asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to make attendance at court as a witness less expensive, less onerous and less uncomfortable than it is at present.

The rates of allowances which may be paid to witnesses in indictable criminal cases are increased periodically as appropriate. The police are advised to pay the same rates to prosecution witnesses in non-indictable cases.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that over the whole range of court attendance and court procedure the ordinary lay witness —I emphasise "lay witness"—receives the least consideration? Is she aware that that fact does not encourage members of the general public to come forward as witnesses? Will the Minister look at the matter again and try to improve conditions for witnesses?

I repeat that, if the hon. Gentleman can provide some specific information about specific courts, I shall look at it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Crown Courts and in the High Court, since the Courts Act and the creation of many more judges, it is often the judges who have to stop work early—because there are so few cases in the lists—to prevent witnesses and jurors from hanging around too long? Is it not the fact that waiting time for witnesses and jurors has decreased substantially since the Courts Act 1971 was passed?

It is always difficult to assess the time any case will take in court. There is an unpredictable element, and witnesses cannot be warned how long they will need to be in court. I agree with the points that my hon. and learned Friend has made. With regard to expense and comfort, that raises the question of allowances and new buildings. I shall be happy to look at any particular case my hon. and learned Friend has in mind.

asked the Secretary Of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the Socialist Workers Party about violence at political meetings.

None, Sir.

Bearing in mind that virtually all the political violence in this country comes from parties of the Left, such as the Socialist Workers Party and the National Front, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good idea to have representatives of those parties round the table agreeing to eschew violence? After all, both those parties of the Left have much in common with the Tribune Group.

If the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic leads him to that conclusion, he must have been educated at a minor public school.

Is it not a fact that last night racialists attacked Asian workers with bricks as they were leaving their factory with such violence that nine of the victims had to be taken to hospital? Surely someone must have made a note of one of the car numbers. Can we expect a police arrest shortly?

Last evening there was a fight between workers in two separate factories. I have a report here which tells me that the police are dealing with the matter and investigating it.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the attacks in the East End of London have been serious? Is it not important that they should be roundly condemned by everyone in public life?

I am pleased that that has been said. It accords with the majority view in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the current rate of male recruitment to the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total strength of the police force in England and Wales at the latest available date; what was the total at the same date in 1977; and by how many the total strength of the police has increased or decreased since 1st January 1978.

At 31st May 1978, the strength of the police in England and Wales was 107,875. This compares with 109,338 on 31st May 1977. The net loss in strength from January to May this year was 326. The Government are anxious to reverse the trend both by encouraging recruitment and by reducing wastage.

Is the Home Secretary aware that recruitment is not fully offsetting the loss of experienced officers by retirement and resignation? Does he recognise that this is a matter of pay and conditions? Does he further recognise that it is the Government's respon- sibility to provide our country with the protection it needs? Will he implement the Edmund-Davies Committee's report in full when it is published?

Order. There is a later Question on that matter on the Order Paper. Would the Home Secretary like to reply to two out of three?

I take your advice, Mr. Speaker. There is a problem of wastage. I hope that it is only pay that is the problem.

At a time when crime of every kind is increasing, does the Home Secretary take seriously the reduction in the manpower of the police, and will he understand that there is an urgent need to reverse this trend and that pay is a key element.

Of course pay is a key element. But I point out that there are 7,000 more policemen now than there were four years ago. A study of past figures shows that there have been ups and downs in police manpower. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that if he thinks that it is only a question of pay and that there are no other problems for the police, he is wrong. When the report is published—I have sent it for publication—he will see that we were right to have a deep-seated report on this matter rather than play around as the Opposition were doing last autumn.

Will my right hon. Friend repeat the figure he has just given and tell the House the precise number, in thousands, of policemen who are employed now compared with the number when the Government took office? Will he confirm that between 1970 and 1974 many Labour Party supporters were extremely concerned because the Conservative Government were extremely neglectful of police interests?

There are more policemen now than there were four years ago. I simply say that the problem is deeper than merely pay, even though that is vitally important. The reports we are having prepared are not only on pay but on negotiating machinery and the role of the Police Federation. There is something basic which needs to be looked at, and that is what we have embarked upon.

