asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent it is the normal procedure for the Board of Inland Revenue, in the event of their taking criminal proceedings against an employee, to dismiss the employee before the trial; and if he will list the precedents.

The Board of Inland Revenue generally feels compelled to dismiss an officer where a Departmental offence which warrants dismissal is established, notwithstanding that proceedings may also be instituted for an alleged criminal offence. There have been fourteen cases of this kind during the past five years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only case I know of as a precedent happened about a year ago when a man called Notley was in a similar position, and was treated not in this way but in the exactly opposite way; in other words, he was suspended pending proceedings being taken and dismissed after the criminal proceedings had taken place?

There were, in fact, fourteen cases in the last five years where a man was dismissed in advance of criminal proceedings being taken. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers, the man unquestionably admitted the offences for which he was dismissed.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me in how many cases the men were not dismissed?

No, Sir, not without notice.

Is there anything in the nature of a Departmental inquiry in cases of this kind before the action is taken of dismissing a man?

This case has been very thoroughly investigated. The officer in question admitted in court that he had done the things for which he was dismissed.

On that last point, is it not also true that Mr. Coldham never admitted that he had taken any money by false pretences or anything else? He was cleared of all charges, as my right hon. Friend well knows.

He was charged with a criminal offence about false pretences. He was acquitted on that charge, but he has not denied the Departmental offences for which he was dismissed.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up an independent inquiry into the case of Mr. C. M. Coldham who was dismissed by the Board of Inland Revenue in March, 1955, and subsequently proceeded against by the Board for the offences for which he had been dismissed but was cleared of all charges by the court.

No, Sir.

In view of the serious nature of the case and of the fact that the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue said to me quite definitely and admitted to me that the punishment which this man had received was out of all relation to the facts of the case, and that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer also had that feeling quite obviously about this case and expressed the view to me that he would see whether there was some way in which Mr. Coldham could be helped, will not my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary now really seriously consider this matter, which is one I cannot leave until I am satisfied?

My hon. Friend has had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue and with the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. I find difficulty in accepting his statement that either of those two were as sympathetic towards him and towards Mr. Coldham as his question suggests. He did, in November, give notice that he would raise this matter on the Adjournment. I really do not think we can carry it further at Question Time.

As a matter of principle, would it not be better, when an officer is involved in a case of this kind, to suspend him pending court proceedings?

No, Sir. When we have a case, such as in another of the fourteen cases to which I referred, where an officer admits that he has helped a member of the public to prepare a false Income Tax return, one cannot suspend a man like that pending proceedings.

In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which this case has been handled, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far he is still pressing to obtain any part of the £461,911 owed by purchasers of Government surplus stock; and what precautions have been taken to obviate the increase in the number of defaulters in respect of Government surplus stock sales.

These claims were abandoned and written off as losses, only after every effort had been made to recover the sums due and it had become clear that there was no prospect of doing so. Most of the losses in question were incurred during the immediate post-war period, and it is not the case that the number of defaulters had been increasing. It is the practice of selling Departments to take all reasonable precautions to check a purchaser's ability to pay, and not to part with stores until the full purchase price has been paid.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any lessons have been learned from the past with regard to Government surplus stocks? Can he say that some precautions are now being taken to ensure that there is not overbuying by Government Departments, which inevitably leads to huge surpluses being sold?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House the other day that a special, fresh inquiry into this was being undertaken. I should like to point out to the hon. Member and to the House that most of this sum of £461,000 odd arises not because someone who bought the goods went off with them without paying for them, but because the purchaser failed to complete his contract. The goods were left in the hands of the Department concerned, which had to sell them in default, and proceeded to try to recover from the original purchaser the difference between the amount he promised to pay and the amount which the goods actually fetched.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the chairman of the British Petroleum Company was not invited to meet him last Thursday with the other heads of State-owned industries.

The chairman of this company is not the head of a statutory public corporation.

While what the Economic Secretary says is quite true, would it not help the Government's campaign to stabilise or reduce prices if this Government-owned company showed a little more co-operation by reducing or stabilising the price of petrol which, of course, enters into costs very considerably?

As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, this is a public limited company and not a nationalised industry, and the policy of this Government, as of its predecessors ever since 1914, has been one of non-intervention in commercial management.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further cuts he requested in capital expenditure when he met the heads of State-owned industries last Thursday.

The purpose of my right hon. Friend's meeting was to have a general discussion on the economic situation. The question of further cuts in capital expenditure did not arise.

