asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all flood relief parcels have yet been opened at the London and Nottingham depots; and on what dates this work was completed.

Yes, Sir. The last parcel in the London and Nottingham depots were opened on 25th November. Some parcels had also been moved to a depot in Birmingham, and the last parcel there was opened yesterday.

Is the Home Secretary satisfied with the information he has given? Does he think it is fair to all those good people who gave parcels last February? Can he say whether any of the goods have had to be destroyed because of the long time they have been kept?

I would require notice of the last part of the question, but I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that was made about the use of the goods and to the fact that, owing to the generosity of the people, far more goods were supplied than were needed for actually dealing with flood distress.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of cases involving male perversion in 1938 and 1952, respectively, and what complaints he has received from the police as to their lack of power to deal with this evil.

In 1938, the number of unnatural offences known to the police in England and Wales was 134, the number of attempts to commit unnatural offences (including indecent assaults on male persons and cases of importuning for immoral purposes dealt with on indictment) was 822, and the number of offences of gross indecency was 320. The corresponding figures for 1952 were 670, 3,087 and 1,686.

Is it not a fact that senior police officials have stated that they are not able to deal with these cases as satisfactorily as they would wish, owing to lack of power and to other factors? Is it not also a fact that if the police are willing to act, and the magistrates are willing to receive the cases, the number brought daily before the Metropolitan courts would be very much larger?

Neither of these points has been brought to my attention. In view of my hon. Friend's question about powers I ought to remind the House that the maximum penalties for these offences are as follow:

Sodomy and bestiality—Life imprisonment.

Attempt to commit unnatural offence, and indecent assault on a male person—10 years.

Gross indecency—Two years.

Importuning—Six months on summary conviction, and two years on conviction on indictment.

Can the House be told in how many cases, in each type of crime, the maximum penalty, or anything like it, has been imposed?

I should need notice of that question, but perhaps I could give the right hon. Gentleman an idea of the figures from memory—if he will not hold me to them. In 1952, there were 5,443 offences, and I think that about 600 offenders were sent to prison.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the existing legislation in respect of sexual offences and the present treatment of adult sexual delinquents, with particular reference to homosexuality; and to make recommendations as to what changes are desirable in the light of modern scientific knowledge and of recent discoveries in the fields of psychology and psychiatry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the laws relating to sexual offences, and, in particular, those relating to homosexuality, and to make recommendations regarding any changes that are desirable; and what medical treatment can be provided in the light of modern scientific knowledge.

The general question of the law relating to sexual offences and of the treatment of sexual offenders is engaging my attention, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the law, particularly Section 2 of the Criminal Amendment Act, 1885, is really effective and workable? Is he satisfied with the present institutional treatment? Does he not think further research into the problem, perhaps beyond purely Departmental research, is urgently required?

As my hon. Friend has raised the point I must make this clear. I gave earlier today figures of convictions and offences, and I must make clear to the House that one element in dealing with this matter is the protective element in punishment, because homosexuals in general are exhibitionists and proselytisers and are a danger to others, especially the young, and so long as I hold the office of Home Secretary I shall give no countenance to the view that they should not be prevented from being such a danger.

Will the Home Secretary bear in mind in his deliberations the importance of impressing upon the authorities concerned that while respecting the rights of the defendants they will also regard it as obligatory to reduce to the absolute minimum the publicity and strain imposed upon juveniles who are mixed up in adult cases?

I entirely agree. It is a very difficult subject indeed, but one that must be borne constantly in mind. That was the idea behind my answer, as I am sure the House appreciates.

In view of the public disquiet about this matter, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be willing to receive a deputation, consisting of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) and myself, on this subject?

Yes, I am quite willing to meet anyone who has ideas on the subject, but I do want it to be clear that as Home Secretary I have the duty to protect the people, especially the youth, of this country.

Is it not a fact that public opinion itself has been at fault for a great many years in treating the question of homosexuality as a fit subject for music hall humour—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, and that if the public itself can be persuaded to approach this matter in the right way from both the criminal and the medical point of view much good may be done?

When considering these matters will the right hon. and learned Gentleman very carefully consider the medical aspect, because many magistrates who understand the situation are very reluctant indeed to give terms of imprisonment in these cases because of overcrowding in prisons where men are put two and three into a cell? It is considered that sending them to prison accentuates the trouble rather than cures it.