I am glad the Home Secretary recognises that, although pay is vital, there are many other questions affecting the need for improved policing. Will he tell the House how he intends to tackle these problems? Does he not agree that one of them is to get closer co-operation between the police and the community at grass-roots level as well as at higher administrative level? Does he not agree, further, that another problem is the whole question of the role—and I hope it is a valuable one—of policewomen in the police service? These are major issues that need to be tackled. What is the Home Office doing about them?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that part of the fundamental question is the role of policewomen. He is simply hooking on to something that has been in the press recently. It goes far deeper than that. I am not a Minister of the Interior. The Home Office is not a Ministry of the Interior. I believe that chief constables are arranging for closer contact with the community throughout the country.

Will my right hon. Friend accept, notwithstanding the increase in numbers and the difficulties and constraints of the pay guidelines, that there could be a tremendous crisis of morale in the police force, which could be dangerous to a democratic society? Will he recognise that it is vitally important, therefore, that the Edmund-Davies report be implemented as soon as possible? Will he urge the Cabinet to find a method of implementing it so as to prevent wastage?

Order. I have already pulled up another hon. Gentleman. Question No. 15 asks the Secretary of State about implementation of the Edmund-Davies report. The hon. Gentleman has already asked two supplementary questions on that Question.

Will my right hon. Friend take action to prevent wastage and increase recruitment?

Yes, I certainly will do that. It is a major part of my job. But the matter which we are not yet going to discuss is an important part of that.

Does the Home Secretary think that the answer given on 29th June, showing that resignations from the police in the first quarter of this year were 30 per cent. up on last year and 140 per cent. up on the year before, shows confidence in his administration of his office?

I do not believe that it has to do with the competence of my administration. If the hon. and learned Gentleman believes that, he knows nothing about the problems in the police force. I have talked to many policemen recently. They are getting fed up with the way in which law and order is becoming entangled with a populist political policy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for the crime of causing malicious damage.

The latest available information is for the first three months of 1978. In that period, 72,600 offences of criminal damage were recorded by the police in England and Wales.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures are caused not merely by an insufficiency of policemen to cope with the problem on the ground but by very deep-rooted social problems, and in particular the building of huge housing estates without sufficient facilities for young people to use their leisure time in an active, lively and useful way? Is he co-ordinating with other Government Departments to improve those facilities and so lessen this crime?

My right hon. Friend has held a series of discussions not only with Government Departments but with police forces and people in the community who are concerned with this problem. No other crime is quite so dependent upon social conditions. It is certainly not the case that a criminal law can of itself solve the problem of criminal damage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis with regard to the proposed closure of police stations and offices in the Greater London area.

The Commissioner has kept my right hon. Friend informed of the studies he is currently undertaking of local policing arrangements in the Metropolitan Police district, one aspect of which includes the future of existing police stations. No proposals have as yet been made.

Is the hon. Lady aware that among the proposed closures is the West Wickham office in my constituency? At a time of growing crime and violence, would it not be the height of folly to close down an office which provides a point of contact and reassurance for the general public? As the shortage of police manpower was given as the original reason for the survey to which the hon. Lady has referred, could she now persuade the Commissioner at least to defer the implementation of this closure until we see the effect on police recruitment of the forthcoming pay rises?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that no firm decisions to close any particular station have yet been taken, as I said in my answer, and that if there was such a decision there would be consultations with the police and with civil staff representative organisations. I can only say that there is no such proposal.

Does my hon. Friend think that there is any relationship between the apparent drop in police numbers and the very large number of people who—according to the major article in The Times yesterday—are joining private organisations such as Securicor, where, for instance, we are told that about 150,000 people are involved? This seems such a massive number that one wonders whether there is any relationship between these trends.

I think I can say that there is no relationship. If he compares the figures carefully and notes the times when these transfers were taken, my hon. Friend will see that there is no relationship.

