asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the oxygen breathing apparatus issued to firemen who died at the Neatishead, Norfolk, radar station fire in February failed to protect them.

My right hon. Friend and I deeply regret this tragedy and would like to express our sympathy with the relatives of the three firemen who died. However, I understand that the inquest into their deaths stands adjourned until today and it would therefore not he proper for me to comment on the circumstances at this stage.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for her reply, may I ask whether, in view of the widespread concern in Norfolk, she will give sympathetic consideration to the holding of a public inquiry?

Yes, we will certainly keep in mind the possibility of holding a public inquiry, but I am not sure my hon. Friend appreciates I am not in a position today to make any statement about it.

Will the right hon. Lady agree that neither the Norfolk Fire Service nor, for that matter, any other can afford to lose men of the calibre and great experience of the inspector from Holt and his two colleagues who lost their lives in such tragic circumstances?

Yes, I fully agree with those sentiments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the recommendations of the Littlewood Report are to be implemented.

Legislation will be needed to implement most of the recommendations and I cannot at present say when this will be possible. A scheme for strengthening the Inspectorate is being examined. Proposals for a new Advisory Committee will shortly be put to interested bodies.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter which has caused very considerable public concern? There is a Report, and surely this House is entitled to expect that this matter will be debated somewhere in the comparatively near future?

The hon. Member, I thought, was asking me not when the recommendations would be debated but when they would be implemented.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reorganise the financing of police expenditure.

None, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this again with his right hon. Friends, because we have heard a great deal about relieving the rate burden, and the nexus between local authorities and the police as regards control is a complete sham, and this is a really substantial area of economy for the rates which might be borne where it should properly be borne—by the taxpayers and not the ratepayers?

I am not convinced that this is harmful to police efficiency at the present time, to which I attach the greatest possible importance. I will, of course, look at this matter as I am constantly looking at all matters of police administration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to hear the results of the inquiry by the World Council of Churches into the possibility of a fixed Easter; and if he will make a statement.

I cannot yet give a date. The inquiry being conducted by the World Council of Churches is far reaching and will take some considerable time to complete.

Could not the Government give an elbow a bit of a nudge in order to get this matter settled once arid for all?

Yes, we will do what we can because, of course, we recognise the advantages of a fixed Easter, but I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that account has to be taken of various religious views.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions have been given to the police in the Metropolitan Police force about alleged cases of intimidation under Section 30 of the Rent Act, 1965.

I am informed by the Commissioner that in such cases officers are instructed to deal with any breach of the peace or other violence and to make it clear that if an offence under Section 30 of the Rent Act, 1965, is committed criminal proceedings may follow. Those concerned are also told that the police will send an immediate report to the local housing authority to enable it to consider whether there is a case for further investigation, with a view to prosecution.

Is the Secretary of State aware that some cases of alleged intimidation have taken place in the middle of the night, and that it is absolutely useless, from the point of view of a person being victimised, for the police to say that they are going to send a report to the local authority in the morning? Will he issue further instructions to them that they are to take action to arrest persons on the spot if intimidation is taking place?

The police certainly do prevent intimidation from taking place, but it is extremely difficult for the police in confused circumstances, whether they be in the middle of the night or at any other time, to interpret the intricacies of the Rent Act legislation. This is a difficulty, but I have had, and will continue to have, discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing about this matter.

Is the Secretary of State aware, although I agree that the police are making efforts, that there are still certain loopholes, and may I ask the Secretary of State to see with the other Minister that all these loopholes are once and for all firmly closed?

I will certainly study any evidence on this point my hon. Friend would like to put to me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Street Offences Act, 1959, to do away with the special laws against common prostitutes which would include repealing Section 1(1) of the Act and replacing it by a clause applicable to all citizens, whether men or women, who cause annoyance or nuisance by loitering or soliciting in the streets or public places.

My right hon. Friend has no proposals for legislation on this subject.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at this again, in view of the decision on appeal in the Crook v. Edmondson case, where it was agreed, with one judge dissenting, that Edmondson had been persistently soliciting women in the street and could not be caught under Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956?

