asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will institute a review into the working of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will amend the Obscene Publications Act 1959 with a view to redefining obscenity.

I have no plans for immediate special legislation, but I am following the current public debate closely and I understand some of the concern. Where there is a flux and a conflict of standards, which is no doubt reflected in different jury verdicts, I am not convinced that there is any simple, workable and acceptable change in the law which would resolve the problem. However, I would not for a moment claim that the present law is perfect, and I shall keep the matter under review. But it is rarely wise to react immediately to a particular case.

I fully accept the real difficulty which exists in amending the law on obscenity. When we were in Government we looked at the question in the context of our Bill on indecent display. I take it that the Home Secretary now accepts that the trend of recent decisions in the courts shows that the Act is not working and that unless Parliament is prepared to tackle again both the question of the definition of obscenity and the defence of the public good, we shall face a situation in which standards will rapidly decline. We are creating a climate in which practically anything goes—

Order. When an hon. Member is invited to ask a supplementary question, I hope that he will ask only one.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I end by asking the Home Secretary whether he accepts that this is a matter of concern to many people.

I accept that it is a matter of concern. Strong views are held in differing ways. I endeavoured to indicate to the hon. and learned Member for Run-corn (Mr. Carlisle) that I do not treat the matter lightly or dismiss any practical solution, but I remain unconvinced in this respect. There have been conflicting decisions recently. They seem to turn more on jury decisions than on what judges indicate, and it is therefore an illusion to think that a simple change in the law would solve the problem.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to cases in which acquittals have been obtained on charges under this Act by unanimous verdicts of juries, yet the Director of Public Prosecutions has reinstituted charges not only a second but a third time, as in the Lindsey case? Will he do something about this practice, which is bringing the law into disrepute?

My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am not responsible for the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would not be right for me to issue pronouncements on that subject. I am not sure whether the Director has acted exactly in the way described by my right hon. Friend, but I have no doubt that the Attorney-General will take note of what he said.

Even if the Home Secretary is not prepared to amend the definition of obscenity in the Act, is he aware that there is a case for banning material that encourages the concept of sexual acts between human beings and children and between human beings and animals, and sado-masochism?

I have no doubt that there are matters of this sort which nearly everyone would regard as objectionable, as does the hon. Member. It is not easy to draw these frontiers on the basis of categories, and I suspect that there would be great difficulties in attempting to do so.

We welcome the helpful and constructive reaction of the Home Secretary to the Questions and to the misgivings expressed by the public. We also welcome his willingness to look seriously at alleged shortcomings in the Act. Will he go further and undertake to give sympathetic consideration to receiving an all-party deputation, which could elaborate some of the difficulties being experienced over the way the Act is working?

I would always receive an all-party deputation on this subject—or any deputation consisting of a substantial number of hon. Members. I would listen to what they had to say. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), in association with some of his hon. and right hon. Friends, has been doing some work on this matter, I believe, and perhaps he would like to talk to me when he has the results of that work.

However formidable the difficulties of drafting a satisfactory legal definition of obscenity, those difficulties do not exist to the same extent in the case of public advertisements and indecent display. Will the Home Secretary show a little more concern for the anxieties of a growing number of people who find it wholly objectionable to have this kind of lewd material thrust upon their attention in our towns and cities, and think again about introducing legislation on the lines of the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill, which the last Conservative Government tried to bring forward?

I have always made it clear that I do not regard the same consideration as applying to the obtrusion of matters of this sort as they do to other matters of censorship and what people read privately. I have no doubt that the previous Government brought forward their Bill with good intentions, but it did not stand up as a piece of legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the monthly return of strength and vacancies for the police forces in England and Wales, issued by his Department, continues to show separate authorised establishments for men and women.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been in police establishment since the passing of the Sex Discrimination Act.

From 29th December 1975, when the Sex Discrimination Act came into force, the separate establishments for men and women officers were combined and returns of the establishment after that date will show only the combined figure.

