referring to shutting the door on book publication the hon. Member is clearly referring to a matter which is now before a court of law, and I cannot allow any reference to it in the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. If we are to have a point of order about this matter it would be better to have it at the end of Question Time.

I shall rephrase my question. In the light of the discrepancy between the Government's attitude to newspaper publication and their attitude to book publication, is it not time that they clarified this matter by introducing a Freedom of Information Bill?

I had better be careful not to run foul of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I have expressed previously my view that, while I am unconvinced of the need for a Freedom of Information Act along the American lines, because I do not think that it would be wholly suitable in the British context, I am anxious to promote the liberalisation of the law relating to official secrets generally. I do not wish to touch upon the particular matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised, which is sub judice. The basis of my thinking continues to be that the criminal law should be kept out of this area so far as is possible.

May we take it from my right hon. Friend's answer that he is to pursue the policy that he outlined in his Guildhall speech on 10th March, when it made it absolutely clear that Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act should be repealed and that other measures should be brought in, which means that the Government will have to be responsible for proving their attitude in relation to secrecy? Although I do not in any way tread on the dangerous ground which the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) has raised, nevertheless, there is a contradiction in the present situation.

I do not think that there is such a direct contradiction. I can assure my hon. Friend that as far as I am aware, and as far as I can recollect everything that I said at the Guildhall in March, I have not changed my mind in any point of substance since then. I believe it is desirable that we should introduce legislation which goes beyond the proposals of the Franks Report.

Both Front Benches have endlessly promised to do something about information for the public, and both have totally failed. Therefore, would it not be an excellent idea to pursue the course that the Government pursued in the Hare Coursing Bill, namely, to appoint a committee of backbenchers consisting of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer), my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and myself to produce a Bill which would not be overborne by overpaid top civil servants, but adopted by the Government of the day and made law?

This gives me a new viewpoint of the provenance of the Hare Coursing Bill of which I was not previously aware.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation allowing the collection and storage of data about blood samples of convicted criminals, by forensic science laboratories, along the lines of the storage of finger print information.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider bringing in legislation giving him powers to grant a month's remission of sentence to any prisoner who was willing to have a blood sample taken at the same time as the recording of his fingerprints.

asked the Secretary of State, for the Home Department if he intends to amend the rules governing the taking of blood samples from members of the public.

The taking of a blood sample from a person by the police, except under Section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, requires that person's consent; we have no proposals to alter the position. The introduction of arrangements for collecting and retaining information about the blood types of convicted criminals would not at present be justified, but we are keeping in close touch with current research in this field.

On what basis does Parliament deny the police the benefits of chemical analysis, a matter which would be of profit to them?

Before we can get to the issue of principle we have to ensure that it is scientifically possible to derive some benefit from the information.

My hon. Friend knows that that is possible.

The issue of principle is one on which the House would certainly have divided views. I think that we would have to test public opinion before we proceeded.

Is the Minister aware that the similarity between my Question and the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) is due to the fact that we have both been to the police laboratories and were terribly impressed by what we saw? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the difference between the Conservative approach and the Socialist approach is that I seek to make it worth while for the criminal to give information whilst the Socialists seek to get blood at any price?

Order. That is a very interesting statement but it is not really a question.

Does the Minister appreciate that it is to the criminal's advantage, if he is to go straight, to give a sample of his blood so as to eliminate him from further suspicion? Could not that be made clear to the prisoner when being interviewed?

As I have said, there is clearly a division of opinion on the principles involved in this issue. I did not realise that the division was based on party dogma.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making in reducing the number of children on remand in prison establishments.

There is no legal provision for the remand of children—persons under the age of 14 years—to prison. We have already made clear our desire to phase out the remand to prison of young people under unruly certificates. We are looking, as a matter of urgency, at the possibility of phasing out the remand of girls aged 14.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that answer is not good enough, and that there are far too many children between the ages of 14 and 16 in prison establishments who have not yet been convicted of any offence, and who in the main have been charged with relatively trivial offences? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will give particular consideration to the situation of 14-year-old girls who should not be in prison establishments? Will my right hon. Friend now give a commitment to phase out certificates of unruliness? What we want is action and not sympathy.

If I may say so, with respect, I think that my hon. Friend's question is a little confused. The legal definition of a child is someone under the age of 14. A young person is someone aged between 14 and 16. My hon. Friend used the two terms alternately in a slightly contradictory manner. I understand that my hon. Friend's question related to children, but there is no question of children being in prison. A young person may be remanded to a prison establishment only if the court certifies that he is of so unruly a character that he cannot safely be committed to the care of the local authority. Where that applies must depend to a considerable extent on the facilities for safe custody which can be provided by the local authorities. The matter becomes a question of resources, to which, as I have indicated previously, we attach considerable importance. I would like this matter to be dealt with as soon as pos- sible. I have stated that we are considering with great urgency the possibility of phasing out the remand of girls aged between 14 and 15.

When does the right hon. Gentleman think that that phasing out will be completed? Does he not agree that there is a stigma associated with prison for a young person which must bring additional stress upon the parents? When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to see other facilities made available so that young persons are not committed on remand to prison in any case?