If, as in the case of recent widespread criticism, the proposed expenditure by the British Transport Commission on dining-cars and special coaches for very important personages shows that excessive capital expenditure is being embarked on, is not that a matter of interest to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

That rather vulgar supplementary question does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider making a reduction in the entertainments tax chargeable on the admission fees to professional football games.

My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

None the less, may I ask my right hon. Friend, when consideration is given to this question, that particular attention will be given to the financial position of clubs such as those in the Third Division (North) which do not get very large gates?

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I last week received a most formidable deputation representing many sports. It included representatives of the Football Association, the Football League and the Rugby Football League, so what I do not know about the finances of football just now is not worth knowing.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take, by promoting legislation or otherwise, to ensure the solvency and the sufficiency of capital resources of companies which invite loans from the public and relend the money for hire-purchase purposes.

My right hon. Friend has this question under consideration.

Is the Economic Secretary aware of the very sudden increase in such advertisements asking for loans of money from the public, and that it really is important to protect the public from deceit? Is he not also aware that the fact that these advertisements have suddenly sprung up in this way tends to show that the restrictions on hire purchase must be rather defective?

My right hon. Friend is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to this. He fully recognises the importance of the matter, but there are complex legal questions involved and I cannot say anything further at present.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the analysis of the economic implication of full employment, as contained in Command Paper No. 9725, what proposals the Government have for dealing with this problem.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave yesterday to a Question by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis).

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a diagnosis is not a cure? Whilst this White Paper describes the difficulties, it does nothing to indicate how they can be solved.

I think the hon. Gentleman is not quite fair. I suggest that he look at the section on market conditions and price stability. But we shall have a great further opportunity of discussing this matter during the Budget debates.

May I ask the Economic Secretary if he is making a statement on behalf of the Government accepting responsibility for full employment, and disowning his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who says that it is a matter for the employers?

I have nothing to add to my previous supplementary answer, which was, I think, perfectly fair and perfectly clear.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to prevent excessive fishing in the southern bight of the North Sea which, according to the report published by his Department, was partially responsible for the shortage of mature herrings in November of last year.

As my hon. Friend will know from the statement to which he refers, the biological explanations of the recent changes are incomplete. I have instructed my representatives on the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to ask the Council to arrange for an intensified study of the whole problem by their Herring Committee which is representative of the several countries whose fleets fish these stocks. The present International Fisheries Convention covering the North Sea does not provide for the regulation of the herring fishery.

Arising out of that Answer, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is estimated that the Danish catch of immature herrings alone has reached the colossal total of 100,000 tons a year—that is to say, about eighteen hundred million fish? In view of that, and in order to expedite matters, could he not make some direct representations to the Danish Government so that the experts of our Government and theirs—and possibly of the Dutch Government—could at least have a preliminary discussion on the matter, because it is urgent?

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very important and serious matter. I am also aware of the inroads made into the stocks of fish by the very heavy catches by Continental countries. I will consider the suggestion my hon. Friend has made.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how far the River Irwell flood prevention scheme will be affected by the recent circular 11/56 curtailing loan sanctions or grants for water and sewage disposal.

The Mersey River Board have submitted for grant-aid two further sections of the Irwell flood protection scheme, which are estimated to cost £62,000. These proposals will be allowed to go forward during the coming financial year.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I inform him that there will be further and vital sections of the scheme submitted to him for consideration? When examining them, will he bear in mind the misery and ill-health inflicted by the 1954—and particularly the 1946—floods, when the living-rooms of thousand of Salford homes were flooded to a height of 3ft. by this filthy, stinking water, and that many of these homes have been damp ever since?

I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. Any further applications will be considered on their merits.

In the meantime, will the Minister go up there and have a look at the river? I am quite sure that if he had a look at it he would do what my hon. Friend asks.

From the hon. Gentleman's description it does not sound satisfactory. I will not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what revised estimate he has made of the quantity of potatoes from abroad that will be needed to supplement the home crop in order to meet consumers' requirements until the new home crop is available.

Consumers' requirements of potatoes, and the quantity available in the United Kingdom, depend so much on the weather and other factors during the next few months that I am unable to give any useful estimate of the quantity it would be desirable to import from abroad. It is, however, clear that we must continue to import potatoes from all sources which can satisfy our plant health regulations.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement which the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board made yesterday, that there is, in the Board's estimation, a short-fall of about 300,000 tons on the home crop last year owing to the drought? Can he say how many potatoes have been imported so far to make good that shortage?