Has the hon. Lady seen a report in the press today about a festival sites welfare officer being appointed, at a cost to her Department of £7,000, to attend three pop festivals? Does she think that that is a right priority in the use of her funds?

Order. This Question is about the closure of police stations in London. Has the hon. Gentleman a supplementary question about police stations in London?

Does not the hon. Lady agree that the closure of police stations on the one hand and the appointment of such officers on the other shows a wrong sense of priorities?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants special funds additional to its present income for the purpose of providing adequate advice facilities and legal support for those people detained at an attempted port of entry into the United Kingdom and for those citizens threatened with deportation.

Any request for such funds would be considered.

I am grateful for that encouraging reply. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, with the intensification of immigration control, much of the appeals procedure is being stretched to the limit and, indeed, much is now going by default because there are insufficient counsellors able to advise immigrants on their appeal rights? Does my hon. Friend recognise also that most Members of Parliament who have these problems in their constituencies are now so overwhelmed by the number of cases that some additional facilities will have to be made available so that they may adequately advise their constituents and use professionals to take these cases to the appeals procedure? Will the Minister make facilities and amenities available to Members in order that this may be proceeded with?

I think that, first, my hon. Friend would be well advised to talk to the JCWI about whether it wants a grant, because hitherto its view has been that it wanted neither a grant nor facilities in this matter. As for being overwhelmed, as someone who has come new into this field I quite understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but there is no evidence that appellants are being unrepresented through lack of funds. If the JCWI makes an application for a grant, we shall consider it.

Is there any connection between shortage of funds or policemen and the fact that the detention centre for immigrants at Harmondsworth has been farmed out to a commercial security organisation?

No, Sir.

asked the secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest criminal statistics for the first six months of 1978.

The number of indictable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in the first quarter of 1978 was 631,000. Information is not yet available for the second quarter.

Is the Minister aware that in the Thames Valley alone the crime figures have increased by 11 per cent.? Are these figures based on indictable offences as such or on the number of individuals? In other words, if someone has committed seven offences, does that show as seven or as one?

My answer specified the number of indictable offences, and one person can have more than one indictable offence to his credit—or discredit. I would point out that, whereas the Thames Valley figure may be 11 per cent. up, the overall figure is 3 per cent. up. Although that is by no means encouraging, it is a considerable diminution in the rise as compared with the year before.

What has the Home Office done in deciding how much is due to a higher crime rate as such and how much is due to a higher rate of detection?

This is one of those imponderable questions, because it is due not only to a higher rate of detection but to a higher rate of reporting. One could double the apparent crime rate without a single further crime being committed if more people reported crimes. One can never disentangle these matters. Where crimes are detected, there are adequate powers available to magistrates and the courts to punish offenders.

Is the Minister aware that only one in three crimes is reported, that of those reported only one in five results in prosecution, and that where there is a prosecution one in two of those who plead not guilty is acquitted? Are the Government aware that they have been responsible for more lawlessness and dishonesty than practically any other Government who have existed in this country?

The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, more certain about everything than any other Member of the House is about anything.

Will my hon. Friend consider the possible correlation between the increase in crime in the western world and the portrayal of crime on television? Is television having an impact, particularly on the younger generation, and will he consider making representations to the television authorities to keep crime off the programmes to a greater extent than at present?

We have in our possession and available to the public two reports which come to diametrically opposed conclusions about this. There is always a great danger in picking on a single cause as being the key to the crime wave. The more we stutdy crime and the more experience we have, the more we should know that there is no single factor which one can isolate against any other.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to publish his White Paper on the Official Secrets Act.

Shortly.

Has my right hon. Friend read the excellent article in The Guardian today by his former political adviser, Mr. Roger Darlington, which makes clear the enormous gap between the Government's proposals on official secrets and Labour's manifesto commitment? When do the Government intend to reform not only section 2 but section 1 of the Act and provide an official Freedom of Information Act?

Our commitment was in the Gracious Speech, and it is that matter which affects the House. However, I advise my hon. Friend to wait and see what is contained in the White Paper. After that is published, I shall be most interested to hear from my hon. Friend—with his vast experience—how this legislation works in other parts of the world.

