asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in connection with his review of small fines in old statutes.

The work is going forward, but a good deal of consultation with other Government Departments, local authority associations and others will be necessary before specific proposals can be formulated.

Having regard to the change in the value of money and the limitations imposed on magistrates by some of these ridiculously small fines, such as a maximum fine of 5s. for allowing cattle to stray on the highway, will the Home Secretary do his best to have some more up-to-date amounts settled as soon as possible?

In the pre-1914 statutes there are already 600 fines scattered through 150 statutes, and, what with our relations with local authorities and others, it would take a little time to set this right—but I do not underestimate its importance.

What is to prevent these fines being revised in Measures when they are consolidated? There is at present 'before the House the Highways Bill, in which the penalties are quite inconsistent as between one offence and another. Could not that opportunity be taken to revise the penalties?

The trouble about that is that it would be taking piecemeal action, but we will do so where we can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now considered the situation created by the publication of the Casement diaries in Paris and New York and the forthcoming publication in London; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the request that the documents belonging to the late Sir Roger Casement shall be handed over to the Dublin Museum.

I am considering the whole position very carefully in the light of the publication of the book to which my hon. Friend refers. I am not yet able to say more, but I hope to be able to give a fuller reply before long, when my inquiries are completed.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is able to say whether, when he comes to make his statement, to which we shall look forward in the hope that it will end this sad controversy which has lasted such a long time, he will be able to permit inspection of the originals? Is he able to say what is the legal position of those people, of whom I understand my right hon. Friend is one, who have copies of this book in their possession as regards the Official Secrets Act?

I would not like to answer the second part of my hon. Friend's question without notice. In regard to the first part, I am sorry that I cannot take this matter any further today, but I will do so in the very near future. The position is that there are a lot of considerations to be borne in mind, but directly I can make a statement I will do so.

Is the Home Secretary aware that this book, "Black Diaries", which has been stigmatized as the indecent diaries of Sir Roger Casement, has now found its way into the House of Commons Library? Is he also aware that the longer he delays his statement the longer will people in Ireland, America and abroad believe that he is whitewashing forgery? Is it not time that he made up his mind to come right out and hand the diaries back to where they belong?

The great question is where do the diaries belong, which is precisely what I am at present considering I have to consider, for example, the representations made recently to me from solicitors representing persons who claim to possess the copyright of these writings, and it is precisely the testamentary aspect which I am at present considering. When I have got that clear I hope it will be possible to take a decision about this. I am sorry that it is not possible to give an answer today.

Will my right hon. Friend answer this point, on which there is a great deal of public curiosity? Could he inform the House whether or not the originals of these diaries are in existence, or whether they have been destroyed?

The answer is that they are in existence.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, on balance, it would do much less harm to publish these documents than to go on suppressing them?

We are not exactly suppressing them, but I understand the importance of the right hon. Gentleman's question. There are other considerations in relation to other of the diaries which have not been reproduced in that particular " black " volume which need a certain amount of consideration, which I shall be glad to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman if he so desires.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to set up the Departmental Committee for an inquiry into all aspects of the Probation Service; and what are the names of the members of the Committee.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and 1 hope shortly to be in a position to appoint the Committee, and we shall then announce the full membership. Meanwhile, I am glad to say that Mr. R. P. Morison, Q.C., has accepted our invitation to be Chairman. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the proposed terms of reference.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that he proceeds with the matter as quickly as possible? Is he aware that there has been a considerable amount of agitation with regard to the Probation Service?

Yes, certainly. This is one of the most important aspects of the work for which I am responsible. Hon. Members will see the terms of reference; we now have the Chairman, and I hope shortly to appoint the Committee.

Is it proposed to include among the members of the Committee any men or women with actual experience of the Probation Service?

Although part of the decision has been taken, the complete decision has not. If the hon. Gentleman would like to put any point to me in relation to that I should be glad to deal with it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are considerable complaints that the Service is understaffed and over-worked and that a great deal of valuable work for youth could be accelerated if the staff were increased? Will that matter come within the terms of reference?

The hon. Gentleman had better read the terms of reference, which will mean that I shall not give him an inaccurate answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that about 150 prison medical officers who occupy Government-owned houses are having their rent put up under the provisions of the Rent Act, 1957, to two or three times the original amount; and what steps lie proposes to take by way of compensation.

The increase pro- posed affects 33 prison medical officers. It arises from the general decision that rents for Government-owned quarters should be related as closely as possible to those charged by private landlords. The matter is at present under discussion with the staff association concerned.

Owing to this very serious attack on the housing of the people as a whole and in consequence of the Government's action which has placed these people in this unfortunate position, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Home Office ought to ensure that the salaries are supplemented so that they can meet the increase in rents?

I do not accept the whole of the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of Government policy and attitude; apart from that, I will try to do my best for these officers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the normal time taken in dealing with petitions from prisoners; and to what extent the procedure can be accelerated.

The time taken to deal with a prisoner's petition varies considerably according to its nature and the number of inquiries which have to be made. My right hon. Friend is considering at present whether the disposal of petitions can be accelerated.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a prisoner is not allowed to write to his Member of Parliament while his petition is in the hands of the Home Office? As it takes a very long time to deal with some petitions, a prisoner may well have served the greater part of the sentence before he receives a reply. Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman look at that aspect?

I will consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the final report of the Department of Criminal Science at Cambridge on the study of crimes of violence in the Metropolitan Police area.