Will the hon. Lady assure the House that no suitably qualified woman will ever be turned away from the Metropolitan Police on the grounds that some arbitrary establishment level has been reached? Will she assure us that everything possible is being done to encourage the recruitment of more women police officers?

I can give the hon. Member that assurance. When the Act came into force women police officers comprised 5·5 per cent. of the total strength, and I hope that percentage will increase.

Is the hon. Lady aware that in Northampton one woman officer has already resigned and a quarter of the establishment is threatening to resign because they have to patrol at night? Does this not demonstrate the need for an amendment of, or a commonsense approach to, some of the police duties that women are asked to undertake?

Each police force must decide who is to carry out what duties. I do not think I should comment on the situation in the hon. Member's constituency.

Does the hon. Lady not agree that whatever the Sex Discrimination Act may say there are some things in the police service, as in many other walks of life, that men do best and others that women do best? Will she be very careful in anything she says or does to avoid the suggestion that there is no difference between a policeman and a policewoman?

The Act recognises that there are genuine occupational qualifications. In the police force these may include the searching, custody, and escort of prisoners, some forms of detective duties and certain welfare duties, for which either men or women may be particularly suited.

It appears that my appeal is not having much effect and that some hon. Members feel entitled to ask two or three supplementary questions I appeal to other hon. Members to confine themselves to one supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ask Sir Claus Moser, as part of the inquiry he announced on 14th January, to ascertain the number of Commonwealth citizens ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and not yet accepted for settlement, who none the less possess immunity from deportation; and if he will state the Government's policy in general towards the subsequent granting of the permanent right of settlement to those who enter the United Kingdom on a temporary and conditional basis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how is the net balance figure for immigration calculated from embarkation and admission figures; and what relevance the figure has in assessing the true immigration level.

On 14th January, I announced that I had asked Sir Claus Moser to look into the circumstances in which the embarkation of certain Commonwealth citizens was counted twice. I have now received from him a report on how this error occurred, which has shown that it was due to a lack of clarity in the revised instructions which came into effect on January 1st, 1973, and to defects in the supervision of those concerned in the counting. Although it is clear that I, and consequently the House, should have been informed earlier that the error had occurred, I have found no evidence that the officials concerned behaved discreditably or in such a way as to justify disciplinary action.

What is, in my view, of greater public importance is the significance that should be attached in general to these figures of arrivals and embarkations, and I have therefore asked Sir Claus Moser for a supplementary report on this aspect. I do not think it would be either right or necessary to ask him to range wider than this. I shall inform the House in due course of the outcome of this review.

I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. I am glad that he is slightly extending the remit given to Sir Claus Moser, but will he please answer the second part of my Question, which concerns a matter of considerable importance?

The Government's policy in relation to the subsequent granting of right of permanent settlement and the revocation of conditions is that which has applied for some time. It takes place, unless there are reasons to the contrary, when someone ordinarily resident here has been so resident for five years. This recognition of the facts does not lead to an increase in the numbers settled here. I do not think it would be desirable for people to live here in a state of permanent uncertainty.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that true immigration is made up of those admitted here to settle and those who, having once been admitted as visitors, are subsequently allowed to stay? Are these categories not separately calculated, and can we not have the figures for 1975?

The hon. and learned Member is almost exactly right. It is the total of these two categories which successive Governments have regarded as the most accurate indication of immigration. They are published each year and they were not affected by the error relating to 1973 and the early part of 1974. They are published and available. Anyone who follows these matters adds the two together and gets the final figure. I am not sure whether we can perform this simple act of addition ourselves. There is no reason why we should not. These are the correct categories to take into account in determining net immigration in any year.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in addition to visitors here for a short-term stay, there are also other categories, such as students and people admitted for limited periods of employment, who may well overstay their time, perhaps unknown to the Home Office, but whose dependants will become permanent settlers here? Will he bear this factor in mind?

This point is very much borne in mind. The problem of dealing with overstayers exercises us, and in a large number of cases when they have been detected they have been deported. If a person overstays and is here illegally, that time does not count towards the necessary period of residency to achieve a permanent right of settlement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in considering this whole policy and reviewing the position of permanent right of settlement he will always have in mind the policy he stated to Mr. Robin Day on television, of a very restrictive policy towards immigration?