Does the Home Secretary recognise that the prime weakness of the Official Secrets Act is its failure to distinguish between the revelation of secrets which injure the security of the country and the revelation of secrets which would merely embarrass the Government? Is it true, as reported in today's article in The Guardian by Mr. Darlington, that the forthcoming White Paper will make no contribution towards the advance of open Government?

I shall not comment on the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question. However, with regard to the first part I remind him that I served on the Franks Committee. I advise him to read the report of that committee. He has obviously read only one chapter of it.

Does not the Home Secretary agree that there is widespread public anxiety over the "catch-all" provisions of the Official Secrets Act, not only in section 2 but, as has already been referred to, in section 1? Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be grave dissatisfaction, probably on both sides of the House, if the White Paper follows the predictions of Roger Darlington and is limited in the way that he suggests? All of us want a Freedom of Information Act.

As somebody or other once said, "Let us wait and see."

asked the Secretary of State for Home Department what action he intends to take following the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the use of corporal punishment in the Isle of Man is degrading and inhuman treatment.

The judgment found the penalty in the case in question to be degrading punishment. It did not find it to be inhuman. As I indicated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) on 25th April, I am considering the implications of the judgment in consultation with the Government of the Isle of Man and the authorities in Jersey and Guernsey.

It is not a bit hypocritical for us to condemn the use of corporal punishment upon British subjects in places such as Saudi Arabia when we are virtually the only country in Europe which tolerates the use of judicial corporal punishment on the Isle of Man and so-called educational corporal punishment in our schools system? As the European Court is at present considering another complaint from a Scottish parent about the use of corporal punishment in schools, may I ask that the Government take immediate legislative steps to stop this brutal practice, because we are in danger of being publicly branded as the barbarians of Europe?

I do not know about our being hypocritical. I can tell my hon. Friend that I am against corporal punishment. There is a proper method of proceeding with this matter. The Isle of Man is not responsible to the House of Commons in the normal fashion. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will allow the matter to be dealt with. Ultimately, I believe, the matter will be resolved.

If we are to reject corporal punishment—as many of us on both sides of the House would wish—is there not a need to reassure the public that alternative methods, including a greater use of short, sharp sentences, are being vigorously pursued and supported by Her Majesty's Government?

I should be interested to know what short, sharp sentences are. Certainly there would have to be alternative ways of dealing with people who commit crime.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the Edmund-Davies report on police pay.

The Government are committed to accept the conclusions of the Edmund-Davies Committee on pay, subject only to consideration of the phasing of their implementation. I shall make a statement when the committee's report is presented to Parliament and published.

I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Does he agree, however, that it is unfortunate that there appears to be yet another leakage, as there was yesterday of the Fairford United States tanker proposal? Will he investigate that and give the House an assurance that he will not delay making a statement merely because there may be printing problems in getting the documents ready? The police force and the country really cannot wait.

There are no printing problems. I have the report here. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could read it in one evening and get it right by the following morning, but I have sent it for printing. Here it is, page upon page. We have already said that we shall accept the report. The House is not waiting to know whether we shall accept it, because I have said that we do. But it is surely proper that I should have time to consider it. As for the leak—if that is what it is—I suppose that there are other places of leaking than through Government Departments.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the best deterrent to violent criminals is detection? If he agrees, as I believe he does, will he assure the House that he will implement the Edmund-Davies findings as early as possible and not wait for Treasury approval as to pay policy?

There is no question of Treasury approval. I have told the House that I shall accept the report. I said that last year. Its implementation will be from 1st September. I have assured those involved that I will bring in the regulations and that we shall accept the report in full.

In full?

We have already said that. The Government have accepted it in full, and we shall implement it from 1st September.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), when speaking in my constituency recently, said that because of the rise in crime committed by evil people, sometimes as young as four years, 20,000 extra policemen were needed? Can the Home Secretary say what that would cost in terms of the Edmund-Davies report's findings?

I could not do that arithmetic even with my education at the excellent State school that I went to. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the figures are right.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government accept the Edmund-Davies report. I am pleased to hear that. He also said that he will implement it on 1st September. Will he implement it in full on 1st September?

