asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the increase in crimes of violence, especially upon bank officials, traders and those in charge of wages, what new action he proposes to take; if he will introduce legislation to restore corporal punishment for such crimes; and if he will make a statement.

As I told the hon. Member on 12th November, I am at present conducting a review of methods of combating crime. Within their present resources, the police do all they can to combat these crimes of violence. Recent studies by the Police Research and Planning Branch of the Home Office are directed towards reducing them. I have no intention of proposing legislation to reintroduce corporal punishment as a judicial penalty.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that the public differs from him on this issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that in view of the increasing number and of the brutality of these attacks by thugs on innocent citizens the people desire that sterner punishments should be introduced? Will not he give it a trial for five years to see what happens?

I do not think that the public at large disagree with me at all on the view which I have expressed. I think that the general feeling of the public is strongly against corporal punishment.

Whilst all of us deprecate the increase in crimes of violence, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he does not think that we should pursue more constructive approaches than those suggested? May I ask, especially, whether he will call for an early report of the inquiry of the impact of television on juvenile delinquency? Would this not assist us rather than the ridiculous methods of violence against violence?

I think the right course is for me to do everything that I can to strengthen the police, to reconsider the methods that they have at their disposal, both scientific means and manpower means, and to do everything I possibly can to put them in a better position to combat crime.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Commonwealth Immigrants Act; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing at present to add to what I said in the debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill on Tuesday.

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how many Commonwealth immigrants he thinks this country can comfortably absorb?

Those that are here and are admitted by voucher perform an extremely useful purpose. We could ill afford to do without the help which they give us in the running of our economy and many of our services. I have no reason to think that we have reached the limit of our absorptive capacity as far as they are concerned. I am not saying this with regard to those who avoid the control but about those who come here with vouchers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all the members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board have now been appointed; what are the terms and conditions of their appointments; and if he will make a statement on the operation of the scheme.

The Chairman and the five members who form the initial complement of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board have all been appointed. They give their services on a part-time basis, and, except for the Chairman—who holds a full-time judicial appointment—they receive fees of 20 guineas a day. I am informed that the scheme is operating smoothly so far.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. As this is the first Question that she has answered in the House, perhaps I may preface my supplementary question by offering to her—I am sure on behalf of the whole House—our congratulations on her appointment. With regard to her reply, may I ask three questions? Can she give any indication of the number of claims that have been submitted since the scheme came into operation? Is she satisfied that adequate publicity has been given about the establishment of this scheme? Can she say what steps the Board has taken to publicise it? Lastly—

Order. The supplementary questions are getting very long.

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but these are important matters turning on the new scheme.

I must ask the House to remember that supplementary questions have doubled in length during the last 10 years. I would ask hon. Members to frame their questions briefly.

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Between 1st August, 1964, when the scheme started operating, and 12th November, 81 applications were made for compensation. Applications are now being made at the rate of nine a week. I think this shows that the public at large realise that this scheme is in operation, but if there is need for any more publicity I will bring this matter to the attention of the Board.

Were the names of the members of the Board published? If not, is it intended to publish them?

I could not answer that question without notice, but I will endeavour to ensure that it is answered later.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the inadequacy of the grant for home safety propaganda; and if he will increase it.

The grant made by the Home Office towards the home safety work of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has been £5,000 in each of the financial years 1963–64 and 1964–65. MY right hon. and learned Friend is at present considering an application from the Society for this sum to be increased and he will inform the Society of his decision as soon as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that more accidents take place in the home than on the roads, yet a larger amount of money is spent on road safety propaganda than on home safety propaganda? In view of this, will my hon. Friend, while he is considering the application, provide a much more realistic sum of money so as to enable the prevention of accidents in the home to become a reality?

We are aware that a much larger sum is spent on road safety work, but we do not under-estimate the good work that is done by the Royal Society. Every care will he taken when my right hon. and learned Friend reaches his decision to see if an increase is justified.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the last Session I had the privilege of introducing a Bill on home safety which gave local authorities greater privileges for spending money on this? Can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication of what moneys have been spent?

Not without a Question, but I can tell the House that the hon. Gentleman is quite right. Local authorities could do more to help under the Home Safety Act, 1961.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many voting papers were invalidated in each of the constituencies during the recent General Election in consequence of their not having been officially stamped; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that such contingencies shall not arise in the future.