My right hon. Friend hopes to receive the first section of the report during the summer and later sections as they are completed. I understand that it may not be possible for the whole report to be completed until early next year.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend recall the answer given by his right hon. Friend to me in July of last year, when he said that this report was expected in the first half of 1959? Why is there such an extraordinary delay over such an important matter while these crimes of violence are increasing every year without any check?

The Department of Criminal Science at Cambridge has had a number of extra tasks placed upon it, mainly in connection with the Ingle by Committee and the establishment of a new institute of criminology. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that there is a vast amount of research and study needed in this matter and that this job is worth doing thoroughly and well. If we try to rush it the results may not be quite so helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of crimes of violence against the person known to the police during the six-month period ended 31st March, 1959, compared with the six months ended 31st March, 1948, and the six months ended 31st March, 1938.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes of violence were known to the police in 1958, and for each of the preceding six years, respectively.

I regret that figures for the first three months of 1959 and for parts of the years 1938 and 1948 are not available. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the number of crimes of violence known to the police in England and Wales in 1938 and in each of the seven years 1952–58.

In view of the great increase in crimes of violence between 1948 and 1958, as disclosed in a Written Answer to a Question which I asked earlier this week, and also in view of the fact that there is an increase in crimes of violence for which corporal punishment was formerly applicable—contrary to what has happened up to quite recently—will my hon. and learned Friend consult his right hon. Friend on the question of reintroducing corporal punishment for certain crimes of violence?

There is no evidence that flogging or birching were in the past or would be in the future a deterrent for the limited number of crimes of violence for which they were awarded. Flogging and birching have no reformative value at all. Although crimes of violence have increased considerably, the number of offences for which flogging and birching were awarded in the past has not increased disproportionately.

That is not so.

Whatever the figures may be, is my hon. and learned Friend and his right hon. Friend aware that women, especially in the rural areas where these crimes of violence often occur, feel that some sterner punishment should be meted out to men who are criminals? Is he aware that there is a general feeling in the country that he and his Department are far too soft about this matter and that people want something done? [HON. MEMBERS: R ubbish."1It is not rubbish.

We must apply our minds rationally to the deterrent and the reformative value of the various kinds of sentences which can be awarded.

Is my hon. and learned Friend quite sure that we are being rational and are applying our minds rationally if we discard altogether the idea of any corporal punishment for these crimes which are alarming and annoying the people?

Is the Minister aware that flogging and birching have not been practised in Scotland for over 100 years, and will he refer those hon. Members who think it is a solution to a study of the law of Scotland?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I permitted to point out that the reply of my hon. and learned Friend is in conflict with the reply published in the OFFICIAL REPORT oil Monday?

That is not a point of order. It might be a point for debate were there a Question before the House.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has the full support of hon. Members on this side of the House for the position he has adopted in his reply to his hon. Friends?

In view of the fact that in my constituency two little girls have been brutally murdered in the last eight weeks, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions by the Metropolitan Police are pending arising out of the incidents, investigated by them, which involved approximately 200 young men and women at Sloane Square Underground station on Thursday, 19th March.

The Metropolitan Police were not concerned.

Is the Minister aware that I read in the Press that 15 constables and a sergeant tried to eject these people? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it causes great embarrassment and inconvenience to the law-minded traveling public if people behave on trains in this hooligan manner? Does not the Minister think they should be restricted?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman has quite appreciated that on London Transport property the Metropolitan Police do not patrol the premises and do not intervene in incidents unless they are called in; and they were not called in on this occasion.

Does that mean that London Transport has allowed incidents to occur concerning the welfare of its passengers without making any protest or representation to the Metropolitan Police?

London Transport Executive has its own police, the British Transport Commission police, and did not call in the Metropolitan Police on this occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in his consultations with Commonwealth and colonial countries regarding the deportation of immigrants from such countries convicted of serious crimes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement on his negotiations with the Commonwealth Governments regarding the deportation of all Commonwealth citizens, irrespective of race, colour or creed, who are convicted of criminal offences in this country.

I regret that I am not in a position to add to the reply which I gave on 26th February to the Question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne).

In view of the further increase in the crime of living on immoral earnings, convictions for which were 136 in the Metropolitan Police area in 1958 compared with 130 for the previous year, and of the continued rise in the number of colonial immigrants who were responsible for 77 out of the 136 in 1958, does not my right hon. Friend think he can do something to accelerate these discussions. Which many of us think are quite unnecessary?

I understand my hon. Friend to say that the discussions—by which, I presume, he means those with overseas Governments—are unnecessary. In my opinion, they are necessary. It is important that consultations with the Governments concerned should take place. I am sorry that they are not quicker. There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. We have not full information from overseas Governments, but owing to the spirit in which we run our British family of nations I would rather give an opportunity to those Governments to express their view before we took our final decision.

What possible objection can there be to sending these proved criminals home—unless my right hon. Friend wants to put them on the Front Opposition Bench?

I would simply say that the only objection is that we should be taking a step contrary to the whole tradition and experience of this nation if we took this action against nationals from the British Commonwealth and Colonial Territories. It would be a complete and absolute novelty in our tradition. I do not preclude it; I have made statements saying there are advantages in it. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that it would be a complete novelty.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point of view which has been expressed from behind him today was wholly rejected by the Standing Committee which was recently discussing the matter? Is he also aware that his view that there should be the fullest consultation with Commonwealth and Colonial Territories has the entire support of the Opposition?

On a point of order. Is there not a rule, Mr. Speaker, against anything unparliamentarily being said, not only about an individual but about a small and clearly defined group? If so, was the remark of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) about the Front Opposition Bench in order?

