asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Prison Officers' Association.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the Prison Officers' Association to discuss the present situation in prisons.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the prison officers' dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest position in regard to the prison officers' dispute; and if he will make a statement.

I last met the Prison Officers' Association on 23 October. Following that meeting, the director-general of the prison service has had a series of discussions with the Prison Officers' Association, most recently on Tuesday this week. Work between the two sides continues and a further meeting will take place next Tuesday.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

When will the Home Secretary decide whether the prison officers constitute a disciplined force that should be subject to authority and orders or whether they are an industrial work force that should have a proper system of industrial relations? If the latter, will he now accept the need for arbitration or at least negotiate an honourable settlement and introduce, as the May committee suggested over a year ago, a proper disputes procedure whereby disputes of this nature can be resolved within the prison system and where there is the availability of conciliation and arbitration? If it is the former, when will he assert control?

I am seeking to follow up all the proposals in the May report. That has been my position from the start. If I were to take up some of the hon. Gentleman's points, I would be tempted into the present area of negotiations. That would not help either side in the negotiations. I am seeking to make progress.

Is the Home Secretary aware that, as a consequence of the dispute, the total prison population, including those held in police stations and other temporary forms of custody, has declined? Will he draw lessons from that regarding his long-term aim of getting down the prison population?

The hon. Gentleman is right. The number of prisoners today, including those in police cells and in the Army-camp type prisons, if that is the correct phrase, is 41,200. One can only add that sometimes good comes out of evil. I hope that progress will continue towards shorter sentences for non-violent offenders.

Is the Home Secretary aware of reports today in The Guardian and other newspapers of prisoners held in dirty, overcrowded and inhumane conditions because of the prison officers' dispute? Will he ensure that these complaints are thoroughly investigated and appropriate action is taken?

I shall certainly see that these complaints are properly investigated. I must make clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that a necessary consequence of the industrial action taken by the Prison Officers' Association is that people have to be held in police cells. These are thoroughly unsatisfactory places for prisoners to be held. That is one of the problems facing us.

Does not the Home Secretary realise that this is the tip of the iceberg? It is inevitable that at some time, given the horrific conditions in many prisons—even worse than in the Victorian era, when many of the prisons were built—the pressures in Hull prison and Wormwood Scrubs will erupt elsewhere. The tension among prisoners is also bound to exist among prison officers. This is the great problem. Will the right hon. Gentleman take action on the whole question of prisons?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will assist me by not seeking to exaggerate any of the difficulties that come up. I am seeking, calmly, through negotiation with the prison officers, to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman and the House want. I have some hopes of success. We have a chance now, if we seek it and are prepared to follow it, to get a new system in our prisons which will be much more satisfactory than in the past and to build on the recommendations of the May committee that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) rightly set up. If we miss that opportunity, the House and the country will deeply regret it.

According to the Home Secretary and from what I hear, negotiations are taking place. They are best left to the negotiating table. The other day we gave the Home Secretary the most extraordinary powers. Is he having to use them all?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remarks. My answer to his second question is "No". The only power that I have used is to provide that those on remand should be seen in absentia and not brought to the courts. I dislike the power but it is inevitable since people on remand in prison cells and Army camps are all over the country and come long distances. I said that I would use the other powers only if I had to. I have not had to use them.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the beginning of the dispute the spokesman for the Prison Officers' Association said that the argument was with the prison service and the Government and that its members did not wish their actions to be felt by prisoners and people on remand? Is that the way that it has turned out?

I am afraid that such a possibility never existed. It was inevitable that the type of industrial action taken would harm the prisoners—and so it has. Many prison officers are worried about that development, and so am I. That is why I am so keen that the present negotiations should continue to a successful conclusion. I believe that that is the desire of the vast majority of prison officers, for the reason given by my hon. Friend.

Does the Home Secretary realise that the only way to resolve the dispute and to restore morale and good will in the service is to give the Prison Officers' Association the right, which any other trade union has, to proper arbitration of a dispute by arbiters agreed by both sides?