My policy, which I have stated on a number of occasions and repeat now, is that there is, in present or any foreseeable circumstances, a strict limit on the amount of immigration that this country can absorb. It is right and generally accepted that the rules have to be administered with a reasonable humanity—and problems of humanity do arise. Together with that strong control over immigration, we must have a most determined and liberal policy of complete equality for those settled in this country. I regard these matters as two sides of the same coin.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what record his Department has of the number of people in the police service for whom accommodation is provided by an arrangement in the nature of a service tenancy or service occupancy.

There is no central record of the number of service tenancies, and the information could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

If the Home Secretary considers that this system is advantageous to the police authorities and to policemen, will he make representation to his ministerial colleagues that it would be a great pity if it were to be abolished, from a necessary sense of consistency, when the attack is launched on agricultural tied cottages?

If I may answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend, it is not proposed to extend the legislation beyond agricultural workers, as they are a special case with special problems, and there was never any Labour Party commitment to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to introduce legislation which will give additional rights of residence to immigrant workers and their families.

No, Sir. Families of holders of work permits are normally given leave to join them for the period during which the holder is authorised to stay in the United Kingdom.

In view of the concern in the Labour movement and elsewhere about the distinction between patrial and non-patrial British citizenship, which often means that a non-patrial citizen is treated as a second-class citizen, will my right hon. Friend introduce legislation to end that unfair discrimination and ensure that full rights of residence and rights to work are extended to all British citizens resident here, irrespective of their colour or country of origin?

I may have misheard my hon. Friend, but I think that he is creating slight confusion between the right of people to come here and the rights of those who are resident here. The Government have been conducting a review of our nationality and citizenship laws. One difficulty we have suffered is that, unlike most other countries, the United Kingdom has no coherent definition of "citizenship" and "nationality". When that review has been completed. I hope that we shall be able to legislate on the subject. That will mark a substantial step forward in enabling us to determine, on a non-racial but adequately clear basis, who is entitled to be here.

Is the Minister aware that the rights of the indigenous population of these islands are being steadily eroded by so-called anti-discriminatory legislation and that what the British people want from the Home Office is a fair deal for themselves?

That is what I am endeavouring to give the British people, from the Home Office, bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman has not a unique right to speak for the British people, who themselves have a sense of fair play. They have a sense of their own rights, certainly, but they also have a reasonable sense of the rights of people who came here a little more recently.

Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of extending the franchise in our local and national elections to all aliens who are resident in this country long enough to be on the electoral register?

I have not given consideration to that matter. I am not sure what the implications would be, but I shall examine the question.

Is the Home Secretary aware that it is the British people's sense of fair play which is outraged by the flow of immigration that has continued under his stewardship and under the legislation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to restrict the magnitude of this inward flow?

I have indicated my policy upon this issue. We should probably all get on better and produce a rather more rational climate on this subject if we did not make too many appeals to that abstract concept of the sense of fair play of the British people. [Interruption.] I was replying to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who raised it in the most personally possessive manner I have ever heard. My remarks were entirely by way of riposte. It is perhaps better to debate the issues on their merits without any of us assuming that we have the monopoly of fair play.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he applies in deciding whether to reverse immigration appeal decisions taken by an adjudicator or by an immigration appeals tribunal.

We exercise my right hon. Friend's discretion to act outside the Immigration Rules where an adverse decision taken in strict compliance with the Rules and upheld on appeal would, in his view, result in injustice or undue hardship.

Is the Minister in a position to say whether the percentage of cases in which the initial decision has been reversed is increasing? If so, does he agree that it is undesirable that the decision initially taken should be reversed on the basis of such extremely vague criteria?

No, because the adjudicators and the appeal tribunal have to work within the rules. The exercise of immigration control is the exercise of a prerogative under the discretion of my right hon. Friend. The rules are guidance to the officials and the tribunal about how they should operate, but there is still a reserve discretion, which all Governments use.