I have seen the statement to which my hon. Friend refers. Since last December, when we permitted the free import of ware potatoes, about 110,000 tons have been imported to date.

Whilst I appreciate that imports of potatoes are good, can the Minister say whether his Department is making any special effort to fill the expected gap of two or three weeks when there may be no potatoes available?

I am very anxious that all imports available should come into the country from every source that we can justify on plant health grounds.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the potatoes which have already come in have all been definitely of a standard which does not endanger the home crop by disease?

Yes, the reports that I have had indicate that in general they are of a high standard.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of potatoes compared with a year ago is scandalously high and that some of us have been supplied with details showing that the price per ton since price control was lifted has doubled from £17 to about £35?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman remembers that we had an exceptionally low yield last year because of the weather.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether on the Advisory Panel in connection with applications from Worcestershire for deferment from National Service, horticultural as well as agricultural representatives are included.

There is no horticultural grower on the Worcestershire Panel, but one of the workers' representatives has a general knowledge of horticulture, and two of the three deputy members have practical experience of it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an impression among horticultural growers that their applications for deferment do not receive as favourable consideration as do those of men engaged in general farming? Could my right hon. Friend do something to put a horticultural representative on the Advisory Panel?

These panels are not representative of any particular sections of agriculture. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, they consist of equal numbers of representatives of farmers and farm workers. If there is an impression such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, it may be due to the fact that up till last October a smaller proportion of horticultural workers were eligible for deferment under the regulations then in force, but that no longer applies today. All workers producing food are treated equally.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consult the interests concerned on the desirability of marking bacon in the shops to differentiate between home supplies, Empire supplies and foreign supplies, as in the case of butchers' meat.

There is already an Order made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, requiring the marking of Empire and foreign bacon. I have no power tinder the Act to require the marking of home supplies of bacon or other foods, and I must leave it to the interests concerned to decide for themselves, as in the case of butchers' meat, whether voluntary action is desirable.

Could my right hon. Friend say whether this Order applying to bacon is broadly in just the same terms as the Order applying to butchers' meat? In the butchers' shops we see the home product marked "Home killed."

Yes, I think it is, broadly speaking. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that where there is a marked superiority in the home produce the retailers are likely to mark the product as home produced in their own interests.

Are we not getting to that point with English bacon?

I believe we are.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he had with the Government directors of the new cold store company before the decision was taken to put out of service nearly one half of the Government-owned cold store at Cardiff Docks.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This Question was on the Order Book yesterday addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs, to ask him what discussions he had had with the Government directors, in his capacity as Minister for Welsh Affairs. This Question as it appears today is misrendered on the Order Paper. I do not wish to know, with respect to the Minister of Agriculture, what discussions he has had. Is he going to reply for the Home Secretary?

I have frequently reminded the House that the transference of Questions is nothing to do with me.

This is more than the transference of a Question. This is a misrendering of a Question which has been transferred. If the Home Secretary does not wish to reply to the Question, although his Parliamentary Secretary has in the past intervened in this matter, surely when it is transferred it should be transferred in such a form as to ask the Minister of Agriculture to state what discussions the Home Secretary has had?

If it is a misdirection of a Question, it is nothing to do with me.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary was designated by the Government as Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs. Therefore, a Question about Welsh affairs ought to be addressed to him as Minister for Welsh Affairs.

That Question ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister and not to me. I am quite innocent of the whole transaction.

May I ask what remedy I have in this case?

None.

In that case, I hope the hon. Gentleman will join with me in getting one. If I am asked, as I was, to visit the Home Office to see the Under-Secretary of State to discuss this matter with him and with the Chief Docks Manager at Cardiff, and at a later stage I ask the Home Secretary what is happening, surely it is reasonable—and I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker—that I should have an answer from the Home Department?

I do not think the hon. Member needs my protection. It seems to me that he is making full use, if not too much use, of the opportunities available to him.

This is a matter of executive administration and is therefore my responsibility.

On the substantial point, does the Minister propose to take action in this case in which private cold store interests hold a majority of places on the board of directors and are closing down these cold stores in order that they may fill their own cold stores first?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, in 1940, I believe, a pledge was given by the Government that these cold stores would not be used after the war in competition with private enterprise where adequate facilities existed. From the information that I have, the available refrigerated space at Cardiff at present, including one half of this cold store, is unoccupied to the extent of about 60 per cent.