I shall do what I said last year. I said then that we would accept the report, whatever it said. I added "subject to phasing", and I shall make an announcement to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to report progress towards the agreement which would give the Fire Brigades Union a 42-hour week; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that detailed proposals were tabled by the employers' side at the meeting of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades on 2nd June and considered again on 9th June. At a further meeting on 14th June, there was failure to reach agreement on the proposals and the employers' side decided to refer the matter to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. It is better now that the possibilities of the conciliation and arbitration machinery be pursued.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a result of Tory-controlled local authorities refusing to make an agreement on the 42-hour week with the Fire Brigades Union, a very deep sense of dangerous frustration is developing in the ranks of the union? In view of that information, when is my hon. Friend prepared to step in and give a lead to the local authorities in settling the matter?

It is to be hoped that both sides will resume negotiations as soon as possible, determined that they should be constructivce and that they should discuss the possible terms of reference for third party assistance.

Has the Fire Brigades Union also agreed to go to ACAS for arbitration?

At the moment the union has not formally agreed, but it is certainly considering that possibility.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many Fire Brigades Union members in East Anglia feel absolutely betrayed by the stand taken by Tory councils in particular throughout the country on this issue? Does she recognise that unless early action is taken there is danger of serious damage being done to the fire service as a whole?

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a serious situation. The hopeful aspect is that recruitment is now proceeding in all areas of the country. It is essential that these negotiations should be completed satisfactorily very soon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the refusal of employers in the public sector to employ coloured British citizens because they were unable to prove their British nationality or residence status when they applied for employment.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine, Mr. R. D. Butcher, recently applied for employment at the post office in Birmingham and was refused work? Is he further aware that on form ES12, which is returned to the local employment office, it was stated by the interviewing officer that he would not employ this man because he did not produce a passport or a letter from the Home Office to prove his residence status. Is this not something remarkably like an informal pass law system for black people in Britain?

I have had a letter from the JCWI on behalf of Mr. Butcher, but it did not refer to employment in the public sector. I am glad my hon. Friend has specified that. I shall be replying to the organisation and to my hon. Friend in the light of his Question today. The present indications are that there are no restrictions on Mr. Butcher's employment or length of stay in the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister aware that there is increasing evidence of Her Majesty's inspectors of taxes insisting on the submission of birth certificates with tax returns and then keeping those birth certificates when they relate to people who have come here under the Immigration Act? Is this not a deplorable situation? Will he investigate it?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me the evidence, I shall certainly look at it. I have had no such evidence submitted to me direct.

Has the Secretary of State had time to read the newspaper cutting I sent to him earlier today regarding the deportation of Mrs. Khullar and her two-year-old child? Is he now satisfied with his work?

My right hon. Friend has had the cutting. I cannot say whether he has read it, but I promise that he will be in touch with my hon. Friend about this case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further plans he has to reduce the size of the prison population.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his similar Question on 4th May.

Does not my hon. Friend accept that we have one of the highest prison populations in Western Europe and that many of those who are in prison are inadequate and petty offenders? Does he accept that now is the time to take a far more positive and imaginative approach to getting out of our prisons those offenders who are mentally ill, and particularly children under 16 on remand? Will he look again at the idea of introducing a system of remission for petty and inadequate offenders who are not eligible for parole?

We certainly have taken some steps about petty offenders by removing imprisonment for simple drunkenness. We are looking at a number of the things that my hon. Friend has mentioned. However, what he and I regard as self-evident is not always so regarded by everyone, as some of the ill-informed comment in the newspapers of last week showed.

Will the Minister consider, in the attempt to reduce crime, the system introduced by the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall? Is he aware that the chief constable has had a police officer assigned to a large number of schools in Devon and Cornwall, working with the children and getting them to understand how the police force is working on their side rather than working against them? Does the Minister appreciate that this arrangement has proved immensely successful and ought to be used in more parts of the country?

