asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received by the Metropolitan Police concerning excessive noise caused by the exhausts of various classes of motor vehicles; and how many prosecutions and how many convictions have ensued.

I regret that no record is available of the number of complaints received. In the first seven months of this year, there were 404 prosecutions and 385 convictions in the Metropolitan Police District for the offences of using a motor vehicle with defective silencing equipment or in such a way as to cause excessive noise.

Could my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what is the attitude of the police to complaints by citizens about exceptional noise, to what extent such complaints are required to be corroborated by witnesses, and how many witnesses are acceptable?

When a complaint is received, the Commissioner makes arrangements to have the matter followed up by having the section of road to which the complaint relates specially patrolled and then very often a prosecution follows. Corroboration is not generally necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the probation service.

All aspects of the probation service are under consideration by the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I recently appointed. I am sure that the Committee's recommendations will be of great value in planning the future of this important service.

Could my right hon. Friend give any indication to the House as to when he expects to receive the report and whether it will be received in time to enable him to take it into consideration when framing legislation which is foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech?

I am not quite sure about the coincidence of the date of the final report and legislation. I should have thought that legislation might be introduced before we receive the report, but I do not think it will be impossible to consider it during the passage of the legislation. It all depends on the speed with which the Committee performs its duties. I will draw my hon. Friend's Question to the Committee's attention.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority the premises of the Arroyo Arms at Harraby, Carlisle, were used for an election news broadcast on the Northern Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation on Saturday, 26th September; if he is aware that the purport of this broadcast was to extol the virtues of State Management Scheme beer in an identical manner as was being done by one of the candidates at this election, thus creating the widespread misunderstanding that these public houses, though a State institution, were actively entering the political arena; and what action he proposes to take to pre vent such misunderstandings arising in the future.

Permission was given for the B.B.C. to take shots of the Arroyo Arms for a film for a television news programme on the election campaign in Cumberland and North West England. This section of the film lasted about 20 seconds: it showed a close-up of the Arroyo Arms' sign and interiors of beer being drawn and people in the bar. The commentator gave a summary of the candidates references to State public houses as a local issue in the election. The B.B.C. assure me that there is no question of this news broadcast being intended in any other sense than that of news interest.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his very full reply, may I none the less ask him whether, in the forthcoming examination of the licensing system, he will assess the propriety of the State owning public houses as a monopoly in a single area, out of which misunderstandings of this rather paradoxical character arise?

There is another Question on the Order Paper on this subject. I have a transcript of this broadcast. I do not think it was very harmful, but I will look at this aspect on future occasions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the Metropolitan Police Force is below establishment; and what action he will take to encourage recruitment.

The current establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force is 20,081, and the strength on 30th September, 1959, was 17,343. The Commissioner is taking all possible steps to encourage recruitment.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that much of the present crime wave would probably be nipped in the bud if there were more police on the beat, and that 3,000 fewer police than we should have is a serious state of affairs? In addition to repealing out-of-date laws which make their task more difficult, would not an improvement in the pay and conditions of service do something to fill up this deficit of 3,000 men in the Metropolitan Police Force?

It is clear that we need more Metropolitan police. The question of pay is a matter for the Police Council for Great Britain. The question of recruiting is one to which the Commissioner is giving constant attention by various means and by publicity, and I am glad to say that they are proving effective and that the strength of the Force is gradually increasing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it would greatly assist holiday makers and seaside resorts if Summer Time could be extended throughout October; and whether he will make a statement on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received requesting that the period of British Summer Time should be extended; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will appoint a committee to review the operation of Summer Time and the desirability of extending the period by a fortnight in October.

Several suggestions have been made to the Government from various sources, including the tourist industry, that Summer Time should be extended. The National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales and of Scotland are, however, against it; and a permanent extension would require legislation. In these circumstances, further soundings of opinion seem desirable, and we propose to seek the views of a wide range of bodies concerned with industry, including the tourist industry, commerce, and agriculture.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would greatly help the tourist industry if Summer Time could start a little earlier so that it could take in Easter when Easter comes early in a particular year?

