asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the internal disciplinary system of the Metropolitan Police.

Yes, Sir, subject to the changes in the procedure for dealing with complaints that I have proposed in the Police Bill.

What is the Home Secretary's reaction to the speech by Sir Robert Mark on 25th February when he voiced certain criticisms of the Police Bill on the grounds that it was likely to reduce the effectiveness of police internal disciplinary procedures to the inadequate level of criminal justice? As 59 per cent. of police officers tried on indictment last year were acquitted, compared with the national acquittal average of 17 per cent., do not those figures alone indicate how necessary it is for the police to be able to get rid of their own rotten apples by swift, internal, effective disciplinary procedures?

Yes, but I do not think that that would be impaired by the Bill. Sir Robert Mark, for whom, as hon. Members know, I have the highest respect as a Police Commissioner, has always believed in taking matters to the public and exercising a wide range of discretion when making controversial statements. I make no objection to that at all, provided that he does not expect me necessarily to endorse all of them in every circumstance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, during the Committee stage we have had an adjournment and a pause for reflection which I hope has been beneficial. It has emerged that there is a substantial difference of police opinion—for example, the Police Federation takes a very different view.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of all the admiration for Sir Robert Mark, there is still very great disquiet in the London Borough of Lewisham and other parts of South London about the protection afforded to individual citizens under police interrogation? When will my right hon. Friend bring forward proposals so that proper protection can be given?

I am aware of the point which my hon. Friend has made. Indeed, he came to see me about this matter and we discussed it fully. One form of protection is the Police Bill, which I am anxious to see on the statute book as soon as is reasonably practicable.

The narrow point to which Sir Robert Mark is addressing his opinion is that the Police Bill as drafted will add yet further time and dimensions of inquiry under the tribunal procedure to the handling of internal disciplinary matters. Is it not a serious possibility that police officers will try to spin out their time in the service to allow the full scope of the Police Complaints Board inquiries to elapse before they can finally be got rid of? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a change from the present arrangements for the worse?

To be honest, I doubt whether it would be useful to try to encapsulate in an exchange at Question Time discussions which have already taken 15 Committee Sittings. My problem, and it is the problem of everyone, that, first, I believe that there is a general demand for a Police Bill. Certainly no hon. Members voted against it on Second Reading. Secondly, I believe that it is essential to preserve the effective discipline of chief officers over their forces, a matter about which the Commissioner has expressed great concern. Thirdly, it is essential not to have double jeopardy and certainly that is something to which the Police Federation attaches great importance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from organisations and persons concerned with the release of Mr. Des Warren, the imprisoned trade unionist.

I have received 66 communications since I answered a similar Question by my hon. Friend on 12th February.

Why is it that some people seem to get out on parole after a relatively short time while others do not? Is it not a scandal that as recently as yesterday, I think, Ronald Millhench, a trendy business man, was let out after serving only 17 months of a three-year sentence, yet Des Warren is still incarcerated when all that he is guilty of is fighting not to line his own pockets but for better conditions for his mates?

As my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, the parole board is an independent body. I believe that it is undesirable to discuss particular decisions of this sort, but it is also the case that the individual to whom my hon. Friend has referred and indeed many other individuals, did not have the record of offences in prison, which, unfortunately, Mr. Warren has had and which I very much regret.

Is the Home Secretary aware that if he took representations from the public as a whole, he would find that they are deeply concerned about violent intimidation wherever it may occur, and that they believe that Mr. Warren and his fellow conspirators richly deserved what they got?

It is always very difficult to be sure what the public as a whole would say. However, in trying to hold a fair balance, as I do in this and other cases, between not treating Mr. Warren more favourably because of any pressure upon me and less favourably in reaction to that pressure, it is necessary to try to apply finer judicial standards than the public as a whole might apply.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the fall of the Labour Government would increase or decrease the possibility of other people landing in the same position as Mr. Warren? Does he think that the reform of the law of conspiracy would be aided or hindered by the fall of the Government?