I did not take the observation seriously. I thought it was intended as a joke, but whether it is a joke or not depends upon one's sense of humor.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British refugees from Egypt still await resettlement.

Two hundred and seventy-nine persons at present wholly or partially maintained by the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board have not yet been resettled.

While I welcome the reduction since December, when there were 425 people awaiting resettlement, can the Under-Secretary of State give an assurance that this sad problem will be disposed of within the next few months?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Board is doing its utmost to settle the small remaining number. Obviously, these are vhe most difficult refugees to be resettled. When one considers that the Board has had more than 6,000 cases through its hands, it is clear that it has done an extremely fine job in getting so many refugees resettled.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the trend of crime during 1958 and the extra measures being taken to combat it.

Provisional figures for England and Wales for 1958 show a continued increase in crime. The total number of indictable offences known to the police was 626,509, an increase of 14.8 per cent compared with 1957. Offences of breaking and entering increased by 25 per cent to 131,132; of larceny by 13 per cent. to 409,388; of violence against the person by 11 per cent. to 12,137; and of robbery by 29 per cent. to 1,692. Sexual offences decreased by 5 per cent. to 17,691. Statistics of persons found guilty of indictable offences are not yet available for the whole of 1958, but the figures for the first three-quarters of the year show that the increase is greatest among young people aged from upwards of 14 to about 21. The White Paper on Penal Practice in a Changing Society indicated what has been and is being done to examine and develop the means of combating crime.

Has the Home Office made any real analysis of the reasons for these distressing figures, which are a growing blot upon our civilization?

There have been previous crime waves. One was in 1952, which eventually subsided, and we very much trust that this one will do so also. I have done my best to consult all the other bodies concerned—churches, voluntary societies, schools and everybody else—and we must do our best to get into our young people's minds the right ideas about proper behavior. It may be a hard job, and into that job may go deterrents and firmness of action.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep concern caused by the figures? Does he remember that when he was at the Ministry of Education he encouraged local authorities to make provision for a Youth Service? Does he not agree that this Service has been starved of opportunities for service, and will he look at this matter, especially to see whether there is any positive contribution that we can make?

Yes, Sir, and it is because of that that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has appointed an inquiry into the Youth Service in order to be satisfied that the upwards of £3 million spent on it has been well spent. While not wishing to pledge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am convinced that this is a matter of great importance to the Government and to the country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Attilio Messina, sentenced to prison for four years for living on the earnings of prostitution, has been living in this country for 25 years as an Italian citizen; and why this man was not deported, following his conviction at Bow Street in 1951.

This man came here in 1934 with a British passport which was withdrawn in 1952 when it was discovered that he was not entitled to British nationality. A deportation order was made against him at that time, but proved unenforceable because the Italian Government did not then recognize him as an Italian national. I understand that they are now prepared to do so, and I am giving urgent consideration to the question of his deportation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite what he said, I for one am somewhat disturbed? On the one hand, for reasons which one entirely respects, he forbids access to the country to innocuous persons like Mr. Slavko Sank—concerning whom I have written to my right hon. Friend—who wished to pay a short visit to his brother in Carlisle, while, on the other hand, more noxious citizens of the character of the man named in the Question stay with us for so long? Can my right hon. Friend give a further assurance that the nationality of this man and his brothers is entirely cleared up?

I admire the ingenuity of my hon. Friend in bringing in what amounts to an extra Question to those permitted on the Order Paper to hon. Members by putting to me a point, to which, of course, I will give my attention, while bringing it to the attention of any future Committee on Procedure. This question is a very serious one. This man's brother, Carmelo, has been deported to Italy and the man himself has just been sentenced to a considerable sentence of long duration.

The question arises of the attitude of the Home Office towards a man sentenced to a long sentence and to whom the Italian Government are now prepared to grant a passport. It is to this aspect of the case, which has not come up in quite this way before, namely, that of a man sentenced to a long sentence and whom I am in a position to be able to deport, that I wish to give a little more attention, in the light of the precedents already created.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me at least, whatever other hon. Members may think, that he will exercise very great wisdom if, instead of maintaining this notorious criminal at public expense, he gets rid of him at once?

I am not at all surprised to hear that reaction in the British Parliament. That sort of thing I shall consider, also.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Joint Committee of the British Medical Association and the Magistrates' Association on the law of suicide; and if he has any decision to announce on the question of amending legislation.

A helpful meeting between officials of my Department and of the Ministry of Health and representatives of the Joint Committee of the British Medical Association and the Magistrates' Association took place last month. The meeting explored the crucial problem of ensuring that persons who attempt to commit suicide receive treatment for their mental, as well as their physical, condition. The existing law does ensure this, although f recognize that it has unsatisfactory features, and before we change it I want to be satisfied that there are workable alternatives. I am not in a position to say when it would be possible to legislate.

As the Home Secretary will be aware that these investigations have been going on for more than a year now, can he give any indication when he might be able to reach finality in this rather important matter?

I sympathies with the desire to reach finality, but I do not think it will be possible to do so in this Session, although I think it will be possible to make further progress on the lines I am following.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inquire into the conditions under which monkeys imported into Great Britain are kept pending dispatch to laboratories engaged in the production of vaccines.

My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that conditions are not satisfactory. It is an offence under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, to cause, or permit to be caused, any unnecessary suffering to a domestic or captive animal by ill-treating or neglecting it; and 1 am sure that those responsible for enforcing the Act will at once investigate any such allegation.