The Act to which the hon. Lady refers was concerned particularly with prostitution in the streets. There are a number of Measures under which men who cause a nuisance in the streets can be dealt with, depending very much on their behaviour, such as the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, and certain local Acts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the extent of casualties from domestic oil burners during the six years prior to the Oil Burners (Standards) Act, 1960, and the

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to codify sentences imposed by the courts in cases of sacrilege and arson against places of worship.

The maximum penalty for sacrilege or for setting fire to a place of worship is imprisonment for life. It must remain for the courts to decide what penalty should be imposed in any particular case.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a very strange contrast between the maximum sentence which can be imposed and recent sentences of two or three days which were imposed on members of a Fascist organi-

As the Answer to the first part of the Question is long I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. An amendment to the existing Regulations, shortly to be laid before the House, will bring the sale of all oil-heaters, regardless of their date of manufacture, within the scope of the Regulations. My right hon. Friend has no power to control the use of oil-heaters by householders in their own homes.

May I congratulate the hon. Lady upon a magnificent and constructive Answer to my Question?

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise a specific instance of wrong done by a court, he must do it by a Motion on the Order Paper.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that he will make quite sure that prosecuting authorities will pursue these cases with the utmost vigilance?

Certainly I will give that assurance. I think that every decent person viewed those particular offences with horror. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State received a deputation from the Board of Deputies of British Jews to discuss recent cases, and members of that deputation expressed appreciation of the part which was played by the police in recent cases of this type.

While the Minister will no doubt understand that many of us will not seek to criticise a judge of the High Court for imposing any kind of sentence within his discretion, is not the Minister a little horrified at what happened?

It would be very dangerous for us to express any opinion on particular sentences passed by particular judges. It would be wrong for any minimum sentence to be imposed in these cases, because it must be for the judge to determine the circumstances of a particular case and deal with the offender.

Is the Minister aware that these offences are increasing, not only in synagogues but in many churches which are open for prayer all day? Will he send a circular to police forces drawing attention to the need to enforce this part of the existing law?

I will look at that matter.

Would particular notice be taken of any evidence revealed in cases that have come before the courts that would justify the Director of Public prosecutions taking proceedings against people who are named and who are alleged to be inciting others to go and do these terrible jobs?

That raises a slightly different point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of the fact that many travelling showmen and their families are deprived of a vote at elections, if he will seek to allow them to register at their permanent home, as is done for men and women serving in Her Majesty's Services.

No, Sir. The existing law regarding registration appears to provide adequately for this type of case. The implementation of a recommendation on absent voting facilities made recently by the Conference on Electoral Law should in due course help to remove any diffi- culties that the wives of showmen may have experienced.

While thanking the right hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask her to consider circulating that information to the electoral officers, so that people may have the opportunity of knowing that they can have the facility in the future, because at present they have no understanding of it?

I have many friends among the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain. I have made inquiries, and I find that no difficulties have been brought to the notice of the General Council of the Showmen's Guild. If the hon. Lady has evidence of any difficulty, I would be pleased if she would let me know.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the London Boroughs Committee about the timing of the borough elections in Greater London; and what reply he has made to them.

The Committee has recently informed me that 27 of the 32 London borough councils favour amending the London Government Act, 1963, to provide for elections to the Greater London Council and to the London Borough Councils to be held in different years; and that 20 of the councils wish the change to be effected by postponement of the London borough elections from 1967 to 1968. The Committee has been informed that its representations are being considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestions of the London Boroughs Committee will be widely welcomed by electors in Greater London who found it confusing to have two sets of elections so close together, as we had in the first instance; that great administrative difficulty is created in the local authorities concerned; and that changes in the boroughs of Greater London which are at present being considered will not be completed in time for the 1967 borough elections?

I will certainly bear those points in mind, and I will consider sympathetically the representations that I have received. However, to make the change requires legislation, which confronts us with considerable difficulties from the point of view of time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce legislation to implement the proposals of the Tucker Report on the Reporting of Committal Proceedings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the expressed view of the Tucker Report relating to proceedings before examining justices was that reporting before the trial has ended of nationally sensational cases was undesirable and impaired public confidence in the administration of justice, and of the concern that reporting of such proceedings continues, and as the report was accepted by Her Majesty's Government in January, 1965, when legislation to implement the report will be introduced.

I wish to give further consideration to the whole question of committal proceedings before introducing legislation on the reporting of them.