I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised that point. It is quite true that they are put three in a cell; unfortunately, owing to shortage of space, there are about 5,000 people who are three in a cell. This matter has been carefully examined, and I believe that the chances of increasing homosexual inclinations from that have been greatly exaggerated. Although, of course, homosexuality exists in prisons—as Sir Alexander Paterson said, you cannot help it in a "monastery of men unwilling to be monks"—I think the effect has been exaggerated. My experience is that there is not much increase of inclination. We have not been able to find any evidence of it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now take action to make mock auctions illegal.

I can hold out no hope that the Government will be able to find time to introduce legislation on this subject.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the damage and annoyance which is done to the public, chiefly in seaside towns? Would not he consider, at any rate, bringing in a system of licences which would give some protection to the vulnerable public?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement of the Joint Under-Secretary of State on this point. The other side of the question is that the abuse is confined to a small number of areas, and I am sorry that at present it would be impossible to justify the appearance of such a Measure in the legislative queue.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what authority he exercises his administrative powers in connection with education in Wales.

I have no administrative powers in connection with education in Wales except in regard to the provision of education for prisoners and Borstal inmates, in pursuance of the statutory rules made under Section 47 of the Prison Act, 1952, and for children and young persons in approved schools and in remand homes in pursuance of the statutory rules made under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.

In dealing with the normal Welsh—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"]—does the Minister indicate that he has no administrative powers at all? Are they completely in the hands of the Minister of Education?

I have no administrative powers, but I hope I am not too conceited in saying that I have a certain amount of persuasive power. Of course, that does not rank with the persuasive powers of the hon. Member himself—persuasive powers which he exercised when he invited me to come to a school in his constituency.

Is it not a fact that the Department of Education is the one Department where there is a very considerable amount of devolution in Wales?

It is not the one Department; it is one of several Departments—especially the four mentioned by the Council of Wales—where there has been, I am glad to say, considerable devolution, as my hon. Friend says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in cases where a child is examined under the procedure referred to in Section 9 of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, it is the practice of his Department to permit, if the child's parents desire it and at their own expense, an examination of the child by an independent medical expert of the parent's choice and to give consideration to the report following such examination.

Section 9 of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, empowers me to order the transfer to a suitable institution, or the placing under guardianship, of a child detained in an approved school or, in certain circumstances, in a remand home, if I am satisfied from the certificates of two qualified medical practitioners that the child is a defective. Such certificates are considered most carefully, in the light of the medical advice available to the Home Office, before any action is taken on them.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his answer gives satisfaction only up to a point? Is he prepared to agree that it is undesirable, in principle, that a parent of a child in this situation should not be given the opportunity of having an independent examination carried out, and for the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to have regard to the report resulting there from?

As I have said, I am personally prepared to consider each case, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this is one of the subjects that, I think, will be considered by the Royal Commission. I find that on this subject there is a good deal of difference of opinion among people with the same end in view, to do the best for the child. I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure the Royal Commission will, too.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman exercise these powers in the case of moral defectives as well as mental defectives, that is, children who are not in the normal sense of the term backward educationally but who are said to be morally unstable? If so, will he be particularly careful to distinguish between moral defectives within the meaning of the Act and just very naughty children?

On the last point, yes. On the first, there is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a definition in the Act of 1913, and whether that definition is satisfactory is another of the points that, I am sure, the Royal Commission will consider.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now cause to be published a digest of statistics relating to Wales as is being done for Scotland in the Digest of Scottish Statistics.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue annually or bi-annually a Digest of Welsh Statistics along lines similar to those for Scotland.

The Government propose in future to publish a separate annual Digest of Welsh Statistics at the same time as the annual Report on Government Action in Wales and Monmouthshire.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that answer will give some satisfaction to the people of Wales at long last? However, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take counsel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to having the Chancellor change his attitude on the very important question relating to statistics that I put to him yesterday, that if these statistics are omitted from the Digest the Digest will be very imperfect indeed?

I shall certainly look carefully at the exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend and welcome any chance of a talk with him on Welsh matters.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this is one of the few occasions when people of Conservative and other opinion in the Principality will agree with the opinion of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies)?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that many air raid shelters in courtyards and on bombed sites in Birmingham, are a menace to the health of the people and also a help to crime; and if he will now give permission for these shelters to be demolished.

As regards danger to health, I am prepared to authorise demolition in any case where the medical officer of health certifies that it is essential on health grounds. As regards crime, I am informed that the police asked for the blocking up of the entrances to a number of shelters. That work has now been done and the police are satisfied.