As I said to the hon. hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), if I were to reply to that question I should enter into the area of negotiations, and that can do only harm.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the appalling consequences, particularly to teenagers, of sharing accommodation in police cells? I am pleased to hear that progress is being made on the new shift system. If progress is being made, why does he not say to the POA that the system will be introduced within a certain period of time, or accept the recommendations of the May report on arbitration? Does he agree that in that way the dispute could be stopped today?

I must not enter into the negotiations. I have made the Government's position clear. We are seeking to move forward from May in exactly the way that May proposed. We are doing this by accepting May's recommendations on pay and allowances, by accepting May's idea for a new duty system and improved industrial relations. That is the purpose of the present negotiations. That is why I hope that we shall succeed in carrying them through.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many boys and girls under 16 years of age are currently held in places designated by him under the Imprisonment (Temporary Powers) Act which are not borstals, remand centres or other normal places of detention.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that that reply is welcome? Will he give an assurance that boys and girls will not be held in such temporary accommodation in any circumstances? If they cannot be accommodated in properly designed institutions, will he ensure that they are sent home?

I am mildly surprised but totally delighted to give an answer which is welcome to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that I cannot go quite as far as he wishes. I see no circumstances at present foreseeable which would lead to the requirement that people of the age group mentioned should be held in inappropriate places. However, it is impossible to give an absolute guarantee and I shall not attempt to give one.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce the measures promised with regard to a register and quota system for immigrants' dependants as soon as possible.

Both measures require legislation to be effective. The Government decided that changes in the immigration rules and the proposed changes in nationality law should take priority.

Since the Government, in their run-up to the election, gave a solemn and binding undertaking that a register would be introduced, and since there would be great political difficulties in implementing such measures in the run-up to a general election, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that it will be introduced in the next Queen's Speech? Failing that, does my right hon. Friend have plans to thread this piece of legislation through the undoubted political minefields that will surround him?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that such proposals for legislation will be in the next Queen's Speech.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that questions such as this lead to grave anxieties among the coloured population in particular and among right-minded white people? Does he recall that in the last Parliament it was found, when the present Secretary of State for Education and Science was involved in an investigation, that the proposal would be misleading and impractical in application?

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is entitled to ask the question. If we were to censor ourselves and never ask questions which would do harm in the country, an awful lot of questions would never be asked.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread disappointment in our own indigenous nation that the Government have so far failed to reduce immigration substantially as they promised? When will he introduce measures to that end?

We introduced a change in the immigration rules, as my hon. Friend knows. I shall not anticipate the Queen's Speech, but we have made clear that we are considering proposals on nationality law. That is as far as we are going at present.

Will the Home Secretary continue to resist reactionary pressure from his Back Benchers on the need for a register and quota? Will he go even further and take steps to eliminate unofficial quotas caused by bureaucratic and administrative delays in high commissions overseas?

I think that I am beginning to learn that the right position for me is to stand absolutely still where I am.

What percentage rate of reduction in immigration, and when, does my right hon. Friend regard as sufficient to honour his pre-election pledge to bring an end to immigration as we have known it?

As always, I shall of course consider my hon. Friend's proposals carefully and make up my own mind when I have considered them about the correct response.

Now that the right hon. Gentleman knows that the two proposals are not on and that all the facts are against them, why will he not say so and put the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) out of his misery?

Because I am going to stay where I am for the present.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted for using citizens band radio to date in 1980.

During the first nine months of this year, 331 persons were prosecuted for unlicensed installation and/or use of 27 MHz citizens band radios. Three hundred and twenty-five were convicted and six acquitted.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is growing concern among the increasing numbers of CB users about the disparity in prosecutions in different parts of the country? In view of the growing number of users, will my hon. Friend reconsider the suggestion that they might still be liable to prosecution when the open channel system is introduced?

I cannot pay much regard to people who complain about such a disparity. At present, the use of 27 MHz is illegal. Wherever one is throughout the country, one must not use it.

Since the Minister of State has announced, according to reports, that an estimated 50,000 people now use illegal imported radio sets on the 27 MHz band, does not his reply that 331 persons were prosecuted suggest that the law is not being enforced adequately? When he comes to his proposals as a result of his Green Paper on citizens band radio, will he bear this unsatisfactory situation in mind?