Is the Minister aware that the rate of acceptance for settlement of immigrants from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan who entered provisionally and were given revocation of their conditions has more than doubled since the Labour Government took office? Is he satisfied with that rate of increase? How far will it continue? How is it possible to present a rational policy if the hon. Gentleman has no idea of the number of people already here who are not accepted for settlement but whom he cannot deport?

We do not count the number of people here who are not eligible for deportation until we give them unrestricted leave to settle. The difficulty about the hon. Gentleman's onslaught is that it was the Conservative Government in 1971 who legislated that no one who had been resident in these islands for more than five years could be deported. It is on that basis that we remove the conditions after five years. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures—which I shall be glad to publish—he will see that the two major increases have been on this account—which the Conservative Government approved in 1971—and on account of marriage—which the House approved last year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on the Government Benches appreciate the fair-minded way in which he listens to representations made on behalf of our constituents who are immigrants, but will he please try to get decisions arrived at a little more quickly?

I am doing my best on the latter count. I am always interested to see how many similar representations I get from Opposition Members.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when he confirms an appeal decision he should take into consideration matters which are known to him but which the appeal tribunal cannot take into account, to make sure that justice is done?

My objective in using the discretion, which is used only in a minimum number of cases, is always to try to do justice. I seek to apply an emollient between the rules as they are cast and the circumstances of a particular case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring in regulations to deny access to Great Britain of citizens of the Irish Republic who have no means to support themselves and whose presence will be a drain on British Exchequer funds.

I am not in favour of anyone who is not a national of this country coming here to live off the British Exchequer. But in so far as a problem exists it is not uniquely concerned with citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Nor could it be solved by Regulations alone.

Does the Home Secretary agree that hard-working and responsible taxpayers resent the fact that people come into the country and, having contributed not one penny to the Exchequer, immediately draw benefits? Does he realise that when resentment of that kind builds up the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland is affected?

I agree that there may be resentment, and I think that there is, occasionally. One has to view the problem in its proper proportion. If one is concerned about the resentment it is desirable not to foment it if it is not on a large scale. It has to be remembered that a British citizen can go to any of the countries of the European Community and immediately draw benefit. Therefore, the position of Ireland is not unique. Clearly, I am not in favour of people coming here to live off the back of the British Exchequer, which has enough on its back already. I agree with that principle, but on the basis of a very limited number of cases I cannot embark on a complete change in our relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the EEC.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) campaigned assiduously for Britain's entry into the Common Market, and as so many other hon. Members did likewise. Is it not true to say that if we introduced Regulations of the kind that the hon. Lady wants, we would be acting in conflict with the principles of the free movement of people, which we accepted when we became members of the EEC?

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) confined her remarks to citizens of the Irish Republic. However, the Irish Republic is a member of the European Community. Even if we were to revoke the common travel area, which would be a major step to take, the provisions of our membership, the membership of the Irish Republic and membership of the other seven countries of the Community would mean that no different position existed.

As the right hon. Gentleman has twice confirmed that he disapproves of cases of the kind which he defined, how does he propose to deal with this problem?

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me on certain matters at present. There are a number of things of which I disapprove and wish did not happen. However, it is not possible or competent for a Government to deal with all of them by legislation or even by Regulation.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that hon. Members would serve the nation better if they brought to the attention of the appropriate Department those cases in which there is an abuse of public funds, rather than coming to this House and making smears and innuendoes about other people? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the latter part of last year the Daily Express, a so-called reputable newspaper, published three letters making grave accusations about the acquisition of a car and a television set by means of supplementary benefits, but that when those cases were investigated it was found that there was not a scintilla of truth in the allegations? It is about time that hon. Members stopped spreading these smears, which are completely without foundation.

I do not believe that my hon. Friend's powerful intervention calls for any reply from me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how soon the admittance of eligible wives and dependants under the Immigration Act 1971 and East African Asians with special vouchers is likely to be completed.

We cannot make forecasts of this kind because the future rate of entry depends on a wide variety of social, economic and other factors. But it is likely that the United Kingdom passport holders who are heads of household in East Africa and who wish to come here will have been admitted by the end of the 'seventies.