But in view of the decision of the magistrate in the Moors trial—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot now refer to any specific case, particularly one which is sub judice.

In view of recent decisions by magistrates not to exercise their discretion about the hearing of committal proceedings in camera, is it not extremely urgent that mandatory restrictions should now be imposed?

Yes, it is important to proceed on the matter with greater urgency than has been shown in the eight years which have gone by since the Tucker Report was published. But, equally, if it were considered that some change in the nature of committal proceedings were desirable—and the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and Mr. Edward Gardner recently published a pamphlet on it which I have studied with interest—it would be important to determine the nature of committal proceedings before determining how they should be reported.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor gave me a specific undertaking in the House in December, 1965, that the Tucker Report was intended to be implemented? Why has it now apparently been decided otherwise? Is it not desirable that there should be no yielding to pressure by the Press, who would dislike the ending of committal proceedings, particularly at a time when the public is concerned that the nauseating details of trials should not be repeated twice?

It is not a question of yielding to pressure. It is a question of whether it might be desirable to make a more far-reaching change.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now take steps to reorganise police forces on a national basis.

No, Sir. But I intend to make a statement shortly outlining my proposals for the further amalgamation of police areas in the interests of greater efficiency.

While thanking the Home Secretary for that reply, in part, would he not agree that because of the appalling increase in crime, much of it committed by criminals organised on a national basis, the time is now ripe for the police forces to be organised on a national basis so that they can cope with these crimes adequately?

I am certainly aware that, because of the growth in organised crime, it is vitally important to organise police forces in the most efficient way possible to combat that crime. But one does not do that by grasping at a phrase, whether it be a national police force or something else, and I want to study the matter carefully.

Rather than considering ad hoc amalgamations of police forces, will my right hon. Friend give detailed consideration to the potential advantages in present-day conditions of multi-purpose regional authorities whose functions would include the provision and control of police forces?

It is a matter of great concern to me and to anyone responsible for the police to see what comes out of the Royal Commission on Local Government, but I do not want to have a standstill on police amalgamations during the two years or so for which that Commission must sit, and I propose to press ahead vigorously during this interim period.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to make his statement, and will he take into account the fact that many of us on this side of the House, and perhaps on the other side, too, attach great importance to a forward move in this direction?

I hope to make a statement within a matter of two or three weeks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will review the new arrangements for passport control at London Airport, which involve delays for holders of British passports returning to this country due to British and non-British subjects being grouped together.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now stop the experimental reorganisation of immigration facilities at London Airport.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the new immigration arrangements at London Airport are causing delays of over an hour, are making the work of the Customs officers difficult, and will damage the tourist trade; and if he will take steps to remedy this situation.

The experiment at London Airport will finish as planned at midnight tonight when the previous immigration control arrangements will be resumed. A detailed evaluation of the results will then take place, with a view to deciding whether a modified form of the experiment could achieve non-segregation without causing delays.

In view of the fact that the new experiment which, mercifully, terminates tonight has proved a complete failure by causing much annoyance and delay to British subjects returning to this country, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that nothing like the same kind of experiment will be reintroduced?

I do not think that an experiment along precisely these lines is likely to work satisfactorily. My hon. Friend must bear in mind, as I am sure he would wish to, that over the years there have been a good number of complaints about the practise of segregating aliens and British subjects at London Airport, and I was anxious to try the experiment to see whether we could escape from this. The experiment has been tried, but has led to difficulties, though I visited the airport twice and did not find long delays on either of those occasions. We will not cause undue delays, but if it is possible to do away with segregation, I am sure that this will in itself be a good thing.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the number of immigration officers who speak a foreign language is strictly limited, and that the new arrangements have made it rather more difficult to deploy these multilingual immigation officers effectively?

I did not gather that the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was the main cause of the difficulties.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, to the average foreigner, immigration coming under the Home Office and Customs coming under the Treasury is not understandable, and that when they have been held up for ages after immigration they arrive absolutely furious at Customs, and it is there that the greatest amount of anger amongst Customs officials is to be found?

With respect, that seems to be a different question. I have already said that I would not propose to continue with an experiment which has led to undue delay, but I think it was right to try such an experiment, and I hope that we can reach a solution in the near future.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he now has for amending the Government's policy on Commonwealth immigration laid down in the White Paper, Command Paper No. 2739.