Is the Home Secretary aware that, while these air raid shelters were necessary during the war, it is now eight years since the end of the war, and that many of these shelters are within four or five feet of people's homes? There is only one outlet, they prevent children from playing and also prevent people who have small houses from using their yards in order to hang out washing. Is he aware that the Birmingham Medical Officer of Health has already said that they are detrimental to health? Furthermore, is the Home Secretary aware that he is impinging upon the byelaws of Birmingham, which lay down that no building shall be within 12 feet of a house?

I hope no one will suggest that all Civil Defence shelters should be demolished. We are continuing the policy of our predecessors in that they should be preserved as part of the Civil Defence effort. I have already said, and I repeat, that I am prepared to consider demolition where the medical officer of health certifies that it is essential on health grounds.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take on the recommendations by the Cinema Consultative Committee concerning the proposed ban on the admission to cinemas of unaccompanied children under five years of age and on unaccompanied children under 12 years of age after 8 o'clock at night.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 12th November to a Question by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves).

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how much longer it will be before he names the day? [Laughter.] The day to which I am referring is in connection with the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

The Regulations which are necessary before the Act can be brought into force are being drafted. I hope the hon. Lady will not make a shotgun approach to it, but I can say that the day will be early in the New Year. At least, that is what I hope.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the White Paper on Offences for Drunkenness discloses that there are three times as many convictions for drunkenness in the City of London as there are in the next worst town for this offence in the whole country and that the figures are 227·66 per 10,000 of the population against 73·98 for Middlesbrough; and whether he will take steps to deal with this state of affairs.

Yes, Sir; but the actual number of these offences in the City of London was no more than 107. Much as I regret these offences, I see no reason to suppose that the unusually large proportion which they bear to the City's population is due to anything other than the fact that the City's resident population is unusually small in proportion to the number of people who frequent it.

Is the Minister aware that these proportions show quite clearly a drunkenness ratio three times worse in the City than in Middlesbrough? If that is so, would it not be a good idea for the Minister to encourage the Temperance Alliance to run a campaign in the City?

Great as are the charms of Middlesbrough—Macaulay said,

"And pined by Arno for my lovelier Tees"—

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Middlesbrough is an orderly and well-administered town and is not seeking his assistance in this matter?

I appreciate the point the right hon. and learned Gentleman made about population, but is it not true that in the City and in London generally there is the special problem of the additional drink facilities which are provided by clubs? As he has done nothing so far, despite his promise, will he say whether he has this matter still in mind?

I have the problem of clubs very much in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made for mutual support and working together between Civil Defence units and the Home Guard in order to make the best possible use of available manpower in an emergency.

The general arrangements for assistance by the Home Guard to Civil Defence are now in process of being worked out in detail at regional and local level in conjunction with Army commands and districts. In many areas, joint discussions on deployment of forces have taken place; a number of local authorities have started to give instruction in Civil Defence to the Home Guard; and a beginning has been made with participation by the Home Guard in Civil Defence exercises.

Are the Government still of the opinion that these forces represent the most economical way of using these men and women?

Certainly. There is, in my view, no question of amalgamating two fundamentally different forces which deal with different aspects of the problems that might arise.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why it is not possible, for salary purposes, to equate appointments at the Civil Defence Staff College with those at the Army and Royal Air Force Staff Colleges, respectively, having regard to the fact that he has stated that Civil Defence is the fourth arm of defence.

The salaries of the commandant and instructors at the Civil Defence Staff College, like those of the directing staff at the Civil Defence Training Schools, are determined in relation to the general standard of Civil Service remuneration. Senior posts at the Army and Royal Air Force Staff Colleges are held by serving officers on Service rates of pay.

While appreciating the logic of the argument, as my right hon. and learned Friend has already stated the importance of equating the service of Civil Defence with the other military services, may I ask whether it would not now be reasonable to bring them into line?

I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that when I say, as I have said many times, that Civil Defence is the fourth arm of defence I mean what I say, but it is difficult to equate civil service to Army rates of pay, when those in the Fighting Services hold jobs which are part of the routine of those Services.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long the proposed establishment scheme for the directing staff of the Civil Defence Staff College and officers of other civil defence training schools has been under consideration, and when he estimates that he will be able to announce his proposals.

I will endeavour to bring the issue of establishment to finality as soon as possible, but until that has been resolved I shall not be able to announce details of any establishment scheme.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this has been going on for a long time, both since he took office and also under his predecessor, and that it is not encouraging for those who would like to join this important service to feel that they are not part of an established scheme?