I will note that point. The inquiry will be a very wide one and will take into account that possibility.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is really a great body of opinion in support of this idea, and will he at least try it as an experiment in the forthcoming year?

I could not promise to do that. The inquiry is to be really comprehensive, and I should not wish to come to any decision until we have received its conclusions.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales looked at this matter last year there was a very even distribution of opinion, the Scottish N.F.U., I think, being against the extension of Summer Time? Will he keep in mind that public opinion is changing on the matter, and that this autumn, as he will probably find, the weight of public opinion will be in favour of extension by a fortnight?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that altering the clock has no effect on the weather and that it is really quite easy to get up an hour earlier if one wants to?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made and anticipated in the provision of detention centres; and, in this connection, what consideration he has given to the suitability of four residential school camps in Surrey, Sussex and Oxfordshire recently advertised for sale by private treaty or later by public auction by order of the Receiver and Manager of the National Camps Corporation, Limited

Two additional centres—in Durham and Yorkshire—are now in course of construction. During the past year, the Prison Commissioners have submitted to local planning authorities proposals for the provision of five other centres, each of which has aroused local objection. A public inquiry has been found necessary in two cases and may well be necessary in others.

With regard to the first part of my right hon. Friend's Answer, has he any special steps in mind to prepare local public opinion for the advent of proposed detention centres, especially by letting local people see what the reaction has been to such centres in places like Goudhurst and Kidlington, where they have proved successful?

Yes, we have attempted to do that. We cannot and should not deprive people of their right to have an inquiry if they so desire. We examine how we can expedite this part of our procedure consistent with the public good and we provide as much information as possible.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that detention centres are only part of our machinery for dealing with juvenile delinquency? Can he confirm that two-thirds of the approved schools are provided by voluntary bodies and not by the State and a great many of them are staffed by people with no teaching qualifications and no special training of any kind?

I should wish to answer a question on approved schools with rather more thought than I could give to it in answer to a supplementary question. There is at present an inquiry going on, the result of which may prove useful to us and the House generally in planning the future of approved schools. So let us give this matter some time and consider it thoroughly.

In view of the importance of establishing more detention centres quickly, and in view of the very widespread public misunderstanding about what they in fact do, could the right hon. Gentleman take steps to give some reassuring indication to the public of what detention centres are doing and the work he expects of them?

My visit to Goudhurst in my hon. Friend's division convinced me that they have a salutary effect and that they also have a good effect on the boys' future. I will certainly take what steps I can to make their merits known.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to set up an all-party committee on electoral reform having regard to changes in circumstances during the last twelve years and experiences at four General Elections, and to consider, among other things, votes for men and women from the age of 18 years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to initiate all-party discussions with a view to introducing legislation to give all persons a vote at 18 years of age.

I am not at present convinced of the need to set up a committee on the lines proposed by my hon. Friend. I would remind my hon. Friend that the decision that the appropriate age for the franchise is 21 was taken by Parliament in 1948, and I should wish to have further evidence of general demand before making a change.

While not necessarily supporting any proposal to reduce the minimum age for voting, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is quite a large number of other electoral problems which have been thrown up by the last four General Elections, including, apart from what has happened to the former university franchise, the whole of the postal voting arrangements, which are not in such a state of good order as many of us would wish? Could he consider that aspect of the subject with these other matters?

Yes, Sir. I think that it is the duty of the Home Secretary to consider all possible changes in electoral reform and then to consider the appropriate steps, usually through a Speaker's Conference, by which things can be put right. Of course, if hon. Members have any points they wish to draw to my attention, they are perfectly at liberty to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the present system is very unfairly biased in favour of the Conservatives, and that it is calculated that the Opposition need to gain a majority of half a million votes in order to achieve an equality of seats? Is this not something which really should be looked into?