We are aware of some problems in enforcement. The law is absolutely clear. We believe that our proposals will provide a satisfactory alternative. If necessary, we shall take steps to ban the sale and advertising of illegal sets.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those figures show that there is an urgent need to take action? Is he further aware that it is important to find a workable frequency that will have the support of a sufficient number of people in Britain to solve the problem? Will he consider the old black and white television bands more favourably than they have been considered in the past?

I am aware of the need for a rapid decision. We are waiting for the end of the consultation period at the close of this month. We shall then announce our conclusions as quickly as possible. It is a complicated matter. On the question of the old black and white television channels, as our consultation document indicated there are real problems there. They will not be available until 1986 and there are a number of other important potential uses for that part of the spectrum.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Metropolitan Police to reach their full establishment; and if he will now review that establishment.

The force strength was 23,349 at the end of September, a gain of 621 so far this year and leaving 3,428 vacancies on the present establishment. It is likely to be some years before that establishment is reached. With regard to the size of the establishment itself, the position is that the Commissioner is now reviewing the force's manpower needs.

I welcome that reply because the gain has led to an increase in the number of bobbies on the beat in the streets of my constituency. Is it not absurd that the Metropolitan Police are presently working on an establishment that was designed for Greater London 15 years ago?

There is not a practical problem unless and until the Metropolitan Police reach their establishment level. There is not much point in our doing anything other than assisting and encouraging them to continue their successful recruitment policy within the present establishment.

In any discussions that take place between the Commissioner and the Home Office about the proper establishment, will the Home Office take into account the fact that the ability of the Metropolitan Police to respond to increasing requests from people on housing estates and the like for more intensive policing is limited by the all-London and, indeed, national responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police, with the result that police are called away from the divisions and the community work that they could otherwise be doing? Will the Minister confirm that that point will be fully taken into account in any discussions?

There is no doubt that any consideration of the matter by my right hon. Friend must take account of the fact that the Metropolitan Police have responsibilities over and above the responsibilities of other forces, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the worrying increase in vandalism and senseless crime in the areas of outer London? Will he assure my constituents that the Metropolitan Police, in allocating newly trained policemen, are not giving preference to inner London at the expense of outer London?

Allocation policies are very much a matter for the Commissioner. I know that he is concerned to provide a proper service for outer London as well as for inner London.

Will the Minister say what was the population of London when the establishment was agreed? Will he say also what was then the ratio between the population and the establishment, and what it is today?

I cannot answer that question without notice.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many of my constituents are gratitfied with the progress that has been made towards the establishment levels in the Metropolitan Police? Is he further aware that they are also deeply concerned about the drainage of scarce police manpower for demonstrations and other events in central London? Can he hold out any hope that those events can be policed more economically, so that more police are available for community policing in outer London?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is a cause for congratulation that the Metropolitan Police strength is increasing at its present rate. On my hon. Friend's second point, the Government are reviewing the law on public order. In that review we are taking into account the fact that the demonstrations referred to by my hon. Friend undoubtedly lead to expense and a drain of police manpower away from other tasks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends making the order to update the financial limits applicable to sections 40 and 41 of the Gaming Act; and if he will make a statement.

On 31 July my right hon. Friend made an order increasing from £3 to £6 the maximum daily charge for taking part in bridge and whist. This increase takes effect on 1 December. The other limits applying to sections 40 and 41 of the Gaming Act 1968 are under review, but we cannot yet say whether they are likely to be increased.

With regard to section 41, does not my hon. Friend agree that the existing limits on total prize money of £100 and of £1 per person to cover all costs are outdated because of inflation? Does he not realise that many voluntary organisations, such as sports clubs and charities, are dependent for their very livelihood on the incomes obtained from bingo and other such activities?

I note my hon. Friend's remarks. The matter is under review. It is not our desire to make changes that will encourage the spread of gambling. In dealing with gaming legislation, we must bear that in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the code of guidance on fire precautions in residential homes for the elderly is to be issued.