I realise that there has been pressure for this since the middle of 1951, and I shall do the best I can to resolve the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what accommodation has been provided for instructors at the Civil Defence Staff College; how many of these instructors are in fact occupying this accommodation; how many are living in private accommodation; and how far the accommodation provided is up to the same standard as that which was originally planned for the college.

Seven instructors occupy single quarters in the college, four occupy houses provided in the neighbourhood, and four others occupy private accommodation. The accommodation provided is somewhat below the standard originally planned.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this Question and the two preceding it are intended to direct his attention to the importance of making this College, which is the key to instruction in Civil Defence, a recognised establishment, and that, unless this is done, a very important part of the Civil Defence organisation is likely to fall below the standards which the rest of the organisation is so easily achieving?

I very much appreciate the spirit behind these Questions, which is to encourage Civil Defence, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the last to desire to give the impression that, although these administrative difficulties are there, the Civil Defence Staff College has, in any way, fallen below the high standard which everyone in the House knows it has attained, and which I am sure it will keep.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations the Commissioner of Police has in mind when he fixes speed traps in the London area.

The Commissioner of Police informs me that fixed speed controls in the Metropolitan police district are operated in places where the speed limit is habitually disregarded, especially where the accident record is bad.

Is it not a fact that one policeman in uniform would save a lot of manpower and prevent many offences?

I do not think so, but I will consider any suggestions which are made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the hardship being experienced by many elderly police widows who are still receiving the 1921 rate of 11s. 6d. per week pension, he will take the necessary steps to have the pension increased; and how many widows there are in this category.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the difficulty in which elderly police widows are placed who are only receiving the 1921 rate of pension; and if, in view of the fact that the aggregate amount of these pensions is a diminishing liability on the State, he will recommend an increase in the pension in this class of case.

Most police widows originally awarded pensions at the rate of 11s. 6d. a week have had them increased under the Police Pensions Regulations, 1948. There are estimated to be about 150 police widows whose pensions of 11s. 6d. a week have not been increased, because they are not handicapped by age, children or infirmity, or because their total income is above the prescribed limit. I regret that I cannot see my way to propose further increases.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that those who understand these cases are bitterly disappointed that these women have not been given an increase, and consider that they have been very badly served in view of the small amount of money involved?

I am sure that no one who has had to deal with these pension claims can feel anything but regret for the position which one feels it is right to take up. I know—and I am sure that anyone who has held my office knows—the tremendous help which the wives of policemen give their husbands in their work, but I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the basic pension, apart from the increases that I have mentioned, can be further increased to £85 a year—that is, 32s. 6d. a week—if the widow satisfies National Insurance Scheme conditions. It is difficult to conceive that the police widows who do not fulfil the conditions which I have mentioned are hardship cases.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Scotland Yard officers who interrogated and took a statement from the defendant Roberts, a deaf mute, subsequently charged with murder and acquitted at the Carmarthenshire Assizes in March of this year, had the assistance during the interrogation of a qualified welfare worker for the deaf or a teacher of the deaf.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances two senior officers from Scotland Yard obtained from Mr. George Roberts, who has been deaf and dumb since birth and who has never been taught any known sign-language, an eight-page written and signed confession of murder, of which he was subsequently acquitted on indictment.

On the occasion in question, Mr. Roberts first answered questions through a police officer who has a command of the deaf and dumb alphabet and signs. These questions and answers were subsequently repeated to Mr. Roberts, one by one, through a competent and experienced lady interpreter, who reported that he fully understood them and that they were accurately recorded. Mr. Roberts did not sign the record.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that very full answer, but is he aware that all those who are interested in deaf welfare, including the principal societies, feel that when a deaf person is first charged with a criminal offence it is incumbent that he should be accompanied by a qualified deaf teacher, missioner, or one who has some kind of academic record and qualifications, in order that he shall understand the full implication of the charge, and to safeguard him in any answer he might make to it?

I entirely agree that the greatest possible care should be taken in dealing with such cases. If I may interpose a personal experience, I defended, on a criminal offence, someone who was not only deal and dumb but blind, so I do know the problem from practical experience. The reason why I rather developed my answer was that I wanted to say that the lady in question and her husband had had great experience. I should like to consider this point, and I shall certainly bear in mind the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Roberts knew no sign language at all? Is he also aware that on the occasion to which he refers there was also present an educated and literate deaf mute who had known Mr. Roberts for 26 years, who was recognised as the only person who could communicate to him, and who has since stated in writing that, so far from admitting the offence, Mr. Roberts gave a flat and emphatic denial to it? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that none of the facts which are contained in his answer, and which would seem to establish the authenticity of the evidence, were ever placed before the judge and the jury at the trial at which this man was acquitted?