Is the hon. Lady aware that distressing accounts have appeared showing a very heavy death rate suffered by these monkeys when they are sent from London Airport to monkey farms? Will she examine a case in which 927 animals died in the period of three months at one of these places? If those circumstances are verified, will she see that necessary action is taken to avoid this needless suffering in what is a large traffic?

The hon. Member refers to a large traffic, but he will be aware of the incalculable value of these animals in the vaccines produced. I can assure him that these farms have been visited both by the police and the R.S.P.C.A. and that no grounds have been found for the institution of proceedings. I understand the monkeys are well looked after in good, hygienic conditions and are visited three times a week by a qualified veterinary surgeon. It is, however, not unnatural, in view of the change from a tropical climate, that there are a certain number of deaths.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the recommendation contained in paragraph 126 of the Wolfenden Report; and, in view of the confusion caused by the overlapping of Clause 13 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, and certain local byelaws relating to acts of indecency and in order to remove doubt on the matter, if he will introduce legislation to clarify the existing law.

My right hon. Friend indicated in the debate on the Wolfenden Report on 26th November last that the Government did not consider that they would be justified at present in introducing legislation to implement the recommendation in Part 2 of the Committee's Report. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to introduce separate legislation to deal with this particular point.

Would the Joint Under-Secretary agree that it appears to be a matter of chance whether a man is charged under a local government byelaw with a maximum penalty of £5 or under the Sexual Offences Act with a maximum penalty of two years? In view of this disparity, surely some legislation is needed.

Yes, as the Wolfenden Committee said, the position is not entirely satisfactory, but it is not a point we think necessary to cover urgently by a special Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent under his regulations divisional political parties are entitled to delete the address of the electoral registration officer on form R.P.F.7 (Application to be treated as an absent voter for an indefinite period) which are distributed by them and substitute their own addresses so that the cards, when completed, are conveyed back to them free of charge by the Post Office.

The Representation of the People Regulations, 1950, contain no provisions bearing on this matter. I have had no previous representations or information about the alleged practice. I will consider any evidence the hon. Member may wish to bring to my notice.

Is the Home Secretary aware that Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, Conservative Association has sent out hundreds of these cards, one of which I hold in my hand, each with a letter inviting the recipient to complete and return the card, which means that it would be returned at public expense? Is not this another example of the Conservative Party's belief that it has a divine right to bend or ignore the rules to suit its own convenience? What will the right hon. Gentleman do about this particular case?

I should want to examine it in relation to the law, in relation to Post Office Regulations and other matters. If the hon. Member will bring it immediately to my attention I shall immediately give him a report.

If documents of this kind, published at public expense, bearing an official address, are defaced by some organization or person, is not that a breach of the law?

At first sight I cannot give an answer to that question. I am not absolutely certain that it is a breach of the law, but I have a card here and I can see exactly what would happen if the words "Electoral Registration Officer" were defaced and the official paid postmark were used. It is that that I want to investigate on receipt of the information from the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short).

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the increase in the number of murders, he will introduce legislation at once restoring hanging as a punishment for such crimes committed on women, children, and old people.

The number of homicides fluctuates from month to month and from year to year, and while not underestimating the repugnance at these crimes I do not think that any significant increase is occurring. The monthly average of offences originally recorded by the police as murder in the six months September, 1958—February, 1959, was 141 compared with a monthly average of 142 for the five years 195256. I therefore cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that a little girl of 12[HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] It is not " Oh " to my people; they do not think it funny—has been violated and murdered and that only eight weeks earlier another child of 8 was murdered in similar circumstances? Does my right hon. Friend realize that mothers of children like that feel that hanging is too good for men who commit such crimes and that my right hon. Friend is expected to do something about it, no matter what the " softies " opposite may feel?

I know a great deal about this. first, because of personal reports made to me from Lincolnshire, and, secondly, because my hon. Friend came to me and gave me a full account yesterday. Of course. I am utterly disgusted by these crimes just as much as my hon. Friend, but to say that this House can reform the law relating to homicide in this Session and go through all we did to reach compromise in this Act is not, in my view, practical politics.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has approved the proposal of the Crown Estate Commissioners to allow the Royal College of Physicians to erect a new building on the site of Someries House, Regent's Park; and to what extent this development implies the abandonment of the plan, supported by both the Gorell Committee and the Committee to consider a new Queen's Hall, to build a music centre in Regent's Park.

I approve generally the proposals for Regent's Park recently published by the Crown Estate Commissioners, including the proposed use of the Someries House site. The plan to build a music centre in Regent's Park falls within the scope of the Arts Council's survey of cultural building needs, and I must ask the hon. Member to await the early publication of that Council's report.

Does not the proposal of the Crown Estate Commissioners very much prejudice the future scheme, which is imaginative and received the support of two Government Committees and would be of great benefit to London particularly North London?

I agree that in accepting the alternative occupancy of this site at Someries House the Commissioners have to that extent prejudiced the building of a music centre there, but I do not think that we should necessarily regard the matter as concluded. I think that we should at any rate await the Art Council's survey before making a final decision.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he received a communication expressing the anxiety of farmers and farm-workers concerning the lease of farms in Ashington, Northumberland; what reply he has sent; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend received a letter on 6th April from the District Organizer of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. He has replied saying that he has no power to intervene in this matter. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue it further, I would suggest that he should write to the Chairman of the National Coal Board, by whom I understand the farms are owned.