I regret that this information is not yet available, but I will in due course circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The use of the official mark is one of the matters we are considering in connection with a general review of electoral law.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is possible for the number of votes cast for a defeated candidate to be greater than those cast for the successful candidate if these spoiled votes could be counted? Although the mistake could be due to no fault of an elector, he would thus be disfranchised? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this fact into consideration when forming new rules with regard to how election voting papers are to be officially stamped and ensure that a person is not returned to the House of Commons when the majority of the electors are against him?

I will take all these matters into consideration.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this is absolutely true and that it can be of considerable importance, but does he realise also that on the whole returning officers and their staff do a remarkably fine job?

I certainly assent to the last part of that supplementary question and will take account of the content of the first part.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will improve the system for the compilation of the annual electoral register, in order that a smaller percentage of the population entitled to the vote should remain disenfranchised.

If the hon. Member has any suggestions for improving the present system I shall be grateful if he will let me have them. They will then be brought within the scope of our general review of the electoral law.

I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Is he aware that the present system is far from fool-proof, because it places a responsibility on the head of the household to fill in the registration form? Because a large number of places are now in multi-occupation, the head of the household is often ill-defined and, as a result, the person filling in the form, sometimes through indifference or through misunderstanding, or even through malice, leaves people's names off.

I will certainly bear those considerations in mind.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is some evidence that the accuracy of registers has declined notably in the last two or three years? When he is considering the reforms about which he has told us, will he take into consideration the possibility of a return to the half-yearly register, which might make some contribution, though it would not solve the problem?

I am considering, amongst the other proposals made, a return to the half-yearly register as my hon. Friend proposes.

How soon does the Home Secretary expect to complete his review of electoral law?

This is a very large and comprehensive subject. I would much rather not tie myself to a time, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I most certainly realise its importance and will press on with it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the ways in which members of the public could give further assistance to the police in the discharge of their duties.

Under common law it is the duty of members of the public to help a constable in preventing or dealing with a breach of the peace when called upon to do so. The support of the public is at all times essential to the police, and quite apart from possible breaches of the peace, the public can help the police in a very practical way by reporting anything suspicious and by taking precautions to safeguard their own property.

I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he bear in mind that members of the public would often like to help but are not quite sure how they can? Will he keep this subject continually under review? He will recall the great interest that the Lord Mayor of Bristol has been taking in the subject.

Would it not help the police and the cause of justice generally if newspapers glamourised criminals and lay-abouts rather less than they do?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to prevent those engaged in the hotel and tourist industry in seaside resorts who habitually take their holidays in October from being disfranchised when elections are held in that month.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the whole system of postal voting and bring in legislation to improve it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will help electors at future elections by taking steps to permit candidates to name their parties on the ballot paper;

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will seek to extend postal votes to those away on holiday at election time;

These matters are being considered as part of a general review of electoral law which we are undertaking.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, as the popularity of October for general elections grows, so also does indignation in Weymouth and other seaside resorts? Can he give any indication of when a Government Bill might be introduced? If that is difficult, would he consider giving aid and comfort to any private Member who is fortunate enough to be able to introduce a Bill on the subject referred to in my Question?

I am afraid that I can go no further than the assurance I just gave. But I will certainly press on with these matters. I wish I could give the hon. Member aid and comfort, but I feel I could not promise that particular aid and comfort.

Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that many electors, although they are certain which party they wish to support, sometimes forget the candidate's name? On 15th October in Anglesey three of the four candidates were Jones, Jones and Jones.

I can well understand that the coincidence of circumstances of that sort may give rise to considerable embarrassment and that, if possible, we should avoid it.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the great increase in the mobility of labour and the very large number of people who, for business, holiday or for one reason or another, have to be away? Does he not agree that it is essential that this matter is put right before the next election in order not to disfranchise a large proportion of the population?

I would readily agree that that is obviously a relevant consideration which must be carefully weighed.

When my right hon. and learned Friend refers to the review which, I gather, he and his Department are undertaking, is he also referring to the all-party talks on electoral reform which the Prime Minister indicated last week would be initiated shortly. Or is he only referring to the latter?