In view of the changed circumstances of trade in Cardiff, and the importance of this cold storage for the purpose of developing alternative trade, do the Government still find themselves bound by that pledge? If they do, has the right hon. Gentleman considered what should be done about the situation in Cardiff in this respect?

If there is any evidence whatever that the cold storage space available in Cardiff is inadequate or likely to be inadequate, then there is the other half of this cold store, at present on a care and maintenance basis, which can be turned back again for use at short notice.

In view of the overall difficulties of the south-west ports, including Cardiff, will my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs on the future use of facilities of this kind? Does he not recognise that there is a big problem particularly in the coal ports in Cardiff?

I will certainly consult my right hon. and gallant Friend. The fact remains that if there is the slightest evidence that the cold storage space available is inadequate for present or likely trade, action can be taken. The other half of the cold store can then be made available.

Without wishing to detain the House any longer, may I ask the Minister whether he really thinks it proper to adhere to a pledge of this sort which is so clearly in restraint of trade and competition, when we have this cold store put out of action because privately-owned cold stores have got a pledge that they should be filled first? Does he not think that he should revise that pledge and ask the privately-owned interests if they will agree to fair competition?

There still remains the fact that to the best of my knowledge there is adequate cold storage space available in Cardiff.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he will hold a public inquiry into the fire on 25th February, 1956, at Messrs. Franklin, Lorne Street, Keighley, in which eight lives were lost;

I would like first of all to take this opportunity to express our sympathy with the relatives of all those who lost their lives in this tragic disaster.

Is the hon. Member aware that his reply will give great disappointment to thousands of my constituents who are employed in these ancient woollen mills, of which there are many in the West Riding of Yorkshire? Is he further aware that it has already been revealed at the inquest that there have been breaches of Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the Factories Act, which deal with the provision of fire alarms, and that there was no fire alarm available in this mill and no system of warning? Is he aware that the coroner has already stated categorically that the primary cause of these eight deaths was the failure to have adequate warning? In view of these violations, can he inform the House whether there are to be prosecutions?

Prosecution is being considered, particularly in relation to Section 36 (7) of the Act, which deals with fire alarms. On the wider point, in the first part of the supplementary question, I feel that there should be no cause for disappointment or alarm among the hon. Member's constituents. I said that the facts are being closely studied by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories with a view to avoiding a repetition. I can assure the hon. Member that that is being done, and my right hon. Friend and myself will be in close consultation with the chief inspector when he has finished his investigation.

I appreciate that, but I say this quite frankly: I do not want to be thought offensive, but sympathy is not enough in a disaster of this sort, which is the greatest mill disaster in Britain for many years. I have asked whether the hon. Member would make available the factory inspector's report to myself, as Member for that constituency. Is the hon. Member aware that Her Majesty's factory inspector visited this factory in 1951 and that reports were made by her that no fire alarm system was available? How is it that no action was taken on the subsequent visit in 1955?

The firm was informed and instructed after the visit to which the hon. Member refers; there can be no doubt about it having been made fully aware and instructed about the requirements of the Act in that connection. The only object of a public inquiry would be to find further facts. In the light of the inquest and the inspector's report, we believe that all the facts are known. I again assure the hon. Member that this matter is being investigated most closely and will have the personal attention of my right hon. Friend and myself. These reports are confidential documents—that is a practice of long standing—but if the hon. Member would like to come and discuss the matter in more detail we shall be very glad to talk to him about it.

I gather from the reply that there was an inspection by the factory inspector in 1951. Do I gather that there was not another until 1955? Since the hon. Gentleman will not make available to my hon. Friend a copy of the inspector's report of 1955, may I ask whether he would make it available to the trade union concerned if the union asked for it? In view of the fact that it is very important that people who work in mills of this kind should be fully satisfied about the steps taken, is it not essential in these circumstances to hold a public inquiry? My experience is not in factories but elsewhere, and in the event of an accident in a mine the normal practice is to hold a full public inquiry, because it is essential to satisfy public opinion about what happened and what steps have been taken to prevent a repetition.

I will certainly take into account what the right hon. Gentleman says about that. I can assure him that the only desire of my right hon. Friend and myself is to treat this matter with the utmost seriousness and to take what action is possible to avoid a repetition of a tragic disaster of this kind. We will also consider his question about making available the report to the trade union, but I am advised that it is longstanding practice that these reports are confidential documents. We will certainly go into the matter further.

asked the Minister of Labour to what extent production cuts in the motor car industry have, so far, increased short-time working and redundancy in sections of the textile industry.