Is the Minister aware that not only the agricultural workers but also farming interests in the area are seriously concerned at the decision taken by the N.C.B. to lease farms to a London syndicate with an American manager? They are necessarily worried as to what finally is to happen to the workers employed on those farms. Was not the N.C.B. prepared to give an opportunity to local farmers to lease farms from the Board?

I am not in a position to answer for the N.C.B., for reasons which I think the hon. Member well knows. I am, however, aware of the concern which he has voiced, and I well understand the feelings of those involved.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) why it was necessary for his Department to arrange for the collection of reactor animals on Easter Sunday for slaughter that day in Camborne, Cornwall;

(2) what provision is made for notifying chief public health officers of the slaughter of reactor animals for which his Department is paying compensation under the Tuberculosis (Slaughter of Reactors) Order, 1956; and

(3) to what extent reactor animals for which compensation is paid are slaughtered on Sundays; and what provision is made to ensure that the carcasses of such animals are inspected before being sold for human consumption.

The day on which cattle which react to the tuberculin test are slaughtered is primarily a matter for the buyer and my Department did not arrange for reactor animals to be collected for slaughter in Camborne on Easter Sunday. I am unable to say how many reactor cattle are slaughtered on Sundays, but I am informed that this was the first occasion on record that such cattle had been slaughtered at Camborne on a Sunday.

My veterinary officers take all possible steps to see that reactor cattle in tuberculosis eradication areas are sent to slaughterhouses where an adequate meat inspection service is maintained. Occupiers of slaughterhouses are required to notify local authorities of intention to slaughter animals for human consumption. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the carcasses of the animals to which he refers were inspected.

Is the Minister aware that his statement will cause consternation in Camborne, because I have in my hand a notification from his veterinary officer asking for the farmer to co-operate in the collection of the animals on Easter Sunday? Is he aware that 18 bovine animals condemned by his Department were slaughtered on Easter Sunday and Easter Monday and that two whole carcasses had to he put aside as well as 192 lb. of meat from 14 others? Does he not consider it wrong when animals are condemned by his Department for which his Department pays compensation, that they should be slaughtered without the chief public health inspector being informed? Will he at least have that put right?

Naturally, in view of what the hon. Member has said I shall be grateful if he will let me have the document to which he has referred. I will then investigate the whole matter again. I assure him that these carcasses were examined and that from the point of view of public health the public were safeguarded.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what are the reasons for his refusal to reappoint Mr. J. Craig to the East Sussex County Agricultural Executive Committee;

(2) what reply he has made to the resolution of the East Sussex County Agricultural Executive Committee deploring his failure to reappoint Mr. J. Craig, who have given seventeen years of service as a member of that committee; and to what extent he consulted the committee before arriving at his decision.

My right hon. Friend has already expressed his warm appreciation of Mr. Craig's long and valued service. It would, however, be quite improper for him to state his reasons for not reappointing a particular member of a county agricultural executive committee or to indicate the action taken on the resolution of the East Sussex Committee. As the hon. Member must know, it has never been the practice to consult committees about their own membership.

While I understand the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reluctance to give reasons, may I ask whether he does not appreciate that this is contrary to a promise given recently by the Minister that he would take these important committees into his consultation about matters of importance to the committees and to agriculture generally? Surely the membership of these committees is an important matter. It seems to me that this committee has been very hard done by as a result of the Minister's action.

I can assure the hon. Member that it is certainly not my right hon. Friend's intention to cast any slight or slur on individual members of the committee or the committee as a whole, but he will realize that it would not be possible to consult the Committee about its own membership. Apart from that, my right hon. Friend is very anxious to maintain the closest consultation with the committees, and he is doing all that he can in that connection.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. John Craig is so well known and respected both as a man and as a farmer in Sussex and that his valued work on the committee is so well known that very few people in Sussex or the neighbouring counties would be likely to suppose that my right hon. Friend has any reason for not reappointing him to the committee other than the fact that he has already served on it with distinction for seventeen years?

I am very glad to have my hon. and gallant Friend's comments on that point. I can only endorse his words about Mr. Craig, who is extremely well known and very respected in the area.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government do not recognize the right of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to declare itself an independent State; and if he will pledge the Government now to make no concession of this sort in the 1960 negotiations.

No provision exists in the constitution for the Federation or for any one of its component parts to declare itself independent. The pledges which the United Kingdom has given with regard to the future constitutional development of the Federation are set out in the preamble to the constitution in the Annex to Statutory Instrument 1199 of 1953.

While thanking the Under-Secretary of State for that assurance, may I ask whether any representations have been made to the Federal Prime Minister following his statement in the last week or so to the effect that in certain circumstances he would be prepared to " go it alone " and to declare the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland an independent State? Will he give an undertaking that on no account will the Federation be allowed to become independent until the majority of the inhabitants of that part of the territories for which this Parliament is responsible have an opportunity of stating their views about it?

I have referred to the pledges which have been given in the Preamble to the Constitution and which set out in carefully drafted words the point which I think the hon. Member was attempting to make in the last part of his supplementary question. Replying to the first part of his supplementary question, it does not seem appropriate at the present time that any point should be made about any statement made in Southern Rhodesia.

Is it not true that the pledges referred to have been reaffirmed on numerous occasions by Ministers in the House, and is it not equally true that no relevant considerations will be omitted from the 1960 constitutional discussions?

Perfectly true.

asked the Under-Secretary of state for Commonwealth Relations what conclusions were reached in the recent official discussions between the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nyasaland and the Rhodesias.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will now make a statement on the official discussions between the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nyasaland and Rhodesia.