When I used the word "review" I was speaking of the Departmental review which I am conducting with my advisers. That would be preliminary to the further step advocated by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many debtors were committed to prison by county courts for commercial debts in 1953, and in 1963; what was the estimated cost last year of maintaining in prison such debtors; and whether, in view of the growth of professional debt purchasing companies and the increase in the granting of credit, he will, in the interests of taxpayers, review the workings of Section 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869, and Section 144(1) of the County Courts Act, 1959, which give powers of imprisonment for debt, with a view to amending them.

928 persons committed by county courts were received into prison in 1953 and 7,047 in 1963. On the basis that prison costs worked out at about £500 a year for each inmate, the estimated annual cost of maintaining the daily average of 200 persons so imprisoned in 1963 was about £100,000, but the saving, had they not been sent to prison, would of course have been much less. The matter raised in the last part of the Question is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Will my hon. Friend agree that these mounting figures are most dis- maying? Is she aware that there is a growing body of opinion which holds the view that it is wrong that the community should be subsidising the folly of those who may recklessly and of their own free will give credit? In particular, is she aware that there is a growing number of debt-collecting companies which are buying debts cheaply, trading on small commissions, and harassing people who are suffering from misfortune or their own fecklessness, and that people are beginning to believe that it is no part of the duty of the community to imprison people of this kind?

I have a good deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend's point of view, particularly in view of our overcrowded prisons at present, but I must emphasise that the reform of the civil law is a matter for the Lord Chancellor. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will keep in touch with the Lord Chancellor to see if anything can be done.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this may not be entirely a matter for the Lord Chancellor and may be a matter for the Administration as a whole? Does she not agree that imprisonment for debt in this part of the twentieth century is a massive anachronism that we ought to get rid of, and that the legal fiction whereby it is supposed that people are not in prison for debt but for some alleged contempt of court is itself contemptible and we ought to get rid of it?

Yes, we will certainly look into the legal aspects of this matter. As I have said, I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have sought to make a ban on smoking in cinemas a condition of a licence to exhibit films; and if he will introduce legislation to protect local authorities from legal proceedings consequent on the imposition of such a ban.

I know of about half a dozen authorities which have contemplated such a ban but have decided not to proceed with it; it is very doubtful whether it could properly be imposed as a condition of a cinematograph licence. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not at present convinced that such legislation would be the best way of dealing with the matter.

While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I draw his attention to the rights of non-smokers in these places, and may I ask whether he will view sympathetically any amending legislation which would assist both the local authorities and the cinemas, both of whom have shown interest in this matter? Will he also bear in mind that any assistance of this sort that the Government might give would effectively help the campaign against cigarette smoking?

The whole question of smoking and health is under consideration by the Government, but it is very difficult to single out the cinema from the public meeting. There are difficulties in this matter, but we shall, of course, bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the effects of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, now incorporated into the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, are now under review; and when a report will be available.

The working of the Act is being kept under review, and my right hon. and learned Friend may wish to recommend the amendment of some parts of it. But I cannot say at present when this is likely to be.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the workings of this Act in certain respects give rise to very considerable concern and that it is essential to deal with it at an early date? Would he recommend to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the levy on betting shops be raised from £100 to£1,000 per annum?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the development of some of the commercial gaming that is taking place. We are well aware of concern in many parts about these developments, and I can assure him that I will keep very close watch.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will empower the Carlisle State Management to extend their selling points.

My right hon. and learned Friend is considering representations on this subject from the local advisory committee.

In view of the fact that 15 trade customers outside the area obtained supplies from the scheme, is it not illogical and absurd to deny similar facilities to other applicants whose premises are within reasonable distance of the scheme?

This is a complicated subject. [Laughter.] If the House will bear with me, it is the nationalised industry to which I am sympathetic and it is the drink trade to which, of course, I am completely neutral, as long as I hold this office. I may say that all relevant factors are being borne in mind.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to speak unless he is called.

Before the hon. Gentleman does what his hon. Friend suggests, will he look into the finances of the State scheme? Is he aware that the taxpayer is getting a ridiculously low return on his capital? Will he do something to make sure that the taxpayer gets a square deal?

That is hardly a question for me. It is a question for one of my other right hon. Friends, and I will find out which one it is.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which Mr. di Blasi, an Italian national, was refused permission to land at Folkestone on 22nd September, although in possession of Ministry of Labour Permit No. MCZ 180 issued to him on 13th August, 1964.