I agree with the thought behind the hon. Gentleman's question as, indeed, I do with the thought behind the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). I do not wish this system to continue any longer than is necessary. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definite date in either case, but we are looking at the position of 14-year-old girls with the greatest urgency. The general question of secure local authority accommodation for young persons of both sexes is primarily the departmental responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. However, I share responsibility as a member of the Government. So far as resources are possible, we shall endeavour to deal with that matter as soon as we can.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, invariably, at any one time there are two or three juvenile girls remanded to Holloway Prison from Norfolk because of the inadequacy of secure remand facilities throughout East Anglia? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the proposed remand centre at Peterborough, with six secure places to serve the whole of East Anglia, is far too small and remote from the centres of population in the East of England?

I take note of what my hon. Friend says and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to what he has said. I do not wish to escape responsibility in any way. Clearly, responsibility in the general sense is shared. However, the actual responsibility for local authority homes must be that of my right hon. Friend and not me.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgraceful and scandalous situation that young children are in prison in part because of insufficient resources being made available to social services committees to provide secure accommodation? In view of the present reductions in local authority spending the situation may deteriorate fairly rapidly. Would it not be possible to consider reopening one of the open prisons solely for this purpose?

I am aware that the 1969 Act has never been given a chance to work properly, because of lack of resources. That is a responsibility which, clearly, must to some extent be borne by successive administrations, some of which have operated in periods of relative economic, financial and budgetary ease. It is no good pretending that we face such a position at present. Further, it is no good the Opposition—whether it be the Leader of the Opposition or other Conservative Members—calling for the utmost financial stringency and reductions in public expenditure in general accompanied by demands for increases in particular.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the misuse of crossbows, creating a danger to the public and to animals, if he will seek powers to control the sale of such to young people.

We have no evidence that the misuse of crossbows by young people is on such a scale as to make restrictive legislation necessary.

Is the Minister aware that the crossbow is a very lethal weapon which operates in silence? Will he give the House an assurance that if the use of this weapon by young people increases he will take appropriate measures?

I am well aware that the crossbow operates in silence. It is illegal if used in an improper way. If used against persons in public, it would be an offence under the Prevention of Crimes Act 1954.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to proposals to limit the use of the charge of conspiracy.

I have been considering whether any changes are desirable before the completion of the Law Commission's review of the law of conspiracy. I hope to reach a decision fairly soon.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the charge of conspiracy has recently been used in a number of political and industrial cases besides that involving the Shrewsbury pickets—as, for example, in the case of the 21 Iranian students who took part in a purely peaceful sit-in at the Iranian Embassy? Does he not agree that it is undesirable to transform comparatively trivial activities into serious offences by the use of the charge of conspiracy? Will he do something to bring this situation to an end before the Law Commission reaches its conclusions?

I am aware that there are certain unsatisfactory features about the law of conspiracy. I am also aware that the Law Commission is looking at the matter, and that before it has reached its conclusions it may be reasonable to deal with certain matters relating to the restriction of penalties, which are very large indeed in relation to substantive offences. I am considering this matter at present. I have no definitive statement to make at the moment. As my hon. Friend is aware, prosecutions in individual cases are not matters for me, and it would be improper for me to comment on them.

Will the Home Secretary not pay too much attention to barrack-room noise inside and outside the House on this question, because these matters are of current concern to many people? Is he aware that if changes are made within a short space of time, many people may gain the impression that the Labour Government are susceptible to pressures from certain quarters which find certain decisions not to their taste. Will he take note of the important point that the whole country looks to him to uphold the rule of law?

I always endeavour to pay due regard to representations and points made from one side of the House or the other.

In view of the continued imprisonment of the Shrewsbury two who were put in prison as a result of conspiracy charges laid against them, does not my right hon. Friend regard himself as somewhat lucky to have escaped the Cabinet reshuffle, in view of the fact that he refused to carry out the decision of a Labour conference, while those in the Cabinet who have carried out Labour conference decisions have been moved to different offices? Will the Home Secretary now redeem himself—not in the eyes of the Opposition, but in the eyes of Those who tramped the streets of Birmingham to put him in his present position—by releasing the Shrewsbury two immediately?

No, Sir. That answer applies to the five separate questions which the hon. Gentleman asked me.

There may be more.

The hon. Gentleman is no doubt anticipating Question No. 19, which, in view of the time factor, is perhaps a sensible course for him to take. I have made clear throughout that my intention and my duty is impartially to uphold the law.

Since this Question has overflowed into the issue of the Shrewsbury two, will the Home Secretary realise that his detached and judicious approach to these two people has the overwhelming support not only of the whole House, but of the country at large—and particularly of the Campaign for Democratic Socialism?

I think that the Campaign for Democratic Socialism wound itself up some years ago, so I am not sure that reference to that organisation is of great relevance. I have made clear throughout this matter that I do not seek plaudits from any side of the House. In an issue of this kind a Home Secretary's duty is always difficult. I do not find it an easy one to discharge, but I have endeavoured to discharge it in line with what I believe to be right in the circumstances.