My noble Friend was glad to take the opportunity of the Easter Recess to visit Salisbury for informal discussions with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and also the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. A useful exchange of views took place.

In view of the practical certainty that there will be another Government on the opposite benches by October, 1960, is it not very desirable that these discussions should not be of a private nature and that the public should know what is their nature and any undertakings given?

It would not be right for me to comment on the purely hypothetical consideration which the hon. Member put forward.

Is the hon. Member aware that there is considerable concern throughout the Scottish Church about the rather indifferent way in which the Colonial Secretary has treated the evidence which has been received from the missionaries in Nyasaland? When he was out there did the Colonial Secretary take an opportunity to inform himself more accurately of what has been happening in Nyasaland?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. His hon. Friend is referring to a visit by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to put his question to the Colonial Secretary in due course.

Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether there will be any report to the House as a result of the mission of the Secretary of State to the Federation? We ought to have some report.

My noble Friend said on his return that he wished to discuss the matter first with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues.

Are we to assume, then, that there is a conflict of opinion, that it is taking a long time to resolve and that when it has been resolved we shall have the report?

I think that both sides of the House agree that the whole problem of the future of the Federation of Central Africa is a very difficult one and that it would be proper, therefore, to give all the relevant consideration; due thought before any decisions are made.

Will the Under-Secretary ask his noble Friend to inform the Prime Minister of the Federation that much of the concern felt in this country about the demands or even suggestions that Dominion status should be granted in 1960 arises not from prejudice or bias against the white settlers in the Federation, but from the fact that Britain has a clear duty as trustee to the African inhabitants of the Protectorates and under no circumstances should consent or he a party to any breach of that trust?

The Prime Minister of the Federation appears to follow very closely the proceedings of this House. No doubt he will take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Will the Under-Secretary of State say whether the discussions between the Secretary of State and the two Prime Ministers were concerned with the 1960 Conference and any preliminaries which may lead up to it?

On his departure from this country my noble Friend said that the object of his visit was to discuss with Sir Roy Welensky and his Government the preliminaries to the 1960 constitutional review talks.

Can we assume that when these discussions within the Government have been concluded a state- ment will be made either by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that when it is proper for any announcement on this subject to be made that announcement will be made.

Will the hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that no specific undertakings have been made as a result of this conference?

Discussions that take place between Commonwealth Prime Ministers are always confidential, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made in reaching agreement with the Maldive Government for the building of a Royal Air Force staging post on Gan Island.

I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 13th April.

I have read that Answer and also the Answer previously given. None of those replies brings the clarity to this confused situation which it deserves, particularly in view of the fact that the staging post will soon be in use. Could the hon. Member say that it is the case that a British warship is now cruising in the South part of the Indian Ocean and that that cruises is not incidental to the dispute but is merely part of normal duties? Could he further say—

Order. The hon. Member is spinning this out a bit.

Could he further say whether the appointment of Mr. Arthington-Davy, which has been announced, reflects any lack of confidence on the part of the Government in the former activities of Major Phillips?

I can deny straightaway that the appointment of Mr. Arthington Davy reflects any lack of confidence in the activities of Major Phillips. Indeed, I took occasion to pay tribute to the public service which Major Phillips had rendered. His retirement is entirely at his own request. The hon. Member will have to put his question about the cruising of a warship in the Indian Ocean to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. The general position in respect of the Maldive Islands is quite clear. We are anxious to continue and to carry negotiations to a successful conclusion, satisfactory both to the Maldivian Government and to ourselves.

What has happened to the invitation to the Maldivian Government to send a delegation to this country?

The Government of the Maldive Islands are still considering their answer at Male.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will convene a Commonwealth Conference at an early date to examine ways and means by which Great Britain and the other Commonwealth countries may be brought into association with the European Common Market.

Developments in connection with the European Common Market are kept continuously under review by all Commonwealth Governments, through the normal machinery of Commonwealth economic consultation.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that I put down this Question to the Prime Minister because it deals with wider matters than Commonwealth relations? Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that a new start is required on this question of the Common Market and British relationships? Since our main excuse for not joining the Common Market has been our Commonwealth commitments, does he not consider that a gesture of this kind, which would show to the world that the British Commonwealth is concerned about it, would be worth while?

The Paymaster-General pointed out to the House on 12th February the very real difficulties there would be in bringing the members of the Commonwealth into association with the Common Market. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue this point, it would be right that he should pursue it with my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if Her Majesty's Government will consult with State members of the Commonwealth in Australasia, Asia and Africa when constitutional changes of territories in these respective continents are being considered.

No, Sir. These responsibilities belong to the United Kingdom.

Will the Under-Secretary of State consider this proposal? Is he aware that in Africa, Asia and Australasia a great sense of unity is now being developed between territories in those Continents? Would it not be desirable that we should discuss with fellow members of the Commonwealth any changes taking place in those areas?

The United Kingdom Government and the people of the United Kingdom cannot divest themselves of these responsibilities in that way. If the hon. Gentleman thinks further about this proposition, he will see the many difficulties which it would produce.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what guarantees were given by Her Majesty's Government to former officers of the Indian Army who volunteered to serve in Pakistan after the transfer of power, in respect of arrears of pay and repayment of tax where revised income tax assessments had recently been made; and whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to a number of these former Indian Army officers who are still unable to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Pakistani Government.