Mr. di Blasi was refused leave to land because the Ministry of Labour permit which he held was found to be invalid. This was because the permit contained a condition that it was not valid for a worker with a dependent child and Mr. di Blasi has such a child. Due to a misunderstanding when the particulars supplied on the application form were being considered, it was not appreciated that Mr. di Blasi had a dependent child. This was an unfortunate misunderstanding. However, I am now glad to be able to announce that Mrs. di Blasi has since been granted unrestricted residence here following four continuous years in approved employment, and in the circumstances my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to agree that her husband should now be allowed to join her without obtaining another labour permit.

Thank you.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the Report of the Crathorne Committee; and when he intends to publish it.

Yes. The Report is now being printed and I hope that it will be ready for publication about the middle of next month.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been charged with infanticide from 1960 onwards; and if he will review the existing law with a view to taking steps to ensure that no woman killing her child when the balance of her mind is disturbed by the effects of the birth shall be guilty of a criminal offence.

Statistics of women charged with infanticide are not readily available, but the numbers of women committed for trial for this offence in England and Wales were 17 in 1960, 13 in 1961, 17 in 1962 and 13 in 1963. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans for legislation on this matter. However, if I my hon. Friend wishes to make any further representations, perhaps he will write to me and I will see that his points are fully considered.

In thanking my hon. Friend the Minister of State for her reply, may I draw to her attention that most of these women who are so charged are suffering from puerperal psychosis and that as the law now stands, in complete breach of our general principles, we are suggesting that people have criminal responsibility when, in fact, they are mentally ill? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind when I write to her that it is most unfortunate that these wretched women have to go through the magistrates' courts often twice and then have to wait months before they come to the assize court, and that this is quite mediaeval?

Yes, I will take into account all the points of view put forward by my hon. Friend. As I have said, if he wishes to make further representations, we will consider them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce regulations requiring animal dealers and pet shops who acquire animals for disposal to establishments practising vivisection to display a prominent notice in their establishments that they are engaged in this trade, and that all advertisements for animals intended for sale to laboratories shall carry a statement of this intention.

Legislation would be necessary to impose such requirements. My right hon. and learned Friend is awaiting the report of the Departmental Committee on Experiments on Animals, which is studying the question of the supply of experimental animals amongst other matters.

In thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that a declaration of intention concerning these animals should be made by pet shops which acquire them for vivisection purposes and that advertisements for animals—which are often misleading and imply that the animals are to be used as pets, whereas they are acquired by dealers entirely for vivisection—should have such a statement incorporated in them?

The hon. Member is well known in the House for his long and honourable interest in the welfare of animals, and I appreciate that he speaks with considerable authority. He will be pleased to know that the Committee is being invited to consider the suggestions which he has made and those which appeared in a recent article which disturbed a great many people.

Will my hon. Friend request his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to ask the Committee to speed up the report, because many of us, on all sides, are deeply disturbed about the implications of this subject?

I am aware that on all sides of the House there is anxiety about the well-being of these animals, and I will convey to my right hon. and learned Friend what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to examine the regulations governing vivisection, in view of the public disquiet at the continual yearly increase in the number of animals used.

My right hon. and learned Friend proposes to review the controls over experiments on living animals when he receives the report of the Departmental Committee.

Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that in the last five years the number of experiments has risen by 700,000 and in the last year by 150,000? May I ask him, in association with his hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), really to hurry the report and get something done about it? It must be hurried.

The Committee which is considering this matter has invited and received evidence from many of the interested bodies. It hopes to submit its report early next year and my right hon. and learned Friend will consider it at once.

Will the Joint Under-Secretary take into account that completely new legislation would not necessarily be essential at the beginning but that by very small amendments of the Pet Animals Act and the Animal Boarding Establishments Act some form of intermediate control could be introduced to improve the situation?

We will consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Boundary Commission to make a further review of Parliamentary constituencies.

Under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1958, the Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are required to submit their next reports on a general review of constituencies between November, 1964, and November, 1969. Within these limits it is for the Boundary Commissions to decide when to proceed. I have no authority to give instructions to the Commissions.

Is it not a fact that, due to the recent inactivity of the Commissions, many constituencies are now reaching abnormal size? Is it not essential that something should be done about this before the next General Election?