Interdepartmental consultations are taking place on a draft guide produced by the Home Office. These should be complete soon, and within the next few months my right hon. Friend will invite comments from fire service and social service interests. When these have been considered and taken into account the guide will be published, but I cannot yet predict when that will be.

Does my hon. and learned Friend recall telling me and the House some months ago that the issue of such a guide was a vital first step towards improving fire precautions in residential homes for the elderly? In the light of that, does he not agree that the process of consultation appears to be taking an interminable time?

I agree that it is important. The exact requirements are complicated. I am pleased that we are already at the stage of interdepartmental consultations and that it will be possible in a comparatively short time to invite comments from fire service and social service interests. We wish to go faster, but we think that this is the right approach.

Is not the whole position now complicated because the Government are taking a stupid attitude in relation to the firemen's pay? Is it not time that the Government—

No.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is stretching the question a long way. It is clearly about fire precautions in residential homes for the elderly.

Is not the Minister aware that the position of elderly people in residential homes is made much worse because of the Government's attitude to-towards firemen and their pay? Will not the Government now decide to carry out the decisions of previous Governments in relation to the agreement made three years ago with the firemen?

I do not believe that the code of guidance, which is the subject of this question, is in any way affected by the question of firemen's pay. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman thinks that either.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants to discuss the findings of its annual report.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

If the Home Secretary had plans to do so, would he assure the chairman that the Government's policy of deporting and uprooting illegal immigrants would be followed with great verve and that he has the support of many hon. Members and of many members of the ethnic communities?

That sounded a rather hypothetical question. It is the policy of this Government, as it was of previous Administrations, to remove illegal entrants unless there are compelling reasons in favour of their remaining.

Does not the Minister recognise that the definition of an illegal entrant that has now been created by the courts was never envisaged by the House when it passed the 1971 Act? Does he realise that the removal of people who entered by deception is now being used as a tool to harass people who are perfectly innocent and where there is no reason to question their status in Britain?

I do not accept that interpretation of our policy. We are carrying out the law as it is laid down by the courts.

Is this body in receipt of public funds; and, if so, how much?

I shall write to my hon. Friend about that matter.

What progress is being made in the Government's review about the procedures used in so-called blanket raids by the police which involve the questioning and sometimes the arrest of members of particular ethnic groups? When this review is completed, will the Minister make a statement to the House, because there is still a great deal of unrest on the subject?

We are making good progress with the review, and we hope to make a statement to the House before long.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the 30,000 Vietnamese refugees still remaining in camps in Hong Kong, he will announce a new quota of such refugees to be received in the United Kingdom in the coming year.

We are directing our efforts to the fulfilment of our undertaking made to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and announced in July 1979, to accept 10,000 Vietnamese refugees. About 7,250 have so far arrived in this country from Hong Kong.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Britain and Hong Kong together have given a magnificent lead in this difficult problem of dealing with Vietnamese refugees—Hong Kong in accepting these great numbers despite its difficulties with regard to Chinese immigrants, and Britain in setting up the Geneva conference and undertaking to accept the quota of 10,000 refugees? Is he aware that other countries are now looking to this country to see what further quota it will announce before deciding what further quotas they will accept?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said about our contribution, and I endorse what he said about the contribution of Hong Kong. However, I am afraid that I am not in a position to add to my previous answer.

Does not the Minister accept that the Government now have a policy of paradox verging on hypocrisy if on the one hand they accept the Vietnamese boat people and on the other deport hundreds of Filipino domestic workers whose only fault is that they did not answer a question about their children that they were never asked?

I can see no comparison at all between the hon. Gentleman's statements.

Many of us who have had the opportunity to see and talk to these refugees in Hong Kong have the greatest sympathy for them and would wish every help to be extended to them. However, when considering this question, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that at present Britain does not have sufficient jobs for its own people or a sufficient number of homes? In making his decision about the kind of help that can be afforded to them, will he press areas of the Commonwealth where there are space and opportunities to take them instead?