My right hon. Friend is watching the situation closely but he has no major changes of policy in immediate contemplation.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not it is intended to revise the immigration quotas in the course of the coming Session, and can he also say whether it is intended to implement the Government's pledges on special help for those areas where there has been a particularly large influx of immigrants?

The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question is "Yes". We will be making a statement quite shortly. In reply to the first part of it, it is too soon yet to evaluate the decisions taken last August in relation to the reduction in the number of vouchers. It is a question of preserving a delicate balance, and this is constantly under review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the net increase in Commonwealth immigration in the first three months of this year; and what proportion of such increase was due to immigration from Asia, Africa and the West Indies.

During the first three months of this year, the net inward balance of immigration from Commonwealth territories was 9,721; of these 5,795—or approximately 60 per cent.—were from Commonwealth territories other than Canada, Australia, New Zealand and those in the Mediterranean.

While this appears to show a decreased rate of intake over the previous year, would the Under-Secretary agree that, to the extent that it is an increase overall, it does slightly make more difficult his problem of integration, and will he keep a careful watch on the numbers?

In terms of numbers, it is too soon to say how effective the measures which were announced last year to deal with evasion are working out. Next week I hope to publish the figures relating to the total flow in 1965. We will then have a clearer idea of the position and will be able to ascertain how we shall preserve this balance in terms of dealing with the situation at home, of promoting integration, of satisfying our manpower needs and of being fair and just all round.

Is the Home Secretary aware that there is considerable feeling in the country that the present quota of immigrants is far too small and restrictive?

I am aware of the view expressed in certain quarters, but I am not sure that it reflects the majority view of the nation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to prevent hooligans ruining the trade of seaside resorts at Bank Holidays and other holiday periods; what has been achieved by the Malicious Damage Act, 1964; and how many new detention centres under that Act have been opened.

The maintenance of public order is the responsibility of the chief officer of police of the area.

In 1965, 155 people convicted of the summary offence of malicious damage were each fined more than £20, which before the Malicious Damage Act, 1964, was the maximum fine for this offence

There are in all 18 detention centres; of these three have been brought into use since early 1964.

I am sure that the right hon. Lady will remember that debate, in which she took part. Many times during the debate we discussed the Penal Reform Commission. We were not going to be able to do anything until it reported. Can the right hon. Lady say whether any steps are to be taken with regard to future possibilities for dealing with the hooligan business, which we were told must not be gone into until we had a report from the Royal Commission?

I do not remember the debate precisely in those terms, but we are doing everything that we can. I think that the police have done a very good job of work at the seaside resorts during the last year or so in dealing with this problem. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Malicious Damage Act did not set up detention centres, but reference was made during the discussions on that Act to the fact that we wanted more of them. Three have been opened since the beginning of 1964, and we are pressing ahead with more because we know that there is such a shortage.

Whilst congratulating the right hon. Lady on the fact that we have succeeded in opening three more detention centres, may I ask whether she would agree that detention centres are probably the most successful part of our penal institutions, and that there is still a need for more of them, particularly in the North-West?

I realise that magistrates would like to have more detention centres, because they find difficulty in sending to such centres all the young people whom they would wish to send there, and we are pressing ahead with this. This is not something which can be done within a short space of time. The centres have to be planned carefully, and they have to be built, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that we are doing everything that we can to help.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the requirement that marriages are normally only to be solemnised in a building within the registry office district in which one of the parties has resided or, in the case of marriage by banns, in a church in the parish of which one of the parties resides, ca uses public inconvenience; whether he is aware that there is widespread evasion of these requirements; and whether, to avoid many marriages being celebrated consequent upon deceptions relating to residence requirements, he will introduce legislation to enable people to marry where they wish.

My right hon. Friend is aware that the residence requirements for marriage have been criticised on these grounds, and while he cannot make proposals for amending legislation at present, the Registrar-General will report on the matter as a result of the review of the law on the formalities connected with marriage which he has undertaken.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the existing laws were framed for an era when people were born, lived, and died, in the same parish? In view of the widespread distress among registrars throughout the country, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that this inquiry to which she referred will be expedited so that these deceptions which are so widespread can cease?