There have, of course, been substantial changes in constituencies, and I realise that there are disparities between them, but under the existing legislation this must be left to the Commissions.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that because extensive changes are now taking place inside some of our older industrial cities and more will take place in the next decade, if constituencies are redistributed on the facts of 1965 or 1966 these facts could themselves have changed within a couple of years and that it is the long-term changes that must be taken into account?

I am conscious of that and I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has made to the request for increases in London taxi fares.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such request. One of the associations concerned has, however, asked for a meeting to discuss the situation arising from the increase in fuel oil tax.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is likely to receive such a request in the near future, and may I ask him to consider it sympathetically? Is not this further evidence of the inflationary effect of the recent Budget?

The House will be aware that the present fare scales came into operation last February. It represented an increase of about 25 per cent. on the previous scale, which had remained unchanged for six years. The Motor Cab Owner-Drivers' Association has said that the trade should absorb the extra cost, which it estimates will amount to no more than 1d. per hiring. The usual calculation is 15½ m.p.g. and an average of 3 miles per journey. My noble Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has received a letter from one of the organisations, the London Motor Cab Proprietors' Association, seeking a deputation to discuss the matter and they will be received.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to make a statement on the transfer of the return of the remains of Sir Roger Casement and the documents that belong to him in Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now completed his consideration of the request of the Irish Government to have the body of Sir Roger Casement returned to Ireland; and whether he will make a statement before the end of this year.

I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

Can the Home Secretary give me the assurance that he will make this statement before next Easter, the anniversary of the Easter Rising?

I should be most astonished if I had not made it a considerable time before next Easter.

Does not my right hon. And learned Friend realise that it is quite inconsistent with British history, prestige and tradition to retain these remains for so long a period, and will he expedite their return to the proper sources?

I cannot add to what I have said. I assure the House that I realise the strength of feeling on this matter, and I will make my statement as soon as I can after going into the relevant circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average length of time a prisoner convicted of murder spends in prison;

Prisoners who were sentenced to death before the Homicide Act, 1957, and had their sentence commuted to life imprisonment because of mitigating circumstances have been detained for nine years in an average case. The period may well be longer for persons sentenced under the Act of 1957 to life imprisonment for non-capital murder in cases where there are no mitigating circumstances, but it is too early to give any estimate. Only three of the 202 prisoners convicted of non-capital murder by the end of 1963 have been released from custody, representing a proportion of 1·5 per cent.

Would the Minister of State not agree, in view of the fact that we are likely to have legislation dealing with the abolition of capital punishment in the very near future, that there will be grave disquiet at the fact that on the average prisoners who have committed murder spend only nine years in prison whereas those convicted of far less serious offences very often spend much longer terms there? Will the Home Secretary, when such legislation is before the House, reconsider the practice in this case, in order that we may have a fair opportunity of a better reception for any capital punishment abolition Bill?

I am sure all these matters will be discussed when and if a Bill is before the House, but I want to emphasise that in deciding the period to be served we take into account all the circumstances of the offence, the age and character of the offender and his development in detention, and the necessity to protect the public from any prisoner who might be a danger if released, and we consider among other things what punishment will be sufficient to deter others. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all these things are taken into account, and very seriously indeed.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the average period of nine years which she has quoted is rather an artificial figure, in that it compounds a number of cases where people are released very early on the grounds of overwhelming mitigating circumstances, whereas there are other bad cases who remain in prison for as long as 20 years?

Yes, that is so. The figures of prisoners released between 1959 and 1963 show that the period in prison varies from four to 14 years among those released in those four years.

Will the hon. Lady not agree, first of all, that it is very important for the public to have fairly detailed information on this matter during the discussions which we are shortly to have, and secondly, that this may well be the field in which average figures may well prove misleading and that it is important not to reach conclusions without full knowledge of the exact statistics?

I agree that average figures may be misleading. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the relevant facts will be put to the House in the debates we shall have in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present increase in the number of those detained in remand homes and approved schools; and how many instances of corporal punishment have been recorded in those institutions in the last 12 months compared with 1962 and 1952.

The average daily population of all approved schools and remand homes in England and Wales in 1952, 1962 and the 12 months from 1st July, 1963, was 10,325, 9,597 and 9,746, respectively. The numbers of instances of corporal punishment in these establishments during those periods were 3,820, 4,778 and 4,902.