There is a later Question about reform of the law of conspiracy and I had better let the House await that. As for the possible fall of this Government, even more important questions than those raised by my hon. Friend would be involved in that situation.

My hon. Friends had better make up their minds sharpish about whether they want a Tory or a Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have so far been submitted to the Equal Opportunities Commission.

Where a case of alleged discrimination occurs, it is mainly for the indvidual complainant to institute proceedings in the courts or industrial tribunals. The EOC had received over 7,500 inquiries by 20th February of which it estimates that nearly 2,000 either referred to or could lead to formal complaints of discrimination as defined in the Sex Discrimination Act.

How many of the complaints referred to educational matters and what, if anything, can be done about those schools which do not allow girls to follow certain courses, such as technical subjects? What can be done about dictatorial headmasters who exclude girls from education simply because they are wearing trousers?

I shall inquire from the Commission about my hon. Friend's first point and let him have the answer. I remind him that a complaint in respect of public sector education must be notified in the first place to the appropriate education Minister. The figures from the Commission would therefore not be comprehensive. It has been established that no head teacher can forbid girl pupils to wear trousers. His point about the curricula will certainly be taken up by the Commission.

Can the Equal Opportunities Commission examine and report upon the outrageous action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in refusing to allow men to buy index-linked bonds to protect their savings until they are five years past the age at which women are allowed to buy them?

I will certainly note the hon. Member's point and refer it to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I will indicate to him the agreement which seems to exist with the hon. Member on the Government Benches.

Will my hon. Friend indicate when the work of the Commission will be doubled by the introduction of the reinstatement rules for mothers who wish to return to their jobs within 29 weeks of the date of birth of their children?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and I will refer my hon. Friend's comments to him.

Surely 7,500 is a totally inadequate number of complaints, con- sidering the amount of money and time that has been spent on this farcical body. What is the Minister doing to stimulate more complaints so that we can see what a nonsense the whole thing is?

I take it that the hon. Member has his tongue in his cheek. I think that a total of 7,500 inquiries by 20th February shows the great need which existed for such a Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as Her Majesty's Government have recently withdrawn passports from British citizens, whether he will now make a statement clarifying the right of British citizens resident in the United Kingdom to enter and leave the United Kingdom at will provided only that he or she can identify himself or herself.

In accordance with Section 1(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, a person who has the right of abode in the United Kingdom may enter and leave the country without let or hindrance except such as may be required to enable that right to be established or which may be lawfully imposed on any person.

I thank the Home Secretary for the Answer and for its clarity. Am I right in assuming that he accepts that the passport carries with it certain privileges but that it does not carry with it the right to enter or leave the United Kingdom, which is the privilege of every resident citizen of the United Kingdom?

I accept that. Removal of the passport is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I do not think that it is doubted that he has that right, because people who are returned to the country at public expense normally have their passports removed. The mere absence of a passport does not remove one's right to leave the country. It may make it more difficult to do so, but the right remains.

Since the Foreign Secretary considers it right to withdraw passports and to return them on the basis of an undertaking about what British citizens might do when they go abroad again, will the Home Secretary make clear that in the carrying out of their duties his staff will make clear to those who do not have passports for that reason that they will not be subjected to similar restraints and that these people will have their rights made clear to them?

Their rights are as I have set out. It is certainly the case that one has the right of entry without a passport provided one can establish one's identity. A British citizen in the full sense can leave the country without a passport provided he can get a carrier to take him. I was, for some reason not associated with the action of a Foreign Secretary, compelled to leave the country and re-enter it without a passport. It is more difficult to do so than with, but it is not impossible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. The matter was not dealt with so fully yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. Will my right hon. Friend go further? Like him, I have both entered and left the country without a passport. There have been instances, however, when people have turned back home to get their passports mistakenly believing that they must have them. Is it not the case that, provided travellers can produce irrefutable evidence to satisfy the Customs officer, he is usually most helpful and kind and will permit them to enter or leave?