I am aware of only two cases of short-time working, a firm in Lancashire making tyre fabrics and a firm in Yorkshire making car upholstery. At the former 300 and at the latter 100 workers are on short time. As regards redundancy, I understand that approximately 125 workers are being discharged by a firm in Lancashire making rayon yarn for motor tyres.

Is the Minister aware of the fears in the North that the effects will be felt more acutely within the next six weeks? Is it not becoming increasingly obvious that if the Government permit unemployment in one industry it must spread to others, and that, having conjured up the genie of unemployment, the Government are completely losing control of it?

I do not accept that. I think it is important to keep in mind the distinction between unemployment and short-time working. The unemployment figures are still at an all-time low record for this time of the year. There is a good deal of short-time working, which is causing us much concern, and naturally the ripples of it spread to the firms which help to make components and other parts for the motor car industry. It is a matter which the Government and I myself, in particular, are watching very carefully.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement concerning the dispute which was reported to him, and which has lasted for 11 weeks, between the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers and the Plumbing Trades Union, as to who shall put the windows in a block of offices in Leeds.

I was aware of the dispute, although it was not formally reported to me. It was dealt with by the disputes machinery of the building industry, and I understand that a settlement was reached which resulted in a resumption of the disputed work on 19th March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the unions concerned carry on these private wars the customers who are paying for their products are losing money? Will the Government screw up their courage and bring in legislation which will give the aggrieved persons some right of action against strikers who prolong strikes unnecessarily and unjustifiably?

The answer to the question about legislation is, No, Sir. These demarcation disputes are, and for a long time have been, difficult and contentious matters, but it is worth remembering, as the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into another matter published this morning makes clear, that 99 out of 100 of these disputes are settled at once and on the spot through the ordinary machinery. I wish it were 100 out of 100.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that on 9th February 368,416 vacancies were left unfilled, whereas on 13th February there were 275,628 people unemployed; and what steps are being taken to correct this uneconomical maldistribution of labour.

The filling of vacancies is dependent upon finding suitable workers who are ready to go to the jobs, and this is one of the regular duties of the employment exchanges, through which vacancies are given the widest reasonable circulation. In the four weeks ended 8th February, 235,000 vacancies were filled.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there appears to be a lack of flexibility in trade union practice about the transfer of labour but that it has its roots in the housing problem, and that if he could persuade his right hon. Friend to scrap the Rent Acts he would make a great contribution towards solving this problem?

How can the Minister equate the premises contained in the Question within the realm of a free society?

It is impossible to equate vacancies with those people who are seeking jobs unless one has direction of labour. It can be done only by that method.

asked the Minister of Labour if he can now make a statement on the trade dispute between the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, the Ship Constructors and Shipwrights Association, and the Shipwrights and Metal Workers Unions which has been outstanding in the Cammell Laird's shipyards at Birkenhead for some months.

The strike at Cammell Laird's shipyard, which has been in progress since last November, threatens to affect the employment of other workers in the yard and to result in the cancellation or loss of export orders. For some months my Ministry and the Trades Union Congress have made every effort to bring this difficult dispute to an end. When finally the efforts of the Trades Union Congress failed to secure agreement, I appointed, on the 12th March, a committee to inquire into the difficulties which had arisen, and to make recommendations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that as new techniques and new processes are coming into operation all the time this kind of dispute will become increasingly prevalent? In view of the great damage to the national interest and the possible loss of £6 million of work—of which the workers might themselves some day stand in need—ought not my right hon. Friend to intervene more rapidly when it is apparent that the machinery, or the way in which the machinery is operated, is not becoming effective?

I do not think that in this difficult situation an earlier intervention of mine would have been effective. This remains essentially an inter-union dispute, and it is right that it should be solved, if possible, at first by the trade unions concerned and, if not, then by the Trades Union Congress. The main point which I want to raise is that a committee has now said that this matter should go through the ordinary procedure of arbitration. I believe firmly that it is in the national interest that there should be a resumption of work forthwith pending a settlement of that particular matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman again confirm that the established procedure the Trades Union Congress has developed over the years does meet these questions and enable them to be settled amicably? Will he refuse to give way to pressure of his hon. Friends to introduce legislation on this subject which would bedevil the situation? In view of the Report, I join with the Minister in expressing the hope that the dispute will soon come to an end and that there will be a resumption of work.