It is not quite as simple as that. It is true there are certain majorities in certain districts which provide Members with a majority larger than that gained by other Members. It is very difficult, if we take the normal size of the constituency as approved by the Boundary Commission, to alter that situation very deeply. We certainly feel that whatever the system, the Conservatives will be returned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the official statistics concerning the incidence of crime, to which reference was made by the Lord Chief Justice on 22nd October; and whether, in framing his proposals for penal reform, he will give consideration to the reintroduction of judicial birching, as punishment for crimes of violence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the official statistics concerning the incidence of crime which the Lord Chief Justice put before the annual meeting of the Magistrates' Association in London on Thursday, 22nd October; and whether he will give consideration to the restoration of corporal punishment when framing his proposals for reform of the penal code.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has studied the official statistics regarding the incidence of crime adduced by the Lord Chief Justice at the annual meeting of the Magistrates' Association; and whether, as a result, he will introduce legislation to restore corporal punishment for crimes of violence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce legislation to enable corporal punishment to be imposed, in the light of the statistics quoted by the Lord Chief Justice before the Magistrates' Association; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the official statistics concerning corporal punishment referred to recently by the Lord Chief Justice of England, whether he will consider the formation of a committee to examine and report on the question of punishment of crimes of violence.

While I have naturally considered the Lord Chief Justice's remarks, I am basing myself on the plans for the positive treatment of young offenders which have been under consideration by my Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Barry, and are recommended in its recently published Report.

Has my right hon. Friend perceived that, in regard to crimes of violence, there is evidently complete unanimity of view between the present Lord Chief Justice, his predecessor, Lord Goddard, and myself, together with many of my distinguished hon. Friends on these benches, that a proper policy ought to be to "whack the thugs"? May we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that, when his penal reform Measure is brought to the House, it will not be drafted in such a way as to preclude the addition of an appropriate Clause in the sense that I have indicated?

I fully understand the force of the questions I am answering today. I have said that I am basing the Bill on the Report of the Advisory Council to which I referred. That will be so. I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend says, because we are a free country and we are entitled to have our own views on these matters. I think that every aspect of the subject of young offenders should be considered by the House. But the basis from which I start has been made clear from this Box.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on this occasion, the Lord Chief Justice's statement was given in answer to a very casual question after he had made a long and considered speech, and does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the matter ought to be considered in that light in an expression of view on corporal punishment?

Yes, it was in answer to questions. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion in this country, and I am ready to take into account the position and opinion of the Lord Chief Justice. I notice, also, that he said that the cat is brutal and makes martyrs of people. That, I think, is a very sensible observation. As regards the aspirations of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, I hope he will now have extra hopes since he agrees with the Lord Chief Justice and his predecessor.

Is not my right hon. Friend sometimes rather fearful of being so much out of tune with public opinion on this matter, and certainly with the highest legal opinion, as has been pointed out? Is he not still more fearful when he realises that the greater part of his support on this question comes from the opposite benches?—"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes".

What does that mean?

I hope my hon. Friend will translate that at a later date for the benefit of hon. Members opposite. I am not at all anxious, because this is really entirely a practical matter. No one objects to a parent or teacher, under proper conditions, using the cane on young people. We found from the Report of 1948, however, what very great difficulty there is in administering this punishment through courts. Let us have a discussion about it. I am not unduly prejudiced on the matter. No one wants to check the rise in crime more than I do.

With respect, may I remind my right hon. Friend that I think the year was 1938, not 1948? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Advisory Council had the advantage of the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice before coming to its conclusions?

And mine.

I think it important that the Legislature should be perfectly free to make up its own mind on these matters. What obiter dicta are made by such distinguished persons as the Lord Chief Justice must be made according to their own tastes and judgment, but it must be for the Legislature to make up its mind on these issues.

May I remind the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) that one of the members of the Cadogan Commission which demonstrated the futility of this form of punishment was a former Conservative Member of this House?

That was the cat

Does my right hon. Friend think it fair to take part of the Lord Chief Justice's judgment as supporting his opinion that the cat is brutalising and to ignore his other suggestions? Has my right hon. Friend no confidence in the Lord Chief Justice's general remarks? Also, will he bear in mind that at least the vast majority of his own supporters would like him to take some action in this way?