I am very sorry that I cannot accept the statements which the hon. Gentleman has made without further investigation, but I shall certainly investigate them. I am surprised at what he says, because I have the transcript in front of me, and the name of the lady I mentioned appears as having given evidence at the trial. Unless my transcript is wrong I do not think that the second part of what the hon. Gentleman says can be right.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perhaps under a misconception. Is it not the case that this man was ultimately acquitted because the prosecution offered no evidence against him, in the circumstances that they admitted that the only evidence they had was this alleged confession which they were not in a position to prove, and no attempt was made to prove it in court?

The name of the lady I mentioned appears in the transcript, and her examination covers pages 44 to 46. At that time a submission as to admissibility was made. That was replied to; there was a decision and, after that, the prosecution made a statement in the matter. What the hon. Gentleman said surprised me, in view of the fact that this lady gave evidence at the trial.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation has been offered to Mr. George Roberts who was detained and imprisoned for several days, without a warrant and without a charge being made, for the purpose of interrogation; and whether he has considered the remarks of Mr. Justice Devlin in directing the jury to acquit him, the prosecution offering no evidence against him.

I have considered the remarks made by Mr. Justice Devlin and have had full inquiry made. I am informed that on the morning of 11th January, 1953, Mr. Roberts was asked to go to Carmarthen police station in order that he might be questioned through a competent interpreter and readily agreed to do so. He remained there until 14th January, but he was under no compulsion to do so. On the contrary, he was clearly told each day that he was free to go home for the night, but he indicated that he would prefer to remain at the police station and was allowed to do so. He was not at any time detained in a cell and was treated with every consideration. I can find no grounds for any ex gratia payment to him from public funds.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it perfectly clear—because so far he has not done so—that it is not now contended that Mr. Roberts ever did confess to murder or that he had anything whatever to do with this crime? Secondly, does he agree with the statement made by Mr. Justice Devlin that there is no power whatever in this country to compel anyone to answer questions and still less to detain him for three days in a police station, whether in the daytime or at night time, in order to compel him to do so?

On the first point, nobody asked me to asseverate the matter. The prosecution, of course, offered no evidence and Mr. Roberts is an innocent man. That follows, and that is why I did not mention it. I am very glad that the hon. Member has referred to what, if I may say so with respect, were the most useful remarks of Mr. Justice Devlin, that there is nothing in our country such as, to use his words, novelists and writers of "shockers" call "detaining for questioning." A man cannot be detained for questioning. A charge must be brought and he must be brought up before the magistrate. I thought that was a most useful thing to emphasise.

In view of that statement, for which we are all very grateful indeed, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this man was, in fact, detained for more than three days in a police station without a charge being made and only for the purpose of questioning; and that, in view of what is now known about the impossibility of communicating with him, it is quite unsafe for anyone to suppose that he was a voluntary guest there? In those circumstances, will he not reconsider the matter from the point of view of giving the man adequate compensation for the detention which he undoubtedly suffered?

I appreciate the hon. Member's feelings, but I have read the case over and over again and considered it very carefully. I am sorry, but I cannot go as far as the hon. Member suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who were the two senior police officers at Scotland Yard who were engaged upon the case of Regina v. Roberts, a trial for murder; and upon what duties they are now engaged.

The two officers were Detective Superintendent Spooner and Detective Sergeant Millen. Superintendent Spooner is attached to the Central Detective Office at New Scotland Yard. Sergeant Millen is on a course at the Police College.

I have no supplementary question to ask on this Question but, having regard to the unsatisfactory answer to the previous Question, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on a suitable occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department which members of his staff visited the United States of America recently to study American police methods; what new experience they have gathered; and what action he intends to take in consequence of their visit.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 12th November to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay).

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, without any disrespect to the excellent officers concerned, the visit was received with some astonishment in American towns where the problems which they investigated are more rampant and far less effectively dealt with than in this country? Will he give the House an assurance that he will be highly selective in introducing American police methods into this country?

Yes. The second question was really outside the considerations which I mentioned in answer to the Question of my hon. Friend. That was the study of the treatment of certain forms of offence which I think everyone will agree always provide one of the most difficult problems in the world.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider inviting, as a friendly reciprocal action, an American police delegation to come here to study police methods so that we may both help to improve each other?

I am sure that that is what we all want.