I thought that was broadly the case, and if anything the word "irrefutable" is a bit strong.

The Home Secretary twice mentioned people leaving the country without a passport. May I take it that he also includes, upon proof of identity, entry into the United Kingdom?

I understand that to be the case.

When we have to carry Europassports, will it be the Commission or the Council of Ministers which has the right to withdraw them?

I do not think that we shall have to have Europassports. I think that they will be complementary to other passports.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the proportion of female to male employees in senior grades in his department.

At the end of February there were 756 men and 61 women employed full time at principal level or above.

Does my hon. Friend consider that the regrettably few ladies who work in her Department with, rightly, full equal rights should be entitled to retire five years earlier than their male colleagues?

The small number of women in senior posts at the Home Office is not peculiar to the Home Office or even to the Civil Service. It reflects the situation found throughout industry, local government and most of the professions. I shall refer my hon. Friend's second point to the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department gives to householders wishing to make their premises secure against breaking and entering.

I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the booklet "Protect Your Home", which has been delivered to every household in England and Wales. The police are always ready to give further advice to householders.

I am grateful to the Minister for sending me the literature, although one copy has already been delivered to my household. Does she agree that burglar alarm equipment plays an important part in the protection of the home? Is she aware that this equipment is more expensive for domestic premises than it is for industrial premises because in domestic use it attracts 25 per cent. VAT while in commercial use the rate is 8 per cent.? Will she make representations to the Chancellor to remove this ridiculous anomaly?

I undertake to do that.

Might not the Home Office listen to some of the advice given to it from householders, in particular, to get the police up to strength?

A question has been tabled about police recruitment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are making every possible effort to increase police recruitment and we have made greater progress than ever before.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to compel newspapers to print a profit and loss account of "Mark the Ball" football competitions, and allow competitors to inspect winning entries.

This suggestion falls within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Gambling, and it would not be appropriate to introduce legislation in advance of any recommendations the Commission may make.

Was there not a White Paper in 1973 which recommended that? Why has no action been taken? Why has the matter been postponed to be dealt with by a Royal Commission?

The law relating to any particular competition is a matter for decision by the courts. So far no relevant case has appeared before the courts concerning "Spot the Ball" competitions. However, as a Royal Commission is inquiring into this subject, I suggest that my hon. Friend sends his views or evidence to it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the "Spot the Ball" racket is a gigantic "con" out of which a small number of people make very large profits? In the meantime, could not an investigation be made into what is happening?

These competitions have not been declared illegal. The law is contained in Section 47 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. However, their legal position will be reviewed by the Royal Commission. My hon. Friend, too, can put representations to that Royal Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the principle of a British Bill of Rights.

I regard it as raising issues of great constitutional importance which call for the widest public discussion.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the increasing complexity of our society and the vast changes in our international and local life, we now need a Bill of Rights to safeguard the liberty and freedom of individuals? As a first step, will he consider incorporating the rights which are guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights into legislation of our own?

As my hon. Friend may be aware, I made a speech in Birmingham about a month ago raising these issues. I regard this issue as being of importance and I am anxious to see public discussion focus on it. There is not necessarily an easy answer. Certainly one option is the incorporation of the European Convention—it is not the only option, but it is one. Clearly, the Government attach importance to that and to the right of individuals to petition, because this January we renewed our adhesion to the Convention for five years, which is the longest period ever.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that in any future Bill of Rights there would be a section to preclude films such as the disgraceful one shown recently and called "Open door" in which naked racialism of a National Front character was paraded for two and a half hours, to the dismay of a large number of people? Is he aware that many organisations have protested about this already?

I am aware of protests of this sort and clearly it will be no surprise to the House that I did not agree, any more than my hon. Friend—almost every hon. Member would share our view—with the line put over in that programme. I have seen other programmes in this same series which were made by outside groups and with which I have not agreed, though for rather different reasons. This subject is not easily dealt with by a Bill of Rights. Nor would I regard this in itself, much though I might dislike the programme, as being a reason for altering the well-founded view that responsibility for programmes rests not with Ministers but with the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

When considering alterations to our Constitution, does the Home Secretary appreciate that procedure in Parliament would be much easier if we had a Bill of Rights, because that would stop any Government from making crazy proposals?