A year ago I met the chief constable concerned, with the local authorities, and found that the co-operation in Devon and Cornwall between all those responsible for the welfare of children was impressive and was likely to diminish crime in the counties.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the effectiveness of community service orders? This is a new system, as hon. Members know. Does he agree that the judiciary should be encouraged to extend the application of these orders, because that would serve in one way, even if only marginally, to reduce the prison population?

We think highly of community service orders, as do those who impose the punishments, as is clear since they make so many of them. We certainly encourage their use wherever appropriate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are currently held in remand centres.

On 31st May 1978, there were 2,390 persons in remand centres in England and Wales.

How much overcrowding do those figures reveal? Second, can the Minister comment on the advice given by a Home Office official to Newbury magistrates recently not to sentence a young person to a remand centre because of overcrowding? Can she say how frequently such advice is given?

I agree that there is overcrowding and that there is an urgent need for more remand centres. In fact, three remand centres will be providing extra places in future. Glen Parva will provide 360 and Thorp Arch and Low Newton will also provide more places. It is the Government's firm intention, as soon as possible, to see the end of the remanding of people under 17 years to Prison Department establishments, but that requires accommodation elsewhere.

Is my hon. Friend aware that she said such things more than four years ago? Is she not ashamed that there are still today in prisons and remand centres schoolboys and schoolgirls who have not been convicted of any offence? Will she now take far more purposeful steps than she and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been prepared to take in the past to ensure that no schoolchild goes into prison on remand?

In the past four years, within the economic restraints which the Government have faced, there has been much improvement in the number of places in remand centres. But we shall need still more before a satisfactory position is reached.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has discussed with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis his report for the year 1977.

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that London Members were very impressed with the Commissioner's report, which contained cogent comments on the current crime and policing situation? Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the Commissioner the extremely interesting research into the abuse of bail? Also, does he feel that that abuse of bail will increase or decrease as a result of the implementation of the Bail Act?

It is a very good resport and it was submitted to me as the police authority. Regarding its timing, the hon. Gentleman has noticed what other people did not notice—that the Commissioner was referring to a period before the Bail Act became operative. I have looked at the matter. From his own experience, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that if that was the situation before the Bail Act—I make no other comment—it is up to me to discover whether the new Bail Act will have an effect. As far as I can see, it will not change the situation. The basic question is for the magistrates and others. It is not a matter for the Executive. If there is a problem, it should be brought to the notice of those who grant bail, and that includes the police.

As regards the working of the Bail Act, does the Home Secretary recall that the financial and explanatory memorandum to the Bill said that it would have no significant effect on public service manpower? Is it not the case that in the inner London magistrates' courts alone the establishment of clerical officers has just been increased by 37? Is that not due to the Bail Act?

I think that it would be better if the hon. and learned Gentleman waited for an answer on the next Question, because that is where it applies.

Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to the section dealing with recruitment of police in the metropolitan area from ethnic minorities, especially in areas where there is a large ethnic mixture? If he is unable to improve upon the campaign to recruit from ethnic groups, will he consider giving public relations work to people who may not become police officers but who could do something in those areas?

I discussed this with the Commissioner. There has been an increase in the number of people from ethnic minorities joining the police. I hope, and the Commissioner hopes, that this will continue. My hon. Friend will also find that the kind of work mentioned by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is taking place in the Metropoli- tan Police. I suggest that my hon. Friend talks to the Commissioner, because I know that he would be pleased to have any advice about my hon. Friend's area.

This Question is about discussions with the Commissioner. Has the Home Secretary discussed with the Commissioner the Edmund-Davies report which he has in front of him? Has he discussed it with journalists, who seem to know all about it, according to the newspapers? As he was waving it about in the Chamber a little while ago would it not now be courteous to let the House of Commons see it straight away?

I do not think that courtesy arises. I was trying to show that if there is a report of that size it would be a good idea if I had a look at it before I discussed it with anybody, other wise, we should have the classical instantaneous response from the hon. Gentleman. I discussed this with the Commissioner the other evening.

asked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the TUC and CBI.

In the absence of my right hon. Friend, who is attending a meeting of the European Council in Bremen, I have been asked to reply.