Like my hon. Friend, I have recently had the opportunity of visiting Hong Kong and talking to the refugees. I very much endorse what she has said. She was also right to point out that housing and employment are constraints that we must recognise. I do not think that it is for us to urge other members of the Commonwealth to take these refugees.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parliamentary constituencies in England have not yet been examined by the parliamentary Boundary Commission in its current review of English parliamentary constituencies; when he expects those not yet examined to be examined; and if he will make a statement.

The Boundary Commission for England has yet to publish provisional recommendations in respect of 16 counties, which at present comprise 168 whole parliamentary constituencies and parts of 49 other constituencies. The Commission expects to have completed its task of reviewing all parliamentary constituencies in England in 1982.

As the process of inquiry is inevitably proving lengthy, does that answer indicate that the Commission will find it difficult to complete its work in 1982? Should not Parliament look again at the guidelines which the Commission must observe in relation to imminent population increases in certain constituencies?

I have no reason to doubt that the Commission will be able to finish its work in 1982. The answer that I gave is a reflection of the progress which the Commission is making in its work. As to my hon. Friend's second point, although the Commission is not statutorily required to have regard to imminent changes in electorates, it has said quite clearly in paragraph 17 of its document that such changes are a factor in its consideration of alternative schemes.

Will the Minister confirm that the Boundary Commission for England is a totally independent body, which is subject to neither controls by nor any form of pressure from the Government of the day, and that the only statutory constraint on the timetable of the present general review is that it must be completed not later than 21 April 1984?

That is an impeccable statement of the constitutional position, but I do not think that it is objectionable for hon. Members to ask how the Commission is getting on with the review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to review the present Vagrancy Act.

A review of the Vagrancy Acts was carried out by the working party on vagrancy and street offences which reported in 1976. General reform of the Acts must await a suitable legislative opportunity, but the Government expect to be able, early next Session, to announce their intentions with regard to the suspected person offence.

Is the Minister aware of the discussions by the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the issue that is commonly known as the "sus" law? Is he further aware that the present working of that law does more to destroy good community relations in this country than any other issue? As a matter of urgency, will he look at the present working of that law and give an assurance that it will be repealed as soon as possible?

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman, as has been done in the past, that the Government will announce their intentions with regard to change as early as possible, and that will be very soon. As to the racial impact, I welcome the Select Committee's finding that there has been no deliberate racial bias on the part of the Metropolitan Police in the use of "sus". However, I appreciate the force of the arguments that this offence in its present form inhibits the improvement of relations between the police and ethnic minorities.

In any review of the Vagrancy Act, will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that it will be undesirable to prevent the police from having the power of arrest where there is clear evidence of an intention to commit an offence?

I see the force of what my hon. Friend says, but the question remains "What is an offence and what is not an offence?" Until that is resolved, I do not think that one can deal with the problem as a whole.

Does not the Minister realise that 350 people a year are imprisoned on "sus" offences even though the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to mount a charge of theft or attempted theft? Is not that unduly harsh? Will he at least make such "sus" offences non-imprisonable?

It is because of the criticisms that have been made on both sides of the House of this offence that my right hon. Friend has indicated that at an early date he intends to announce the changes in the law that he proposes to put before the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence his Department has received regarding the working party he has set up for revision of the police complaints procedure.

I have received some observations from Members of Parliament and others, including recently those of Justice and the Merseyside county council, on the triennial review report of the Police Complaints Board. The working party is concerned only with how the board's recommendation for an independent element in the investigation of serious complaints might be implemented.

Indeed. Is the Home Secretary aware that he has drawn the terms of reference of the working party far too restrictively and that to have the investigation of complaints supervised by a lawyer, however distinguished, in no way adequately guarantees the independence of the complaints system? Will he recognise that the public will be satisfied about the independence of that system only if civilian police ombudsmen are appointed in each of the 43 police force areas of the country?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman or with almost any of the points that he has put forward. I believe that it was right to draw the working party's terms of reference tightly so that it considered the one major point about the independent element in important offences. That is what was done. As to the hon. Gentleman's other point of view, I do not think that it commands very much support anywhere except from himself.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether any complaints procedure exists whereby the police can make known their justified complaints against the continual harassment of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)?