I fully understand the pressure on this matter, but I am sure my hon. Friends realise that we cannot solve crime by a single method such as this. The more we openly discuss the matter on the occasion of a Bill dealing with young offenders the better. I am not at all frightened of discussing the matter, but let us discus it on its merits.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Lord Chief Justice and indeed members of the judiciary have any training at all in penology? Also is he not aware that, as a matter of historical fact, judicial advice on penal reform has almost invariably turned out to be wrong?

I particularly do not want to criticise the Lord Chief Justice in the liberty of expression which undoubtedly he should enjoy, but I equally say that the Legislature is entitled to make up its own mind and to take into account what it hears. The ultimate responsibility for making the law must lie with the Legislature.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise, as a result of the discussion we have had in Question and Answer this afternoon, how inadvisable it is for any occupant of the judicial bench, particularly the Lord Chief Justice, to intervene in public on a matter which is in serious political controversy, even though it is not among the public? Has it not always been the tradition of our judiciary that it should keep out of all questions which fall to be decided by the Legislature and which involve political controversy? Is it not most important that that tradition should be preserved?

As an hon. Member opposite has indicated, on this particular occasion the Lord Chief Justice was talking to the magistrates, and he had a very respectable precedent, in that his predecessor used to talk to the magistrates with great effect. We must draw a line between comments by the judiciary on matters essentially within the realm of the Executive, of which there have been one or two cases recently which I personally resent, but we must also allow a certain liberty of expression on the borderline which lies between the Legislature and the Executive.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the Lord Chief Justice in this instance is very much in tune with public opinion, and far more in tune with public opinion than some legal nonentities to whom we have to listen in this House?

Far be it from me to intervene in such a legal struggle as my hon. Friend has introduced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of crimes of violence, known to the police, for which corporal punishment could be imposed prior to the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, committed in the years 1948, 1957, 1958, and to last convenient date in 1959.

As the answer is long and includes a number of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I asked for only four figures, not a large number, and that I should like to have them now, if I may?

I think we have to consider the convenience of the House. My hon. Friend will find that this statement is a long one. It analyses the figures, and it shows I am not entirely satisfied with the way the definition of offences of robbery, etc., are defined throughout the country. As it is rather complicated, and as I can tell the House that the figures do not show an improvement—I will say that at this Box—I would rather that my hon. Friend read them and then, perhaps, came back to me again.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to denationalise the State-owned public houses in Carlisle.

No such legislation is at present in contemplation.

If I were to bring in a Bill to denationalise public houses in Carlisle, could my right hon. Friend say what would be the official attitude of Her Majesty's Government to it? Also, would he have some regard to the fact that it should be no part of the policy or purposes of the Conservative Party to own licensed premises or to promote the sale of a larger quantity of beer?

My right hon. Friend has a reasonably open mind on this subject. No doubt he will take note of what my hon. Friend says, either in a Bill or by way of supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the existence of widespread public concern at the number of serious accidents arising out of the possession and use of firearms by juveniles; and whether he will take steps, as a matter of urgency, to remedy the present situation, in which a person of any age is entitled as of right, to obtain a 10s. licence authorising him or her to carry and use a shotgun of any bore, and to purchase and retain an unlimited supply of ammunition for use therein.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that many accidents, including a recent fatal accident in Leicester, have occurred owing to the uncontrolled sale of shotguns and similar weapons, even to young persons; and what he proposes to do to control the indiscriminate sale of these weapons.

My right hon. Friend is aware that there is some public concern about accidents arising out of the misuse of shotguns and air weapons by young persons, and he is considering whether any change in the law is needed. My right hon. Friend has no evidence that there is any widespread failure to observe the existing law prohibiting the sale or hire of a firearm of any kind, including a shotgun or air weapon, to a person under the age of 17.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that Answer. May I ask two supplementary questions? First, is he aware that I hold in my hand a 10s. gun licence which was issued yesterday in the ordinary course of business by the post office to my granddaughter aged three? Secondly, is he aware that I also have here a collection of Press cuttings which show that during the last five months there have been fourteen fatal accidents arising out of the possession or use of shotguns by juveniles? Does he not think that his Department is too complacent about this matter?