When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he give them a copy of the report in The Guardian this morning, which tells of a letter sent by a redundant Tory agent to the Sheffield Morning Telegraph, describing the present Tory leadership as the most disastrous he could remember,

"devoid of any constructive policies … and having done nothing to assist in the economic recovery of the nation"?

Order. Hon. Members must address their supplementary questions to subjects for which the Minister is responsible. He is not responsible for what the Opposition do.

I perfectly well understand that, Mr. Speaker. I am suggesting that when the Prime Minister meets the TUC and the CBI he should bring these matters to the attention of those bodies. I conclude by saying [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that the Prime Minister is described—

Order. I cannot even hear the hon. Gentleman from here. But I think that the Lord President has heard enough.

I should be glad to send on the report, as my hon. Friend has suggested, to the bodies he has mentioned. I must say that I think that the comment quoted went a little far. After all, the gentleman concerned said that this was the most disastrous Conservative leadership that he had ever known. I think that that embraces Neville Chamberlain as well as all subsequent leaders. I should have thought that that was going a bit far.

May I raise a matter which is important for the country and for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, as is his right hon. Friend? Will the Prime Minister when he nexts meets the CBI and the TUC, be in a position to tell them what the Government intend to do about dividends, because the Government are running out of time on this crucial issue?

There will be discussions in the next week or two on these matters. I have no doubt that dividends will be one of the subjects which will arise in those discussions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House before we rise?

I do not have anything to add to what I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House on the subject.

Before he nexts meets the TUC, will the Prime Minister have an opportunity to examine the Government's role as an employer, to look in particular at the role of industrial civil servants and the wages they receive, to compare them with some of the increases that were announced earlier this week and to do something about the lower paid?

I appreciate that there is strong feeling among industrial civil servants. This has been expressed in the discussions and negotiations which have gone on. I have no doubt that that will be taken into account by the Government. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is calling attention to those representations, which are very much in our minds at the moment.

Could the Lord President have another attempt at answering the supplementary question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) a moment ago? Is it not absolutely plain from the Prime Minister's speech last weekend that the Government have now decided to impose a stage 4, irrespective of what the unions want to do?

The hon. Gentleman is jumping to conclusions which are not apparent in any sense whatsoever. In reply to his right hon. Friend, I indicated that there would be discussions between the Government and the TUC and the CBI on these matters, and I have no doubt that that will be one of the items that will arise in those discussions.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6th July.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Lord President ensure that the Prime Minister gets an opportunity to read the annual report of the British Steel Corporation, which makes depressing and grim reading for the future of employment in Scotland? Does he agree with the judgment that it makes the closure of Glengarnock works far more certain and that the Hunterston direct reduction works will probably be opened only to test what is termed the technological efficiency? May we have an assurance that this matter will be fully debated in the House before any final decisions are taken?

I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already studied the report of the British Steel Corporation. There have, of course, been discussions in the House about that already. I expect the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is considerable investment by the British Steel Corporation in Scotland, and that without that Scotland would have suffered even more severely from the slump that most other steel industries throughout the world have had to bear during this period.

Has my right hon. Friend read the article written by Mr. Alex Hartley which recently appeared in The Guardian? That article gave in considerable detail the news that the Economic League is running a blacklist system for all its member firms. Will my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister take up this matter not only with the Economic League but, in particular, with the Confederation of British Industry and with Opposition Members who are directors of firms participating in this blacklist system?

I read that article in The Guardian, although I was even more attracted by the previous article in The Guardian to which reference was made. I do not know whether there will be time for this matter to be raised in the discussions with the CBI, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it raises an important question of civil liberties, and we are prepared to look at it in that sense.

Is the Lord President aware of the Prime Minister's sudden and new interest in the family? If he is, can he explain why food prices have doubled under the Labour Government? Is he still confident that food prices will increase by less than 10 per cent. in the coming year?

The Prime Minister's interest in the family goes back for many more years than that. I cannot remember the exact date, but it is a great deal longer. I am sure, too, that the Prime Minister's interest in doing all that we can to keep down food prices goes back over a long period. I only wish that we had received some co-operation from the Opposition when we joined the Common Market and encountered fresh difficulties.