I think that I have said enough and I shall go no further.

Is the Home Secretary aware that it would enhance public confidence in the police if there was a genuinely independent procedure for investigating complaints?

We believe that that is important, which is why we set up the working party on the particular point that was made in the police complaints board triennial review. I hope that the House will equally accept that it is right that there should be the most stringent investigations. I believe that the police as a whole conduct stringent investigations. I should also have thought that, from all the evidence, the police command a great deal of public support for their actions in this country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some police forces senior officers above the rank of chief inspector are spending more time—the majority of their time—investigating these complaints instead of investigating crime? Is he further aware that this absurd situation has come about because the complaints procedure comes automatically into force whether or not a complainant has asked for it? Should we not, as a matter of urgency, ensure that that procedure is complainant-activated?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no doubt that a great deal of important, valuable police time is spent investigating complaints which often turn out to be illusory and without foundation. It is a serious matter, and it is all the more important that we get the complaints procedure into proper balance. I hope that the House will keep it there. Sometimes I think it will, and sometimes I think it will not.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding his decision not to make provision for altering the anomaly regarding Irish voting rights in his forthcoming nationality Bill.

Since the publication of the White Paper on British nationality law on 30 July, by last week we had received letters referring to this decision from four hon. Members and about a dozen members of the public.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, if the opinions expressed to me by my constituents are anything to go by, the restrained number of letters that are received probably reflects the fact that constituents are so stertorous with rage that they cannot put pen to paper.

I often think that it is difficult to know why constituents have written but impossible to know why they have not written.

Is it now clear that the nationality Bill will be introduced in the next Session; and, if so, will the Government reconsider the proposal that children who are born here should not receive British nationality?

I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech.

What representations has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received about United Kingdom voting rights in the Irish Republic, where our citizens may vote for local authorities but not for the Dail Eireann?

I do not have details of the number of representations on that subject, but the Taioseach has announced that he has established a working group to examine the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that the husbands whose wives are British citizens automatically have full citizenship rights immediately they marry.

The Government's view, as set out in the White Paper on British nationality law, is that wives and husbands of British citizens should be treated equally in the way in which they may apply for citizenship; and that they should do so by applying for naturalisation, though after a three-year qualifying period instead of five years.

Is the Minister aware that there would be considerable disappointment and dismay if that equality was achieved by the downgrading of the rights that currently exist for wives? Will he give some indication as to the Government's thinking on the period of three years suggested in the White Paper and on whether time already spent in the United Kingdom will qualify towards that three-year period?

Our proposal that the two sexes should be treated equally is fair, and that is widely seen to be so. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with regard to the particular point that he raised.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to how many persons he has granted bail under the terms of the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980.

None, Sir.

Is that because of the right hon. Gentleman's understandable reluctance to use these arbitrary powers or because the courts have been more generous in granting bail as a result of the overcrowding in prisons; or is it a combination of the two?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State gave an undertaking to the House that we would use those powers only in exceptional circumstances. They have not arisen. The number of people in police cells remains the same, at about 3,500. We have had the advantage of the Army-type prisons at Frank-land and Rollestone, and therefore I have not had need to use these powers, and I hope that I shall not have need to use them because I hope that the dispute will soon be settled.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable on the efforts being undertaken to combat crime in North Yorkshire.

No, Sir, since arrangements already exist for my right hon. Friend to be kept fully informed of the problems facing the police and the measures being taken to deal with them, both in North Yorkshire and elsewhere.

Will the Minister tell the House under what authority Menwith Hill base near Harrogate is intercepting telephone calls under the control of the National Security Agency of the United States? If that is so, as I understand, there is no authority for it, which means that criminal activities are taking place. What will the Minister do about it?

That is another question. The people of North Yorkshire will be more concerned to hear that the number of serious offences recorded by the police in North Yorkshire fell by 6 per cent. between 1978 and 1979. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's particular question, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about these matters in reply to the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) on 17 July.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I reserve the right to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.