I presume that my hon. Friend refers to those officers who. while servng in Pakistan, drew concurrently duty pay and leave pending retirement pay, the latter being subsequently reassessed for the purpose of Pakistan income tax. The incidence of Pakistan income tax is, naturally, a matter for the Government of Pakistan and no guarantees by Her Majesty's Government were given with regard to it or in respect of any form of pay.

With regard to the second part of the Question, I am informed that special efforts are being made to settle any outstanding cases of reassessment and to arrange far the repayment of any refunds which might as a result become due.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these officers received a specific guarantee from the then British Government that all outstanding emoluments would be paid? Is he further aware that the delays in settling these cases as between the officers concerned and the Pakistani Government have been running in some cases for nearly ten years? These delays inevitably cause a great deal of ill feeling on the part of the officers.

I sympathies fully with the difficulties with which the officers have been faced, but the delay is not a matter for which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are responsible. I will undertake to my hon. Friend that any assistance that we can give in speeding up the eventual payments of these arrears will be given through our High Commissioner in Karachi.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will now report on developments in Bechuanaland towards the establishment of a legislative council.

As I said in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 19th February, my noble Friend hopes to reply to a resolution of the Joint Advisory Council for the Bechuanaland Protectorate at its next meeting, which is expected to open next week.

asked the Minister of Education whether he has received the petition signed by 5,698 people urging the replacement of the existing building of Saint Bede's Roman Catholic Primary School, Carlisle, by a new school on the site already approved; and whether, in the light of the representations made to him by the Carlisle City Council, he will now give his approval for the inclusion of this work in the 196061 major building programme.

Yes, Sir. I am giving most serious consideration to this petition, and I will give a decision as soon as I can.

asked the Minister of Education what arrangements he has made for road safety precautions to be taught in schools.

Instruction in road safety is now a normal part of the school curriculum. My Department already assists this work in many ways, and I am now arranging for a special chapter on road safety to be included in the new edition of the pamphlet "Safety Precautions in Schools".

Although I believe that there have been improvements, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still wide room for even more improvements? Is he certain that this instruction is being given thoroughly and efficiently?

Her Majesty's inspectors keep a careful eye on this work.

asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the objections of the mayors of Hereford, Salisbury, Maidenhead and Winchester to the recommendations contained in the Roberts Report on the Public Library Service, regarding non-county boroughs; whether he has yet completed his discussions with interested parties on the recommendations contained in the Report; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I know about these objections, but I have not completed my discussions and cannot therefore make a statement now.

Is the Minister aware that Wallsend is very proud indeed of its library and other organizations within the area? Is he aware of the very strong feeling of resentment about the Roberts Report? Will he give all these non-county boroughs every opportunity to express their view points on this subject?

Certainly, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount and proportion of Income Tax relief in his Budget which will accrue to the benefit of surtax payers.

About £40 million in a full year, or 24 per cent of the total relief going to individuals.

Is it now clearly admit ed by the Chancellor that the way in which he chose to reduce Income Tax, namely, solely by cutting the standard rate, gave maximum and disproportionate benefit to the top people in the super tax class, whereas if some of the money had been used to increase allowances he would have given a larger and fairer proportion of the benefits to those who need money?

Surtax payers carry 35 per cent of the total burden, so they are getting less than their proportionate share of the total relief.

It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss with the first Amendment, in page 1, line 16, to leave out subsection (3), that in line 18, to leave out from " proposal" to the end of the Clause and to add:

"served on the valuation officer after the twelfth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, for altering a valuation list in force at the passing of this Act (not being a proposal made by the valuation officer) shall have effect only where the assessment resulting from the said proposal is not excessive, incorrect or unfair in relation to the values ascribed in the list to other hereditaments of the same class at the date of the proposal"

and that in page 2, line 9, at the end to add:

"or unless it is a proposal made in respect of a hereditament the rate able value of which has been altered in consequence of structural alterations or is unfair in relation to other hereditaments of the same class in the list at the date of the proposal".

That would suit us very well, Sir Gordon.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out subsection (3).

This Amendment deals with a short but important point, and I hope that we may be able to get through with it reasonably rapidly, though I am well aware that a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak in support of it. Subsection (3) removes from local rating authorities, with certain exceptions, the power to make proposals for the alteration of the list, and that removal is to operate for five years.

When this matter was mentioned on Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had a precedent in the matter because the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, contained similar provisions. The difference, of course, is that in that case the provisions were to operate only for about a year—actually, having regard to the machinery, for about nine months—and in this case the right is being removed for about five years.

This is a very serious matter for the local authorities, and one wonders why it has been thought necessary to make the provision. The right hon. Gentleman intimated on Second Reading that his reason was that there might be proposals which might develop into a partial revaluation in some areas.

There have been questions of this sort before. Some years ago, the Liverpool Corporation employed a valuer and, no doubt on the strength of his valuation, made certain proposals which covered a considerable section of the city, so I understand. The question arose, in the form of proceedings in the High Court whether the corporation was justified in employing the valuer. In delivering the judgment of the court, Lord Goddard said something which seems to me to bear directly on the object of the Amendments:

"It seems to me that the case for the council can be put as high as this. The council are under a duty—I do not say a positive duty, but they are under a duty—as the council interested in the fair and proper rating of the city of Liverpool. They are under a duty also as ratepayers themselves, and they are under a duty as the rating authority in Liverpool. If they think that an alteration of the valuation list is required, they are under a duty to see that a proposal for the alteration is made. It is not for them to make the alteration, because that is now left to the valuation officer. I think they are under a duty to make proposals to correct any inequalities or under-assessment of which they know."