Does my right hon. Friend know whether the Prime Minister, before setting off for Bremen, managed to find time to read the article by Mr. Roger Darlington, formerly a special assistant to the Home Secretary, to which reference was made on an earlier Question? That article shows that the forthcoming White Paper on the Official Secrets Act will be timid, broken-backed and useless.

Just like the Government.

Even at this late hour, will my right hon. Friend consult the Prime Minister to see whether some improvements can be made to that White Paper?

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has read that article, but I read it this morning with considerable interest. I do not believe that it covers all the matters that are dealt with in the White Paper, because when the White Paper is published my hon. Friend will see that it opens up other possibilities beyond those that are discussed in Mr. Darlington's article.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6th July.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the deep concern of the House about the low morale of people who work in the National Health Service? Will he tell the House what steps the Government intend to take to raise that morale, to reduce industrial disputes and to improve service to patients?

The hon. Member and others may have seen that my right hon. Friend attended a function concerned with the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of the National Health Service. Although there are many aspects of the National Health Service that we should like to be improved, and although I know that most of my hon. Friends would like to see a great deal more spent upon the Health Service—I do not know whether that applies to hon. Members opposite—I do not believe it right that the country or the outside world should be given the impression that the Health Service has not had many great successes. I think that the matter should be approached in that spirit. It was in that sense that the Prime Minister spoke when he discussed the matter on the occasion of the celebration of the thirtieth year of the founding of the Health Service.

Will the Leader of the House inform the Prime Minister—if he is not already aware of the fact—that there is grave concern among sections of civil servants who are being compulsorily transferred from London for reasons that were valid many years ago but are not valid today? The problem is becoming acute. Will the whole matter be looked at again, and will those decent people be given an assurance that they will not be forced out of a London which they do not want to leave?

I understand my right hon. Friend's interest in the matter. I also understand that he wishes to defend the rights of those who wish to stay in London. On the other hand, I believe that the Government were right, in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, to embark upon a programme of dispersal. Although it is not easy to carry through that programme, I believe that the Government are correct to stick to their principles and intentions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that concern has been expressed in the House about the statement in a Labour Party broadcast recently which said that the party wished to control all the means of production? Has he brought that to the attention of the Prime Minister, in case the Prime Minister did not hear the broadcast? Is it the Prime Minister's policy that there should be further widespread nationalisation?

The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with the phrases that have figured in the constitution of the Labour Party since 1918. I suggest that if he studies the whole history of the matter he will see how much of the programme we have carried out and how much we intend to carry out during our next period in office. All those matters will be fully stated when we present a manifesto to the nation.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that the National Health Service would have been aborted before its introduction if it had been left to hon. Members who sat on the Conservative Benches at the time? Will he make clear that in any civilised society, whether people are rich or poor, there should be no inequality in the health services available to them, and that we shall carry out the principles which Nye Bevan incorporated when he introduced the Bill?

My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct. On the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill, the Conservative Opposition of the day voted against it, and they did so again on Third Reading. They even carried the matter further. A few months before the introduction of the Service on 5th July 1948, they attempted a further measure to try to prevent it from coming into operation. They are trying to make up for that now. We believe that there are still great improvements to be made in the Health Service, and we propose to carry them out in the next 30 years.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 6th July.

I have been asked to reply.

Has the Lord President noticed the extraordinary coincidence that the Secretary of State for Transport last night announced the go-ahead for the construction of the Stockbridge bypass, which happens to be in the Penistone constituency, where there is to be a by-election. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that while political bribery is bad enough, when it is done with the taxpayers' money it becomes political chicanery? Is he aware that we find a precedent here in the occasion when his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), as Minister of Transport, did the same thing during the Hull by-election by promising that the Humber bridge would be built?

I confess that I had not heard of the announcement about Stockbridge, but I am happy to hear of it now, even from the hon. Gentleman's lips. I am sure that, just as we won the by-election in Hull with a thumping majority, we shall do the same in Penistone.