In answer to the first part of my right hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question, I understand from a letter which he sent me that he himself bought this firearm certificate for his grandchild aged three. I must remind him that the child's parents are responsible for seeing that the child uses the gun with due regard to safety and that it is not misused. In answer to the other matter which my right hon. and learned Friend raised, we are grateful for his close personal interest in the general question, and when considering the matter further we shall bear in mind what he has said.

Is the hon. and learned Member aware that in Leicester recently a boy of fourteen bought one of these guns and accidently killed another boy of fourteen? Is he also aware that for a very considerable time many of us in this House have been anxious to ensure that there is control of these weapons? Is it not obviously clear that some kind of restriction should be imposed? Will he consider introducing a short amendment to the Bill which I myself introduced in the House with regard to another dangerous weapon? This would very easily deal with the situation.

There is already a measure of control under the Firearms Act, and that is control over the sale or hire of these weapons. Parents who place these weapons in the hands of their children are responsible for any mishaps which may occur.

In view of the unsatisfactory reply and the urgency of the matter, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce amending legislation to enable colonial civil servants and others serving overseas to appear on the Register of Electors and to have the opportunity of voting at Parliamentary elections.

No, Sir. The accepted principle is that the franchise is based on residence in the United Kingdom. The law allows some departure from the strict application of this principle in the case of members of the Forces and United Kingdom Crown servants while serving abroad; but it would be hard to justify any further exception.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Answer is thoroughly unsatisfactory and that considerable numbers of people who are serving their country in Colonial Territories overseas and a considerable number of people who are serving on business, and their wives, are completely incapable of exercising their democratic privilege of using their vote at Parliamentary elections? If my right hon. Friend is not willing to give any more helpful undertaking, we will have to seek some other way of raising the matter later.

My hon. Friend is quite right. This would extend to a large category of people far beyond those referred to in his Question. It would create a new army of voters from people not normally resident in this country.

In view of the nature of the reply and the importance of this matter, I give notice that I will try to raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider introducing amending legislation to provide for the compilation of the Election Register twice yearly.

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why not, in view of the fact that the last election was fought on a register almost twelve months out-of-date, that during that time there had been considerable movements of population, both within constituencies and from one constituency to another, and that a good many people were denied their vote at the election? Surely, the cost involved is trivial compared with the full democratic rights of people to have a vote.

The cost involved is estimated at £2 million, a considerable sum. In the new form of register, there is provision for young people who reach the age of 21 after the register is compiled to vote, and, of course, postal voting is available for those who move into a new area. On my present advice, I do not feel that a twice-yearly register would be a feasible proposition.

It was so long our practice to have the twice-yearly register. It was changed for reasons of economy. It is much better to have a live register than to rely on postal votes and all these other things which go wrong and are difficult to organise. Now that there is not the same need for economy which gave rise to the original decision to cut it down to once a year, would it not be sensible to return to the old, original practice?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. That was stopped in 1949. I will note what he has to say, but I am not quite certain that the public would relish the idea of a twice-yearly register, which would inconvenience them in many respects.

How?

Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend next to him that they should now consult the political parties in the country to find out what complaints they have about the way in which the register has been compiled, because is it not particularly infuriating for citizens to find when an election occurs that they are not on the register at all? Should not inquiries be made not only about the twice a year but to see that when it is done it is done properly?

I will certainly discuss with my right hon. Friend this and the related problems, which are very much in our minds at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to explain the need for electors to check electoral registers and to the facilities open to them to claim to be included should they find they have, in the first instance, been omitted.

Besides local publicity arranged by electoral registration officers, my right hon. Friend is arranging for the issue of suitable material about the electors' lists for the assistance of the Press and the broadcasting authorities. There will also be a postmark slogan this year calling attention to the lists.

When will that appear? We are getting near the time.

The list will be available from 28th November to 16th December for checking, and publicity material on postmarks will be used at the same time.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he will consult his right hon. Friend about the possibility of a twice-yearly register. This seems to me—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm this—something which should, perhaps, be discussed between the parties, since it concerns us all.