I cannot give an assurance today as to when the report will be received, but we know that there is a difficulty here, and we should like to have the Registrar-General's report before coming to any decision.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to speed up recruiting for the police force.

Recruitment over the country as a whole has substantially improved in the last year. There are serious shortages in certain undermanned areas, and particular attention is being paid to them in the national police recruitment campaign, which is being continued this year at a cost of £350,000. Special allowances have been introduced into the Metropolitan and City of London forces and are being negotiated for other forces with the greatest deficiencies.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this alarming increase in very daring crime in this country can be dealt with only by an adequate police force, and is he aware that in the Forces in Western Germany there are people who would gladly come home to help him?

I do not know about my hon. Friend's last point, but I am certainly aware of his first one, and we are doing what we can to deal with the deficiencies in the forces where the deficiencies are greatest, and I take some comfort from the fact that the position improved considerably during 1965.

When the right hon. Gentleman is making special allowances for the difficult areas like London, will he beware that he does not thereby suck in from places like Scotland police which we very much need there?

I am aware of that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would make me aware were I to begin to forget the point, but we must pay attention to the fact that the areas of greatest deficiency are the areas of greatest crime, and we therefore must concentrate on improving recruiting and stopping wastage in those areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent it is Government policy that such cases as the Miles school cutlery case will in future be heard before family councils instead of before juvenile courts; and whether the Press are to be excluded and no reports upon such cases made public.

The proposals relating to family councils in the White Paper "The Child, the Family and the Young Offender" were published for the purposes of discussion and we are at present considering the many valuable comments received since the White Paper was published.

Under the White Paper proposals a child could not be committed to the care of a local authority without the parents' agreement, except by a family court composed of magistrates from which the Press would not be excluded.

Would the hon. Lady agree that, but for the Press reports, probably neither she nor the Home Secretary—nor, for that matter, anyone else—would have been aware of the Miles case and the child would, therefore, have remained for much longer in the children's home? As Press reports are in many cases the only safeguard in matters of this kind, would she give a categoric undertaking that the Press will be allowed to attend these family councils just as they are able to attend children's courts?

I am aware of the interest which the hon. Gentleman took in this case and the work he did. As I understand it, in this case the matter got into the Press not through the Press being in the court but because the mother went to the Press and made a statement. Be that as it may, there is another point about this case. It is that if under the White Paper as it now stands such a case occurred, I would hope that it would be satisfactorily dealt with by the social workers and in an informal way, without the necessity of taking the child to court.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish draft regulations under the Consumer Protection Act, 1961, dealing with children's toys; when he expects these regulations to become mandatory; and of how many children's deaths he is aware due to toys not complying with British Standard 3443 caused by toys made in the United Kingdom, and imported toys, respectively.

Draft Regulations dealing with the safety of children's toys will shortly be circulated to all interested bodies for comment. The Regulations will be made as soon as possible after comments have been received and considered. I am not aware of any children's deaths caused by toys not complying with British Standard 3443.

Will the right hon. Lady assure us that, because there is a risk of death to children as a result of toys not complying with the Standard, these conversations will proceed with the utmost dispatch?

Yes. I can give that assurance. There has been this delay because the Government are including not only the three requirements of the Molony Committee but also poisonous substances in paint, which we thought should be included. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, this has presented great technical difficulties, which have now been overcome.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation for the reform of abortion law in this Session.

I am afraid that I cannot hold out hope of Government legislation on this subject.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will be received with disappointment by the majority of people in this country who want to see this unfair and unenforceable law—a law which is being broken several hundred times each week—reformed? Will he therefore agree to look again very seriously and earnestly at this problem? I know that he is with us on this issue. Is he aware that we are very anxious that the necessary legislation should be introduced?

I do not dissent from some of my hon. Friend's remarks about the state of the law, but I think that this is eminently a subject for private Members' action.

There is no private Members' time now.

There is time.

The Government have pinched the lot.

We have not pinched the lot. There will be some time, and I hope very much that an hon. Gentleman who secures a favourable place in the Ballot will take the initiative in this matter.

Since the Home Secretary is sympathetic to the idea of reforming the law on abortion, will he have conversations with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to see if some time could be given in the mornings for a Private Member's Bill on this subject?