I stand four square with the hon. Gentleman against crazy proposals being put forward by any Government, but I suspect that there might be room for argument between us and between others, with or without a Bill of Rights, as to exactly what definition the word "crazy" attracted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on what progress is being made in his discussion on the use of tape recorders for the taking down of statements and for the recording of interviews between the police and suspects.

The committee which we have established to look into the feasibility of an experiment in the tape-recording of police interrogations is making good progress. In the light of the committee's report, which we hope to receive in the summer, we will decide whether any experiment should be mounted.

Will not the Minister accept that what he has called good progress is not satisfactory to many groups? Is not the time right for experiments to be carried out rather than to wait for a report on whether experiments are desirable?

It would seem a bit daft to appoint a committee to advise us on what we should do and then to act before that committee has reported. I told my hon. Friend that we expect the report to be available in the summer. I do not think we can expedite the matter further.

As this is only a report into the feasibility of having an experiment, why has it taken over 18 months and who or what is holding it up?

The committee has had nine meetings, the first in April 1975 and the most recent on 11th March. It consists of representatives of the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Justices' Clerks' Society, the Association of Chief Police Officers and a number of Government Departments. I suspect that the fact that the members of the committee are all busy people has been one reason for some delay. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that a number of difficult technical issues have to be decided in the presentation of tape recorded evidence to the courts in order to ensure that it is valid evidence.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer is just not good enough and that there are stories that this committee is being held up not by the difficult technical problems before it but by the determination of some of its members not to produce an agreed report? Is my hon. Friend aware that although it first met in April, it has been sitting since February last year? Will he ask that a report be produced much sooner than the summer?

I note my hon. Friend's concern, but he has listened to too many alarmist rumours.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the fire precautions regulations so as to stipulate a maximum opening pressure for fire doors.

Until current research into the self-closure of fire resisting doors has been completed, it is not possible to say whether maximum opening pressures could appropriately be prescribed in regulations.

Current research be blowed! Has the hon. Lady ever tried to open fire doors, particularly in some modern hotels? Does she not understand that elderly people, small children and invalids would have the utmost difficulty opening these doors in the event of an emergency and might very well be burned to death?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about this subject, which is extremely important, but there are a variety of existing installations and a wide range of devices. It is therefore necessary, before prescribing regulations, to look into them fully.

Is the hon. Lady aware that many elderly and disabled people have expressed grave anxiety that under the fire prevention regulations local authorities install fireproof doors, supposedly for their safety? These people feel that they will be imprisoned by such doors in the event of a fire. Will the hon. Lady make special provision in this respect?

I am certainly aware of this problem. I assure the House that we are doing everything possible to expedite the research and, if necessary, to introduce appropriate regulations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he remains satisfied that his present powers are adequate to prevent illegal immigration.

All reasonable and practicable measures are taken to prevent illegal entry, and we see no requirement at present for additional powers to secure the removal of those found to have entered illegally.

Does the Home Secretary agree that there is still considerable public disquiet about illegal immigration, which has been added to recently by confused statistics? Does he agree that as that leads to disquiet among the indigenous community, which can lead to hostility against immigrants as a whole, he should do more and be seen to do more to eliminate illegal immigration into Britain?

I am very much in favour of taking firm action to prevent illegal immigration, and indeed, certainly to punish those who organise it, and very heavy penalties are available.

I welcome the Home Secretary's views on the need to stop any illegal immigration. However, is he satisfied about overstaying? Can he give a clear answer to the fears of many people that substantial numbers of students and visitors are overstaying, and are "disappearing", as it is said, into some communities? Will he conduct an investigation? When he has done so, if it is necessary will he take further powers to stop this process? I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is what is damaging and dangerous, and perhaps more so in terms of numbers than illegal immigration.