Yes.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the interest on both sides of the House shows that both the major parties—indeed, all of us—feel some dissatisfaction with the electoral system? Will the Government look into it, and also get uniformity in practice among returning officers, of whom some will give percentages of the total vote—that is all we ask—at the polling booths while others will not? I think that information should be available to all the political parties. Will the Government give instructions that this should be given to the party agents?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce, during the present Session, legislation to amend the law relating to suicide and attempted suicide.

As the hon. Member knows, I have stated that I understand his point of view on this matter. There are, however, certain points concerning the consequential provisions which would be necessary if the offences of suicide and attempted suicide were abolished which I have thought it desirable to refer to the Criminal Law Revision Committee for its early advice.

While thanking the Home Secretary for that fairly promising reply, may I ask whether he has seen the report of the Committee set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which takes broadly the view which I have been pressing upon him for the last 18 months? Does the right hon. Gentleman not now agree that reform of the law in this sense would be considerably less controversial than he thought in the initial stages?

I have seen that statement and I think that there is a general growth of public opinion in the direction in which the hon. Member desires. We should, however, get the views of the Criminal Law Revision Committee before taking the matter further.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clubs permitted to sell alcoholic drinks are now registered in the London area; and what was the corresponding figure last year.

On 30th September, 1959, 3,599 clubs were registered in the Metropolitan Police District; the corresponding figure for 1958 was 3,392. At the end of October, 1959, 126 clubs were registered in the City of London; the corresponding figure for 1958 was 118.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the growing number of unsavoury and insanitary clubs, especially in quiet residential areas, is causing concern to law-abiding citizens who have the misfortune to live nearby? Will he indicate his support of the effort that is being made by the London County Council to deal with what is a quite serious problem in the London area?

My right hon. Friend has already said that it is intended to introduce a Bill on licensing laws within this Parliament. I cannot comment on the London County Council Bill until I see it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the present establishment of the police forces in England and Wales; and the strength of the forces on the last convenient date.

The total establishment of the police forces in England and Wales is 78,580; and on 30th September, 1959. the total strength was 72,377.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the Representation of the People Act to allow postal votes to all those normally entitled to a vote, who are on holiday at the time of a Parliamentary election.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the Representation of the People Act so as to enable electors who know they will be on holiday on the day of a Parliamentary election to appoint a proxy to vote for them.

No, Sir. I think we should find that this would involve allowing anyone who wished to vote by post or proxy to do so. Such an extension of absent voting would, I think, be open to objection.

This question of votes is not very satisfactory. Surely, our aim must be to make it easy for people who are on the electoral register to cast their vote. Can we not have another look at these difficulties of which we have been told? We have sufficient time now to do it and we have brilliant Ministers. Can we not look at this question again and see whether we cannot come to a more satisfactory conclusion, because a lot of the electors are angry about this, particularly when an election is sprung on them quickly?

It is a long-standing principle that electors should vote in person except where circumstances more or less outside their control prevent it. What my hon. Friend suggests would be a far-reaching and dangerous proposal—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but my right hon. Friend has, of course, said that he is always prepared to look at the electoral law again.

If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to make a change such as has been suggested, will the Government in future give sufficient advance notice of forthcoming General Elections to enable people to make their holiday arrangements?

Concerning the recent election, is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many people, particularly in the resort areas, who normally cannot take their holidays until later in the year? Either they were denied a holiday this year because they wished to give their vote for whichever party they supported or they had to travel many hundred miles back to their constituency on a certain day to register their votes. Will not my right hon. Friend consider particularly the resort areas, where, for reasons of their livelihood, people must take their holidays at a different time of the year?

From my own experience, I am aware of the difficulties expressed by my hon. Friend. At the same time, the difficulties in defining "holiday" are very real. If my hon. Friend thinks about it, he will, I think, agree that it would be difficult to find a solution.

Does not a much more important grievance consist in the fact that in many instances the electoral register is compiled so incompetently that large numbers of people who ought to be included on it are not?

There is another Question on the Order Paper on that matter.

Mr. Biggs-Davison.

It would not have made enough difference to give the party opposite a majority.

Order. There must not be so much noise that I cannot hear the question and the hon. Member cannot hear the answer.