As polygamy is legal in a number of Commonwealth countries, will the Minister give an assurance that second wives and the children of second marriages are not included in the list of those eligible for entry?

The term "wife" in the 1971 Immigration Act has been defined by both the tribunal and the courts as including a second or a third wife in relation to a polygamous union that took place when the husband was domiciled in a place where polygamy is permitted. However, difficulties arise, particularly in relation to Pakistani wives, when the marriage took place when the husband was domiciled in this country.

Will my hon. Friend speed up the mechanics of the process of dealing with applications from wives who wish to join their husbands in this country?

I am doing my level best to do exactly that, although sometimes I am criticised by Conservative Members. We have managed to increase the rate of interviewing on the Indian subcontinent by almost 100 per cent. in the last year. I hope that the situation will continue to improve.

Will the Minister confirm the report by Mr. Amit Roy in the Daily Telegraph of 2nd February that fresh instructions have been issued to immigration officers concerning the entry of Commonwealth citizens into this country? Will he further confirm that the spirit of these fresh instructions is "If in doubt, let them in"?

The hon. Gentleman is referring in particular to the acceptance of a father or mother coming to the wedding of a child in this country, where there may be doubt whether that father or mother will use that visit as a device for settlement. We have said that the greatest humanity should be applied when those cases are considered because it is often extremely difficult to resolve the intent in an individual's mind. Where that conflict exists, the answer is that if there is doubt we allow them in.

May we take it that three polygamous unions are the absolute limit?

I believe that by the laws of Islam and Pakistan, four is the absolute limit.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in the arrangements for the admission of the remaining wives and dependent children eligible to enter Great Britain under the Immigration Act 1971 have been made in 1974 and 1975; and what further changes, if any, are in prospect.

In view of increasing delays in the issue of entry clearances to wives and children in the Indian subcontinent, a reinforcement of the staffs at Dacca and Islamabad was announced on 26th June 1974. As a result of my visit to the subcontinent in January 1975 a number of changes were made last year in the processing there of applications for entry clearances; in particular, outstanding applications by unaccompanied wives, and mothers with children under 10, are being dealt with more expeditiously under a simplified procedure. The arrangements are kept under review.

What immigration controls now operate in relation to newly acquired wives of immigrants not born but settled in the United Kingdom and who return briefly to their native land to participate in arranged marriages in accordance with their custom?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman stressed the last words, because one has to recognise that the Asian custom is an arranged marriage and that there is nothing dishonourable or disreputable about it. It is not necessarily a device for evading English immigration controls. We respect that custom, and anticipate that in the early years of the change of rule that was made last year by this House there will be a slight increase in immigration as a result. The figures for last year are available and have been announced. I do not expect them to increase very much in future years.

Is the Minister aware that a recent humanitarian decision made by him has been welcomed in Preston by Asian and non-Asian members of the community alike, and will he indicate whether he intends to have an early review of the working of the whole of the Immigration Act 1971?

We have already announced that when the nationality review is complete we shall be reviewing the whole of immigration law, but it is impossible to do so until we have finally resolved the central issue of who is a British citizen. When that is done, we shall get on with the matter.

Is the Minister aware that despite his visit to the Indian subcontinent, it is still taking the best part of a year for genuine cases to enter this country?

Yes, Sir, and I am glad that sentiment has come from the Opposition side of the House. It ought to be realised, in the whole of this dispute which has flared up again, that there is real anguish and concern for thousands of wives and children in the subcontinent who have the statutory right to come and ought to be allowed to come as quickly as they can.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to consider changes in the arrangements governing the entry of husbands into this country? Is he aware that a constituent of mine, Mrs. Linda Sekhor, married an Indian gentleman in February 1975 and that his application for entry into this country will not be heard in Delhi until July of this year?

Yes, and I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a disgrace. However, we are doing our best to try to expedite matters so that that kind of delay does not occur in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have taken place in 1974 and 1975 in the procedures for controlled and orderly entry into Great Britain of East African Asians holding United Kingdom passports under special voucher provisions.