I welcome very much what the right hon. Member said at the end of his supplementary question. Of course it is true that the dispute machinery in these cases, what is called the 1912 agreement, exists. It could, and I think should, have settled the dispute long ago, but it must be a matter of concern that a settlement has not yet been arrived at.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the essence of the demarcation machinery is that work should continue while a dispute is being discussed? If we are to have a repetition of six months' disastrous delay, should not my right hon. Friend exercise his power and influence much more rapidly?

asked the Minister of Labour if he has now considered the figures relating to discharges and short-time work in the furniture industry, supplied to him by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury; and if he will make a statement.

As I informed the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 27th March, I am having inquiries made. When these are completed, I will write to the hon. Member.

Is the Minister aware that the difficulty in reconciling his figures with those of the union arises from the fact that the official figures take cognisance only of days worked short there and ignore the more prevalent practice of working fewer hours per day? Is he further aware that one furniture worker out of three has either been discharged or is working short time and that the position is getting worse? Will he look closely into the matter and inform the President of the Board of Trade of the position?

As I undertook in the debate on employment, I am checking the discrepancy and, as soon as I can do so, I will write to the hon. Member.

Although he has quoted the answer he gave me, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to some extent that answer was misleading because he said that one of the main reasons for this short time and unemployment was seasonal causes? Yet in his Answer the right hon. Gentleman shows by figures that whereas in March, 1951, there were only a few unemployed and on short time, this March there are many thousands. If it is seasonal there should be some com- parison of the figures. Is not the position entirely due to Government policy?

The hon. Member takes a particular year to suit himself, but if he takes any other year he will see that seasonal causes are at work and that unemployment in the furniture industry varies from month to month throughout the year. That is abundantly clear.

asked the Minister of Labour if, with regard to the case for deferment from National Service of the applicant from the Vale of Eve-sham, which has been the subject of representations to him, he will give the matter further consideration owing to the risk of that family's horticultural holding passing out of cultivation altogether in the event of the applicant being called up now for National Service.

My predecessor was advised in August, 1954, by the Agricultural Advisory Panel that there was insufficient work on the holding to justify this man's deferment. I have again studied the papers but can find no reason to interfere with this decision. His call-up has been postponed for more than a year on grounds of hardship, but the Military Service (Hardship) Committee has refused further postponement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the Question states, it is believed that there is risk of this particularly valuable agricultural land going out of cultivation because the family cannot make arrangements to hire labour to work it? If that is so, will he have another look at the matter with a view to seeing whether it is possible to give the man a further period of deferment?

This matter has been looked at, I think, by three or perhaps four Ministers, and each has come to the same conclusion. The facts about the agricultural value of the holding were before the panel, whose decision was unanimous. Even having looked at the case again, I am afraid I cannot find it right to interfere.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions there are to prevent a retired hangman from publicly revealing details of executions in which he has taken part; and what steps he has taken to bring these restrictions to the attention of retiring hangmen.

As the question of instituting criminal proceedings in relation to a recent publication of details of executions is now under consideration, it would, I think, be inadvisable for me now to say more lest I should inadvertently say something which might prejudice those proceedings.

Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree in principle that the public interest in these memoirs and other facts about hanging necessarily go with the system of hanging? Is that not so degrading in itself that it constitutes a case for abolition?

I am afraid I could not pursue that matter in question and answer. I would not agree with the first part of the supplementary question, but I do not think I could say anything more for the reasons given in my original reply.

Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that Mr. Pierrepoint's father was also a public hangman and published his memoirs about 35 years ago? There was no official complaint of any kind made at that time. In view of the public interest in the death penalty at present, would not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that the full facts should be disclosed? Who is in a better position to disclose them than the gentleman who was described in the Report of the Royal Commission as the most experienced public executioner in the country?

Although I do not agree with what my hon. Friend has said, I do not think I should say more at this moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what regulations and by what authority, between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th March, within normally permitted entry hours, a woman was refused admittance by the police to Highgate Cemetery for the purpose of placing flowers on the grave of a deceased relative.

The cemetery, which is owned by a private company, was closed to the general public between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. on 14th March by order of the company. The police were not responsible for refusing admission.

Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the police appeared to consider that they were in a position to refuse admission to this cemetery during that time? Is he aware that a witness to the event mentioned in the Question approached a police superintendent and spoke to him and the superintendent told him he had his instructions and nothing could be done about admitting this woman?