My right hon. Friend has mentioned the long-standing principle that people should, if possible, vote in person. Will he take into account that since that long-standing principle has been established, many more people are having holidays, thank goodness, and much longer holidays at that?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what report he has received from the Metropolitan Police with regard to housing exploitation of, and threats against, coloured people living in the Notting Hill area of London; and whether he will make a statement.

The Commissioner of Police has investigated allegations of intimidation and will continue to give attention to this matter. It would not be in the public interest for me to say more.

I appreciate that, but can my right hon. Friend indicate what thought has been given not only to the elimination of housing exploitation, but also, perhaps more constructively, to the provision of alternative sources of housing for coloured people, such as, for instance, through special housing associations?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend came and discussed some of these matters with some of his hon. Friends the other day and I sent him an interim reply. I shall be glad to give him a further report on the progress we are trying to make in improving housing with the aid of local authorities in the area.

When considering this question, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that not all the exploitation and threats are necessarily in one direction?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Home Secretary not only tell his hon. Friend, whose efforts in this behalf are widely supported, but also inform all of us about his conclusions on this matter?

Yes, Sir. We might find an opportunity to be able to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment under the Street Offences Act.

Between 16th August, 1959, when the Street Offences Act came into operation, and 21st October, 33 women were sentenced to terms of imprisonment on conviction of offences under the Act. In addition, 53 women served terms of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Act began to operate the call-girl racket has increased? Has his attention been drawn to a booklet entitled "Ladies Directory", which, I understand, has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

I will take note of what the hon. Member has said. The purpose of the Act, however, which is to drive the women off the streets, has, I think the hon. Member will agree, been remarkably successful.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider his refusal to grant naturalisation to Mr. N. Tomczuk, 10 Braemont, Cowdenbeath, in view of the support given to his application by prominent local people well acquainted with his character and qualifications.

No, Sir. Mr. Tomczuk was not able to fulfil the statutory requirement of a sufficient knowledge of English.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the suicide of a young man whilst on remand in prison; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that a repetition of such a case shall be avoided.

Yes, Sir, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my deep sympathy with the boy's family. The boy had been for six days in a room in Durham prison hospital because of an earlier attack of hysteria. He appeared to have completely recovered and, on the morning of his death, had asked to be discharged from the hospital. He ate well when the midday meal was served just before noon. He was found to be dead during a routine check at 12.35 p.m. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that no other steps could have been taken to prevent the suicide.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider two questions; the possibility of giving some more guidance to magistrates, and even judges, with regard to the general question of bail; also, will the Home Office go into the question of the great need for remand centres, which would save young people from being sent to prison on remand?

In reply to the first part of his supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of these matters, but I think it would be difficult to do as he suggests. Of course, I will consider it. On the second point, that is a matter which is to be discussed in this House later today, but my right hon. Friend does agree about the great need for remand centres.

Would it be possible at this stage for my right hon. Friend to confirm on this matter of bail that an application was made to the judge in chambers and that the judge in chambers supported the magistrate? If he could confirm that, then I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is only fair that that should be put on the record so that the public may be informed of the present situation.

My advice is that the application for bail was not made to the magistrate but to the judge in chambers, who refused it.

Did not the observations of Mr. Justice Elwes in this case support the recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee that in cases of this kind proceedings should not be taken except by the Director of the Public Prosecutions or with the consent of the Attorney-General?

It is a rather complicated matter on which to comment at this stage, but I think that in this particular case it would be an exception to the Wolfenden recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expense to public funds was involved in the damages and cost awarded to Mr. Gerald Garratt against the Metropolitan Police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what amount has been paid out of public funds in respect of damages and costs arising from the case of Garratt v. Eastmond.

No damages were awarded by the court to the plaintiff in this case. A sum of £300 was paid into court on behalf of the defendant without admission of liability. The plaintiff, with the consent of the court, took the sum out in satisfaction of his claim. The bill of costs has not yet been received.

Is this settlement at the expense of the policeman concerned against whom the action was taken, or does that amount come out of public funds, that is, at the expense of the taxpayer and ratepayer?

The latter represents the situation.

Will we be informed in due course how much has had to be paid by way of costs out of public funds?