My right hon. Friend announced on 6th February 1975—[Vol. 885, c. 1541–3.]—an increase from 3,500 to 5,000 in the annual quota of vouchers. The essentials of the scheme are unchanged, though it is administered with reasonable flexibility.

Is the Minister satisfied that the rules that are applied are specific enough? If so, are they sufficiently well known to the immigrants who are already here and who have been given original rights to bring in dependants to be fair both to them and to those who now acquire new rights to bring in dependants? There seems to be considerable confusion about the rules that are being applied.

If the right hon. Gentleman will write to me setting out where the element of confusion lies, I shall certainly look into the matter. As I understand it, the administration of this part of our immigration control is carried out with a good deal of flexibility and despatch.

In view of the increasing rate of unemployment in this country, particularly among immigrant communities, does the hon. Gentleman believe that he was wise to increase the voucher quota at this time?

Since the early 1960s both Conservative and Labour Governments have given an assurance to Asian passport holders in East Africa—and it should be recollected that they have the same citizenship as we have—that they will be admitted here if they are not allowed to remain in their country of origin in East Africa. It is because we believe that it is better to get rid of that commitment as soon as possible that we have increased the number of vouchers. However, that does not mean that the total number of those coming in will increase. It means that these people will come in quicker. We hope that the commitment will be fulfilled by the end of this decade.

Has the Minister's Department got the mechanics to identify immigrants from the West Indian and Indian Ocean Islands of Martinique, Guadaloupe and Réunion, and separate them? That might be to the benefit of those who approved of the Common Market and yet who object to the immigration of coloured people—because those islands are part of metropolitan France?

So far we do not have that problem, and I hope that we shall not have it. In relation to United Kingdom passport holders, the problem involves a limited number of people in East Africa. That limited number is decreasing fast and we expect it to be zero by the end of this decade.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has recently received on the matter of Mr. Des Warren's imprisonment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days imprisonment Mr Des Warren, shop steward and member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians has now served; and what is the average time served prior to parole by a first offender sentenced to a deterrent sentence of three years.

I have received 60 letters since the beginning of October. Mr. Warren has served a total of 647 days of his sentence. The other information requested is not available.

I wonder, however, whether my right hon. Friend can tell me what has happened to the argument that was put forward by a majority of Labour Members 12 months ago, to the effect that the sentence was very excessive. Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to display a little bit of that much flaunted liberalism with which he is credited by the trendy media and get Warren out, or is it that political prisoners abroad are the only ones about whom he is concerned?

As I have made clear time and again, I do not recognise, any more than the British law does, the existence of political prisoners in this country. My hon. Friend's recollection of the view taken by a majority of Labour Members at the end of last year is somewhat different from my own. The view taken, I think, by the majority, at a meeting, was that verdicts and sentences should be determined by the courts and not by the Executive, in the person of the Home Secretary. That has been and remains my position.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect, however, that Mr. Warren's sentence was for conspiracy to intimidate? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of lawyers—some leading lawyers—now suspect the validity of that sentence under the terms of conspiracy to intimidate? As the appeal judge himself remarked upon the excessive nature of the sentence, does it not seem to my right hon. Friend to be almost vindictiveness to say that Mr. Warren must serve beyond the 604 days which my right hon. Friend has now announced?

The figure was 647 days. No, I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that there are a number of lawyers who can be found to sustain almost any proposition. If I were to intervene in every case in which a number of lawyers took a view different from that of the court which reached the decision, I would indeed be on very shifting sands, while also having a very busy time. I do not think that my hon. Friend's description of the remarks of the judge in the Court of Appeal were entirely correct, because the Court of Appeal, of course, upheld the sentence.

Is the Home Secretary aware that if the law on conspiracy were changed, and if the law were changed to the degree that someone who committed the offences of which Des Warren was convicted and to a degree that required the sentence which was imposed upon him, if the law did nothing to provide an offence which would cover that eventuality, the law would indeed be an ass?

That sounds like a hypothetical as well as a convoluted question.