The position about private Member's time was discussed last night.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing support in the House as well as in the country for the reform of this law? Will he give an assurance that if, in the event of a private Member being successful in the Ballot and suggesting a Measure of this kind, he goes to the Home Department for advice and facilities for the drafting of such a Bill, he will receive such assistance?

Without question, if an hon. Member who secured a place in the Ballot wished advice and assistance on this matter, such drafting assistance would be available.

Will not the Home Secretary in any circumstances at all say why he will not take the initiative in this matter and place a Measure before Parliament on this issue? Would he not agree that there is widespread alarm in the medical profession about the confusion of the law? While reform is necessary, will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time consider the clarification of the present law whereby perhaps nothing more than codification might be needed? Why will he not deal with the matter?

The hon. Gentleman has suggested dealing with the matter in a great number of ways in one question. I have already given the reasons why I think this is an appropriate subject for private Members' action.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent the sale of abortifacient drugs.

It would not be practicable to prohibit the sale of many of the stubstances taken in the belief that they will terminate pregnancy since they are in common use for other purposes. I am, however, keeping this matter under review and will be ready to consider the introduction of new restrictions on any particular drug shown to be harmful.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of the Birmingham Report by the Abortion Law Reform Association of that area, 14,000 pharmacists in this country have been advised not to sell these drugs, which are expensive, ineffective for the purpose and positively dangerous? Does he not think that their manufacture should be banned and does he not agree that the only way to solve this problem is to reform the law, as has been suggested; that this is the only way to get rid of the manufacture and sale of these dangerous drugs?

Without commenting further on my hon. Friend's reversion to her previous Question, I will, on the other point she raised, discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. As I indicated in my Answer, I am not at all opposed to the banning of a particular drug where it is shown to be a specific cause of danger and difficulty.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the future use of Dartmoor Prison; and if he will make a statement.

The prison must continue in use for the present, but my right hon. Friend's intention is to close it when more accommodation becomes available elsewhere. In accordance with an undertaking given in 1962, my right hon. Friend will give at least three years' notice before transfer of the prisoners begins.

Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that adequate steps will be taken in the area to replace the form of employment which the prison now represents?

I could not give that assurance because it would be quite outside the scope of my right hon. Friend's Department. Obviously, the people who have most of the employment are the prison officers, and they will, of course, be employed in other prisons.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received the report of the committee appointed last November to consider further the problem of immigration; and when he proposes to introduce legislation following that report.

The Departmental Committee on Immigration Appeals, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last November, was appointed on 23rd February last. My right hon. Friend does not expect to have the Committee's report for several months; and he cannot anticipate it.

Bearing in mind that the Government appear to stand by the principles enunciated in their White Paper last August, should not there be some degree of expedition about getting this Committee's work completed and legislation introduced?

The Committee, as I said, has started its work. It has had meetings already, it has visited the ports of entry and it is taking evidence. We cannot anticipate its findings. We are waiting for them and then we will proceed accordingly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will alter the occupations and addresses of the candidates shown in the explanatory notice to electors at polling stations in order to make them more representative both of candidates and the electorate.

My right hon. Friend will consider this suggestion.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but would she not agree that the three specimen candidates chosen—a Bristol merchant, a Surrey auctioneer and a Wiltshire esquire—are hardly representative of either the candidates or the electors? Could she bring in candidates from the North and the Midlands, perhaps women candidates, and from other occupations—perhaps a lady teacher from Yorkshire?

I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. I think that these are a little out of date, which is why we will look at them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation on the lines of that on divorce proceedings forbidding the reporting in the Press of the details of murder cases.

There are formidable objections to this proposal, but I am aware of the public concern and will give the matter further consideration.

While everyone wants to ensure that justice is seen to be done, and that ultimately full records are available, would the Home Secretary bear in mind that there is unlikely to be any benefit to society as a whole for sordid details of perversion to be available in the daily Press at breakfast time for all the family?

I do bear this in mind and the matter causes me concern, as I know it does the hon. Member, but I should not like to underestimate the formidable objections to a restriction on the reporting of criminal proceedings.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that divorce proceedings are primarily a matter between civil litigants, whereas the public have always a real interest in criminal trials?

I do bear in mind that there is not an exact similarity between the two kinds of case.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of the Press reports of the trial at present proceeding in Chester—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to a trial which is at present proceeding.