Arising out of that reply, may I ask the hon. Lady whether she will look at this matter in view particularly of the steady increase in the number of cases of corporal punishment inflicted on these inmates, for although one knows that many of these inmates can be very provocative, nevertheless the incidence of corporal punishment regarding these young people seems to be rather an anachronism in these days?

No.

I share my hon. Friend's concern that these figures are going up, but I would like to say that the question of corporal punishment in approved schools and remand homes is one of the matters concerning the future of these institutions which my right hon. and learned Friend will be considering in the next few months.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to include citizens of the Republic of Ireland in the operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962.

I have no present proposals to make any change in this respect.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollect that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, as official spokesman for the Labour Party, made the exclusion of Southern Ireland from the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill the main issue of principle upon which the opposition of the party opposite to the Bill was based? Am I to understand that there may be a change in the attitude of the Government on this question?

Quite naturally, I carefully studied all the speeches which have been delivered in the course of the many debates on this difficult and emotive subject. All I can say is that, having held this office for one month, and having considered the various pros and cons, I am not in a position to say that I have at present any proposals in regard to the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman's Question relates.

asked the Prime Minister what were the factors which led him to designate a junior Ministerial post for the purpose of concentrating on London housing.

I considered it right, in view of the character and intensity of London's housing problems, and the number of authorities concerned, that one of the two Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should, along with his other duties, take special responsibility for them.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that Glasgow's massive housing shortage and tremendous redevelopment plan together constitute a problem which is a national rather than a local one, and a far greater one than London's? Will he consider having a Junior Minister in the Scottish Office to concentrate on Glasgow's problem?

I very much agree about the gravity of Glasgow's housing problem, and from what I saw of it on a visit to Scotland recently, Edinburgh's housing problem, too, in many respects, and no one can be, as I am, a Merseyside Member without knowing the gravity of Liverpool's housing problem; but it is not practically possible to deal with all of them on this basis. As I did stress in my reply, in the case of London we have dual responsibility, in that there is more than one kind of local authority which is involved.

asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on banning night flights into London (Heathrow) Airport.

asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the restriction of aircraft noise and on assistance for the sound proofing of houses near airports.

asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the lowering of permitted noise levels for aircraft operating from London Airport.

It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to keep the noise of aircraft on the ground and in the air over the United Kingdom to the minimum consistent with the legitimate requirements of the aircraft operators. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Aviation, has under consideration several proposals for reducing the disturbance caused to people living near London (Heathrow) Airport, including those mentioned in the Questions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman now admitting that he made a pledge in a speech at Isleworth on 1st October saying that he intended to ban night jet flights? If he is admitting this, surely he should have done the inquiry before making the pledge and not afterwards?

I know perfectly well what I said on that occasion. I have had the opportunity of checking what was actually said. While I did on that occasion criticise the previous Government for doing nothing about the Wilson Report, I said what we would intend to do and the things that needed to be looked at, and I concluded my phrases by saying,

"I do not want to raise hopes to the point"—

'and am not going to suggest that planes will be noiseless or silent, or will not fly at all; but within the limits of what can be done I think we have a right, and you have a right, to be sat satisfied that everything is being done."

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, as at Plymouth and Chatham he promised a larger Navy, so in that speech at Isleworth on that occasion he gave a categorical assurance that night flights would be banned from London Airport and that homes and other buildings would be made soundproof? Does he not regard that as constituting an election pledge requiring to be honoured? Or was this a question of another piece of specious electioneering?

I do not want to take issue with my distinguished biographer. But like, I think, most hon. and right hon. Gentleman who spoke in the last election campaign, I naturally tried, in the places I visited, to talk on subjects in which they were interested. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman opposite talked on agriculture in agricultural districts—not in the middle of Glasgow, quite understandably. I did feel it right to deal with this problem, particularly as so little had been done about it, but I certainly did not give the categorical pledge the hon. Member suggests I gave.

Does the Prime Minister remember that at this meeting at Smallberry Green School, when he answered questions on this subject, he spoke from a note and promised a lowering of the permitted noise levels? Does not he agree that that was calculated to influence the electors of west Middlesex in his favour, but in point of fact all the usual Conservative west Middlesex Members were returned? Would not he agree that he promised that, and will he say how he is going to bring about this decrease in permitted noise?