With that I entirely agree, but that does not say it was the police who refused admission. This was on the occasion of the unveiling of a memorial to Karl Marx, by Mr. Harry Pollitt I believe. The cemetery is owned by a private company which refused admission and the police had to see that traffic moved and so on, but they refused no one admission at all.

Is it not an extraordinary thing that cemeteries can be closed to mourners and others? If private companies can do this, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider some means, through legislation or otherwise, to prevent such a practice? Is it not a shocking thing for people to find that a cemetery is closed because it happens to be private property?

That is a larger question and, as I have indicated, this was a rather different case from the normal. I suppose the owners did not want too many people inside the cemetery. I cannot possibly consider legislation on the matter.

Is it a purely private company which owns the cemetery, or does a local authority own it? Will my right hon. and gallant Friend take some steps to prevent closing of these areas of ground to which many people come from considerable distances and are not aware that they are likely to find them closed at odd times? Will he take some steps to remedy the situation?

My information is that the cemetery is owned by a private company. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that we must keep a sense of proportion in these matters. This was the only occasion which has been brought to my notice, and it was an exceptional occasion.

Is it really a fact that the grave of Karl Marx is in a cemetery which is owned by private enterprise and that he was buried by private enterprise?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give the facts about the execution of Edith Thompson in 1923, and publish the full text of the instructions subsequently issued to prison governors regarding executions in general, indicating how far these instructions were affected by the facts in Mrs. Thompson's case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the full facts regarding the circumstances of the execution of Edith Thompson; and how far the circumstances in that case necessitated amendments to the rules concerning the conduct of executions.

I would refer to the Answer which I gave on 27th March to Questions by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), to which I have nothing to add.

Would my right hon. and gallant Friend not agree that that answer gave an account of the circumstances surrounding Mrs. Thompson's execution which differed very markedly from the impression which his Department has hitherto sought to give to both Houses of Parliament? I am wondering whether in the circumstances my right hon. and gallant Friend would not reconsider his decision not to publish the instructions to prison governors, as I feel that the House of Commons should now be informed of the full facts which surround this business.

I cannot possibly accept responsibility as my hon. Friend suggests on behalf of my Department or of any holder of this office, either myself or my predecessors, for any of the circumstances which have led to the disputes in this case. Most of the statements—in fact all the statements—have been made by other people outside, and I am satisfied, having gone into this matter with very great care, that all the relevant facts are known. The first half of the instructions to governors was issued, I believe, in 1928 as a result of the trial and all the circumstances. The other part was given in the other place the other day, and there is nothing more I can add.

In view of the many statements which have been made in this matter and the acknowledgment in the Home Secretary's reply yesterday that the woman had to be carried to the scaffold and her body had to be supported on the scaffold, is it not desirable that there should be a full inquiry into this matter so that the public might be quite sure that the facts have been adequately revealed?

I hope the hon. Member will take it from me that there are no facts which have not been revealed in regard to this case. A lot of suggestions have been made over the years—

What did the hangman say in Glasgow?

He said nothing different to what I have said here. I have gone into this matter with very great care. I beg the hon. Member to read what is available to the public—that is, the evidence given before the Royal Commission—from which he would see that my statement is pretty accurate

Whatever may have been the merits of the Home Office decision in the past not to give full information when these stories started going round, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that it was his Department which took the initiative in making a statement, both on this particular execution and on the instructions to governors, when his Joint Under-Secretary made a statement in the other place? Does the Home Secretary not consider it very unfortunate indeed that when the Home Office decided to take that initiative, it nevertheless gave information on both points which, no doubt quite unintentionally, turned out to be somewhat misleading and that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had to amplify both points since the statement was made? Is he aware that this has caused a great deal of distrust and that the Home Secretary now has something to live down in this matter?

I am very sorry that I cannot possibly accept any part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will not accept any part of it—I repeat that. The fact is that the initiative did not come from the Home Office. It came from Mr. Koestler and his articles were published in the Observer.

rose—

The right hon. Gentleman must let me finish. I have been attacked constantly on this, and I am determined to see that my side of the case is put. It was Mr. Koestler's articles in the Observer—the precursor to his book—which started the whole of this question, particularly in regard to Mrs. Thompson's execution. It was the statements made in his articles that led to the statement made by my noble Friend in the House of Lords, and it was not the initiative of the Home Office at all. I am not responsible nor would I take any responsibility for what has happened in 1923 and since.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there have been articles and statements comparable to those of Mr. Koestler for years past and that there was a new departure when his Department decided to make a formal statement in relation to them in another place, and that on both points, as I said before, the statement which was made turned out to be misleading in the sense that the impression was created that Mr. Koestler had misquoted the instructions, whereas in fact what he had done was to quote quite accurately that part of the instruction which the House Office itself had previously seen fit to make public? It was entirely the withholding of it from the public that caused Mr. Koestler to give that misleading information. Is the Home Secretary also aware that a quite wrong impression was created in the statement about the facts of Mrs. Thompson's execution?