Those were Lord Goddard's words, quoted at page 740 of the last edition of Ryde on Rating. If that is the duty of the corporation—and we must take it from the decision of the court that it is —it involves making proposals. Local authorities are now to be deprived of the power to make them. That is a very serious step. Let us see what will happen.

There will be cases where the valuation officer does not make any proposal at all and the owner or occupier, who remains entitled to make a proposal, does not make any proposal either. In those cases, the local authority may be of opinion that an alteration should be made. The local authority can, of course, make representations to the valuation officer, but he is under no duty to agree with them. Indeed, his duty is to make up his own mind. The local authority may be unable to raise the matter at all and may be unable to bring it before the local valuation court.

Yet again—this is a very common case —there may have been proposals made by the owner and an agreement may have been reached between the valuation officer and the owner, there being, in the result, no case to go before the local valuation court and no right in the local authority to do more than make representations to the valuation officer if it is deprived of the right of making a proposal itself.

There is a third type of case I wish to mention. Let us suppose that the valuation officer and the owner do not agree. The valuation officer says £100 and the owner says £80. They go to the valuation court. The local authority will have the right to object and may say in the valuation court that the right figure is, let us say, £120. The difficulty in this type of case is a practical one. A local valuation court, like any other arbitration body, is only too apt to consider the cases of the two contestants before it and to pay little regard to a third party stepping in with a third suggestion which does not take the form of a proposal which it has to consider.

I suggest that, in this type of case, it would be very rare indeed for the local valuation court to disregard the views of the valuation officer and the owner and fix a figure which the local authority might think right, and which might be right but which would be beyond anything which had been suggested by either of the two contestants. After all, the object of the local valuation court here is to act as the arbiter—in most cases the final arbiter—on the general question of the value of property.

3.45 p.m.

It is not surprising that this proposal has met with indignation and opposition from all the local authority associations and. I may add, from the London County Council. There have been meetings between the local authority associations and, I believe, the London County Council, on the one hand, and the Minister and his advisers in these matters, on the other. The point has been raised again that this would lead to a partial revaluation in some places, and the Minister has expressed his willingness to try to find some compromise which would avoid that.

But, at the end of what I understand were quite long discussions, all that resulted was that the Minister offered to make representations to the Treasury, whose servants the valuation officers are, that they should pay regard to representations from the local authorities. I have no doubt that a valuation officer would do that anyhow. No doubt, circulars or letters to that effect would make it even more certain that he would do so. It does not really meet the point.

The local authority has a duty to perform, the duty described by Lord Goddard in the passage I read as

"a duty to make proposals to correct any inequalities or under-assessment of which they know".

That is not qualified in any way by the scope of the proposals. That case happened to be a case, I believe, in which the Liverpool Corporation was approaching the stage of, shall we say, a partial revaluation of the city. Of course, there are cases where that will arise. I understand that there has been a similar case in Sheffield, although I do not know the details.

I say without hesitation that the duty was correctly stated there in a case which did not involve a single property, but involved a fairly extensive valuation. It ought to be allowed to continue. There is no real reason for taking the right away. As it seems to me, what it comes to in the end is this. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared not so much to trust local authorities as to allow local authorities to carry out their duties in this matter even if they do extend beyond a single instance of unfairness or anything of that sort?

The first Amendment on the Notice Paper, which is the one I myself prefer in this case, is to leave out subsection (3) as a whole. The rest of the subsection makes some exceptions which I need not go into for this purpose. It leaves untouched the point I have been taking. The second Amendment, in page 1, line 18, has a history. This is not the drafting of a Member of this House. Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) drafted it. It is the drafting of the local authority associations and they are unanimously agreed on it, with the exception that the L.C.C. prefers the first Amendment.

The Amendment has been tabled in this form, because I think that in a matter of this sort it is right that a draft which has been prepared after consultations of this sort and has met with the unanimous approval of the local authority associations should go on the Notice Paper as it is. I appreciate that there is some vagueness about it. I do not believe that there would be any practical difficulty in working it, but it is open to a little objection on those grounds and I would rather that the whole subsection were taken out for that reason.

The third Amendment, on which no doubt the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) will have something to say, deals with a matter that I think the valuation officer would be sure to attend to, anyhow, namely, an alteration in rate able value in consequence of structural alterations. The hon. Member may say that there are cases in which a local authority may repair an inadvertent omission, possibly through lack of knowledge on the part of the valuation officer. That is a different point and it is not the point raised by the Amendment, which reads:

"or is unfair in relation to other hereditaments of the same class in the list at the date of the proposal."

The first Amendment is, broadly, on the same lines as the second, although it is different in language and there might be a small difference in effect.

I am sure that in the majority of cases the valuation officer, owner and valuation court between them, together with the local authority's right of objection, would settle the matter, but there will be a minority of cases—and no one can say how large it will be—where the local authority should be allowed to exercise what is its long-standing right to make proposals. It is in relation to those matters that I moved the Amendment.

I repeat that I do not accept the proposition that a local authority has not a duty to deal with the matter, because the area of the town which is intended to be affected by the proposals of the local authority may be quite considerable. It seems to me that that sort of question is pre-eminently one for local authorities. It would be utterly wrong as regards relations between Parliament or the Ministry and the local authorities that matters of that sort should be taken out of their jurisdiction. If Liverpool, Sheffield, or any other town comes to the conclusion that there is a substantial under valuation of a part of the town it is under the duty that Lord Goddard described to put it right by making proposals.