Yes. I do not necessarily dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's view. I am glad that he accepts—he naturally would—the distinction between illegal immigration, which is when people come into the country when they have no right to land and land here from a small boat, or whatever it is, and overstaying, which is when people come in legally but do not observe the legal conditions under which they have come in. I could not say that this does not exist as a problem, but I believe that its size may be exaggerated.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his last reply. Is he aware that many instances of people overstaying have been brought to my notice? Those people have then been allowed to stay here. In my constituency there is a large immigrant population, and some of the immigrants have been complaining that their wives and relatives have been waiting, sometimes for years, to be allowed to come in through the normal and proper channels. The immigrants deeply resent the fact that although some of their own friends, relatives and others cannot come in, some students come in, overstay and then ask for permission to stay on, and I know from my postbag that many of them do so.

It is possible to exaggerate the numbers. I reiterate that I am sure that it is essential to be fair and to be seen to be fair. I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. I assure him that the discretion—if there be discretion—to allow people to overstay, which is very occasionally necessary in rather exceptional circumstances, is and should be exercised extremely sparingly.

What progress are the Government making in their talks with the French, Belgian and Dutch Governments with a view to stamping out the cross-Channel illegal immigration racket?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have had a number of talks with Ministers of the Interior in other countries. This matter has not been central to our discussions, but I shall bear it in mind when we come to the conference of European Ministers of the Interior of the Community, which I hope will take place within a matter of three months.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce legislation amending the conspiracy laws; and if he will make a statement.

The Law Commission's report on conspiracy will be published very shortly. The Government are now considering the report with a view to preparing legislation to reform this branch of the law, but I cannot yet say when the legislation will be introduced.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the trade union movement in particular and many other people are very much concerned about the wide-ranging nature of the conspiracy laws? Will he assure us that when preparing the legislation he will take into account the excellent resolution on the conspiracy laws that was passed at the last annual Labour Party conference?

I am aware of these matters, but what I intend to take into account primarily—though not in any way dismissing anything else; I have had several discussions with the TUC—is the report of the Law Commission, which I hope will be generally accepted. The House must wait and see what it says, although it will not now have to wait for very long.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen in the Metropolitan Police District were convicted of criminal offences in each of the past four years; how many were acquitted; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the number of Metropolitan Police officers convicted of criminal—other than traffic—offences in each of the four years since 1972 was 11, five, eight and 12 respectively, and that the number acquitted was seven, 16, seven and six respectively.

Does my right hon. Friend consider it wise that the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, on 25th February on a public occasion, should have gone out of his way to draw attention to what he considered to be an unsatisfactory conviction rate for officers of the Metropolitan Police charged with criminal offences, especially as at that time he must have had knowledge that 48 hours later summonses were to be taken out against 12 senior Metropolitan Police officers on corruption charges in connection with the pornography trade in the West End of London? Does not my right hon. Friend think that that comes pretty close to criminal contempt?

No, I certainly do not take that view, though I have already indicated in answer to an earlier Question what I regard as my respect for the Commissioner's right to speak his mind freely, and my right not to have to comment every time he does so. My hon. Friend has been pressing strongly for some action in this respect. It has been taken. I do not think that there is any danger of a fair jury trial being prejudiced.

Would it not be better if we could all leave the Commissioner, who is a remarkably fine policeman, to make his controversial statements, which are needed in our public life, and for each of us not just to pick on the statements that we do not like on which to raise our rows here? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has at least my support in standing up for this man?

I think that I can stand up for him even without the support of the hon. Gentleman. No doubt he is right in saying that we all have our differing views. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman being particularly enthusiastic about the Commissioner's view on capital punishment.

Is there not a very important point of principle involved here? If it is right for Sir Robert Mark to make controversial political speeches, why should not every other public servant or senior civil servant make political speeches as well? What Sir Robert Mark was making was a highly controversial political speech attacking the jury system of this country, and surely it is improper for a public servant to do just that in a political context?