I did not see the hon. Gentleman at the meeting, but he has got it wrong. I did not answer questions. On looking at the transcript, I see that I said:

"I am sorry, you will have a chance of asking questions at the end of the meeting to some of my colleagues when I go on to my next engagement …"

Has my right hon. Friend observed the inconsistency of hon. Gentlemen opposite who want a quieter London Airport and at the same time are urging him to proceed with the Concord, which will make present aircraft sound like a whispering gallery?

asked the Prime Minister by what authority Her Majesty's Government have decided to return the Mandalay Regalia to Burma.

Since her independence in 1948, Burma has on several occasions requested the return of the Burmese Regalia in the Victoria and Albert Museum, popularly known as the Mandalay Regalia.

Would it not have been courteous to have informed the House rather than issue a Press release a week ago? While recognising the need for good relations between this country and Burma and hoping that our trade will recover from its present low level and that this regalia will not go the way of the Abyssinian Crown—similarly returned—may I ask what his attitude would be to a request from, say, Ghana to return the golden ornaments of the Asantehene, or a request from the U.A.R. to return the Rosetta Stone?

Those questions are a little hypothetical and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put them down if he wants an answer to them. In view of his own well-known desire for improved relations with both the Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries, I am a little surprised at his attitude here. The regalia in question was taken by military force from Burma in 1890, and it was thought right and proper for the improvement of Anglo-Burmese relations that it should be returned.

asked the Prime Minister why he recommended the appointment of a Minister of Disarmament.

The appointment of the Minister of State in the Foreign Office expressly to deal with disarmament is the practical expression of the importance we attach to the subject and of our recognition of a need for a new initiative by this country.

Will the Prime Minister say how he reconciles this appointment with the statement that he made at Chatham and Devonport regarding a bigger conventional Navy? Or was he merely electioneering in Service towns?

What I said at Chatham and Devonport is exactly what I have said in this House in successive defence and foreign affairs debates. I hope that in approaching this question the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be expressing disagreement with the views forcibly put forward from all parts of the House in the late Parliament, and I am sure in this one, in favour of the need for an early comprehensive multilateral nuclear disarmament agreement?

Can the Prime Minister say why this Minister of State is in the Foreign Office rather than in the Ministry of Defence, and what his relationship will be with the Ministry of Defence?

This was a problem which took some deciding. He is in the Foreign Office because all our international negotiations, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite know from experience, take place either under Foreign Office auspices directly with other countries, or under the ægis of the United Nations under the Geneva Committee of 18, and therefore it was thought appropriate that his work should be properly fitted in with any other initiatives the Foreign Office might be taking. I agree about the importance of my right hon. Friend having the very closest link with the Ministry of Defence. This is being done. He is having the fullest consultation with my right hon. Friend, and of course the defence staff, in preparation for any work that he undertakes, and it has been announced that he will have advising him the scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Sir Solly Zuckerman, who was very fully used for this purpose by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, even if some of them do not seem to realise it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who will answer for this Minister in the House of Commons? Secondly, how soon can we expect a comprehensive statement on Socialist policy for disarmament, as opposed to the original ideas of the Prime Minister himself?

Answers in this House will be the responsibility of Foreign Office Ministers. As regards Socialist policy for disarmament, a very full and detailed list of proposals was sent to the right hon. Gentleman as Foreign Secretary, I think on 10th January last, but we never had any reactions to them, or action taken on them.

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that a full statement was made by me at Geneva when I was Foreign Secretary on the positive proposals for disarmament put forward by the late Government. We studied with interest the proposals made by the party opposite when it was in Opposition. What we want now is to hear what their constructive proposals are, and the sooner the better.

The comparison of the statement which we sent in and the rather miserable package which emerged in the Geneva statement was, I think, a very notable contrast. We intend to start from the statement which was sent to him, to improve on it, and to take any opportunities which present themselves to us to produce new initiatives in this field.

What the Prime Minister calls a miserable package was a programme of disarmament agreed with the United States and put forward jointly at Geneva. I hope he will not describe it in that way when he has studied the disarmament situation. I am just renewing my request for a foreign affairs debate, in which, no doubt, this issue will feature, between now and Christmas.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to relate this to the general foreign affairs situation, and indeed to the general defence situation. As he knows, we welcome the suggestion that after our return from Washington and before Christmas there should be a debate to go into these questions.