This is typical of what has been going on the whole time. The statement originally made about Mrs. Thompson was made by a Member of the House in the 1948 debate. That could have been corrected then, but it was not—it was nothing to do with me anyway; but that was the statement then made. It has been repeated in Mr. Koestler's articles. It was not a statement made on behalf of the Home Office. A Question was asked, and in answer to that Question the statement was made by my noble Friend in the House of Lords. The fact remains, if we are to have controversy, as we will, on the question of capital punishment, that there is no need to descend to this kind of thing. Let us have this as a matter of conscience. [Interruption.] Certainly. Statements have been made about this execution which are entirely without foundation, and I am taking full responsibility for my office in saying that the answer which I gave yesterday is the correct answer with regard to the whole of this business.

rose—

This is becoming a debate and there are other Questions on the Order Paper.

On a point of order. In view of the attempt to hush up this business and the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

In giving notice that he intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment, the hon. Member should not use the opportunity to make any imputation. That is quite out of order.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the number of prosecutions for soliciting heard at Bow Street and Marlborough Street magistrates' courts has fallen in recent weeks; and what are the reasons therefor.

In the three weeks ended 24th March, 202 prosecutions for soliciting were heard at Bow Street Magistrates' Court, compared with 328 in the preceding three weeks. At Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court there were 91, compared with 60 in the preceding three weeks. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that these variations are not attributable to any one cause, and it is not surprising that the number of arrests varies from time to time since the police are empowered to arrest only when they have reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence against the law.

Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that by working to the strict letter of the law the number of police arrests fell to the extent shown during the period to which he has referred? Has there not been some little difficulty as a result of working to rule?

No. The Commissioner assures me that that is not so. As the hon. and gallant Member will, I am sure, appreciate, this is an extremely difficult law to enforce. Our sympathy ought to be extended to these men, and particularly the younger ones, who have to carry it out. I do not think that some of the allegations which have been made against them, either in this House or outside, help them in carrying out an extremely difficult task.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many lavatories there are on each landing in the average closed local prison; and how many prisoners each lavatory serves, including those on landings where the men are sleeping three in a cell.

If there are cells on only one side of a landing there is normally one lavatory; if there are cells on both sides there are normally two. There are normally about 18 prisoners to each landing lavatory. On landings where men are sleeping three in a cell the average number of prisoners per lavatory is 25.

Does the Home Secretary consider that the sanitary arrangements are adequate? Is it not very difficult to train prisoners in conditions in which they cannot have self-respect, in the in-sanitary conditions which are characteristic of British prisons?

I would not say they were adequate. Indeed there are a good many things we would like to see done. As the hon. Member is aware, however, certain restrictions are at present operating. The real difficulty arises from the fact that there are still so many instances of three men occupying a cell. As the number is reduced—and it is being reduced—I hope that it will improve the position.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers are at present living inside Her Majesty's prisons; and how many are in Strangeways Prison, Manchester.

At closed establishments 45 men and 47 women, including 12 women but no men at Strangeways Prison, Manchester. At open establishments 49 men and 23 women.

Is it not unsatisfactory that so many officers should have to live inside the prisons, and in some cases, I think, in the cells? How long will it be before adequate accommodation is provided?

I am hoping by 1956–57—that is, next year—to be able to find accommodation which will overcome these figures.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons are at present engaged on making mailbags; and how many are so employed in Manchester, Winson Green, Birmingham, Pentonville, and Wandsworth prisons, respectively.

On 21st March this year 3,065 prisoners were employed on making or repairing mailbags. Of these 135 were at Manchester, 176 at Birmingham, 111 at Pentonville and 291 at Wandsworth.

Would the Home Secretary not consider that this work is soul-destroying, and that in other countries alternative work with plastics is provided for prisoners? Will he consider taking some action to reduce the very serious amount of soul-destroying work given to the prisoners?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we should not have soul-destroying work when there are other varieties of work, as there are. I am watching the matter the whole time, for I am anxious to do anything I can to see that work of as interesting nature as possible is given.