I do not agree that the position of the Commissioner of Police is or ever has been analogous to that of a civil servant.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that by and large we have an excellent police force and that it needs to be maintained in excellence and needs to be seen to be maintained in excellence?

Yes. My hon. Friend puts the matter extremely accurately and succinctly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered the third part of the Question, namely, whether he will make a statement? Could he not make a statement on the behalf of the police to the effect that the figures that he has given are neither serious nor significant?

I should have thought that it was abundantly obvious from my replies to the previous supplementary questions that I have made any statement that I propose to make on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the county council elections in 1977 in some counties can be held with the same ward boundaries as in 1973, even though the electoral arrangements for some districts in those counties have already been revised for the district council elections in 1976.

Yes, Sir. Elections of county councillors in 1977 will not be affected by orders that have been made to provide new electoral arrangements in districts.

If the electoral registers in some areas, however, have already been reorganised on the basis of revised district ward boundaries, how will it be possible in practical terms to hold the county elections on the old ward boundaries, which have now disappeared?

I am advised that this will not present any difficulty, but if my hon. Friend has a problem in his constituency, perhaps he will let me know so that I can consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he now proposes to introduce legislation repealing Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.

I have nothing at present to add to the announcement of the Government's intentions in the Queen's Speech.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the five years since the Franks Committee made its important recommendations we have not gone very far along the road to open Government? Does he also agree that when considering issues of privacy and the protection of the privacy of the citizen it is important that we do not forget that those issues and official secrets are related, and that they should be seen as closely related when new legislation is being considered?

I think that there is a certain relationship, although I would not describe it as an indissoluble link. However, I think that the one, to some extent, can be considered on its own. In the Queen's Speech the Government said that they would endeavour to bring forward proposals in the course of this Session, possibly with a view of going further next Session.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Responsible Society on the question of the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual relationships, respectively.

This society, in a written memorandum of evidence to the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences, has expressed the view that the present ages of consent for sexual intercourse and homosexual acts should remain unchanged.

Is it at least as much the responsibility of the Home Secretary to protect the very young from experiences which may have a lasting effect upon them as it is to try to maintain, as far as possible, that this sort of relationship should remain outside the scope of the law? On balance, does the hon. Member agree that we might do well to leave well alone?

In the final analysis it is the responsibility of the House to draw that line. The House will have the opportunity of making a judgment in the light of a report from a very distinguished committee which is widely representative of all sections of opinion. I hope that when the report is produced the House will find its recommendations acceptable.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the age of consent, the Sex Discrimination Act should apply in this sphere as elsewhere? In other words, if my hon. Friend does not get me clearly——

I think that we have it.

I think that I have my hon. Friend clearly: I think that he is saying that the age of consent for men should be the same as for women. There is some difference of opinion about that. I menitioned an opinion at an earlier stage and it was highly controversial. It was much resented by the Homosexual Law Reform Society. This is an issue for the advisory committee, and we await its report.

Does the hon. Gentleman condemn the recent statement of the so- called National Council for Civil Liberties on this issue? Is he aware that that body is totally unrepresentative of public opinion in this country?

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman arrogates to himself the right to say what is public opinion.

I know more than the Minister.

The hon. Gentleman may well be right. In the final analysis, none of us can be absolutely certain about what public opinion is really saying on an issue as complex as this. What we can do is to appoint the committee to consider representations from different bodies of opinion and to make a judgment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there have been any recent changes of criteria for considering applications for visas to visit the United Kingdom.

No, Sir. Each application is considered on its merits and in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time.

But should not the regulations have been liberalised since the signing of the Helsinki Agreement? If that is so, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision about visas for some foreign delegates coming to this country?

No, I cannot entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. I have made it clear to him that I have no intention of using the visa procedure to prevent the York forum on disarmament from taking place. Equally, merely because it is taking place I am not prepared to relax the normal criteria that I should apply in other circumstances.