Yes, if the House wishes the information, the best way would be to put down a Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what disciplinary action is proposed by the Metropolitan Police arising out of the High Court case of Garratt v. Eastmond;

The Commissioner of Police, who is the disciplinary authority, informs me that he has decided that no disciplinary proceedings should be instituted. It is not his practice to disclose the disposition of the officers of his force.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that numbers of newspapers have carried reports of previous cases in which this policeman has had to be reprimanded for his attitude towards the public? Is not this one of the reasons which is bringing the police into disrepute—regrettably—with the public, and ought not the Home Secretary to be prepared to look into this man's record with a view to revising his views?

As anybody who has served on a police authority of any sort knows—I am the police authority for the Metropolis—there are limits to which I can go. This is a matter which falls essentially within the power of the Commissioner. As he has decided this, I will support him.

Does it not seem a little odd that upon the one hand the Crown is advised to pay damages for a civil wrong alleged against one of its servants and on the other hand the advice is that the servant has not done anything wrong?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has the great power of bringing matters together in one sentence, but it is not quite as simple as that. There would not be Questions in this House if there were not a certain amount of disquiet about this case, with which I sympathise.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that we get a really extraordinary situation if, in a police force for which he has personal responsibility to this House, an act takes place by an individual member of the force which justifies the police authority in paying substantial damages to a citizen and yet we have no inquiry at all, no disciplinary action against the man who must, on the result of the case, have acted in a way which justified the award of some damages?

The payment was made into court without admission of liability. That is, of course, the technical thing that happens on these occasions. I have great experience of the wisdom of the Commissioner in these matters. The matter has been referred to him. He has taken this decision. As I have said, I support him in the decision.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there is very great disquiet about this matter? A lot is known about this case and similar cases in connection with this man The right hon Gentleman has, after all, responsibility to the House in this field. Does he not agree with the recent article in The Times that this is more than a simple case before the courts that it has a very wide public importance because it concerns the action of a police constable in his official capacity and. secondly, because the money was paid out of public funds? Therefore for two reasons it is a matter of great public importance for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible to the House.

I did not deny that I was responsible to the House. I said that I accepted the responsibility in the matter. I said that Questions would not have been put down if there had not been disquiet, which I fully understand, but I am afraid that I cannot carry the matter any further.

Surely that is not very satisfactory. Why has the right hon. Gentleman reached this decision? I understand that there is a great deal of evidence that this officer has not behaved at all well on previous occasions, and it is very surprising that no action whatever has been taken about it. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

It is, I think, a matter for discretion. As Secretary of State I am responsible for the Metropolitan Police Force and for the Commissioner. I have confidence in the judgment of the Commissioner. There is a great variety of facts in the case. The Commissioner has been into them. I have given all the relevant facts that I know to the House, and I am afraid that I must accept responsibility in the matter.

In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the replies from the Home Secretary, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken regarding the 37 Indians who recently entered this country without valid passports.

As a result of inquiries into the identity and nationality of these people, made with the help of representatives of the Office of the High Commissioner for India, it was established that one was a citizen of India and one a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies: these two were released from custody. It was not possible for the Office of the High Commissioner, on the information available, to regard the others as citizens of India; they were therefore required to leave the country under the Aliens Order, and did so on Tuesday.

Is the implication of that reply that in future proof of Commonwealth citizenship will in itself justify immigration without the need for a valid passport? If that is so, will not that vitiate all the measures taken by the Indian Government to limit migration from India to Great Britain?

Under the present law, Commonwealth citizenship certainly enables a person to come to this country, but he has to prove that citizenship by producing a valid passport or other valid document. In this case, like several re- cent cases of batches coming from India, the trouble was that a number of people tried to avoid the control which the Indian Government have themselves established.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement as promised some months ago regarding his negotiations with the other Commonwealth Governments for similar restriction and control of immigration into the United Kingdom as applies in nearly every other part of the Commonwealth; and if he will introduce legislation which requires all immigrants to have a certificate of good health, a job to come to, a home to live in, and adequate financial resources.

The consultations with other Commonwealth Governments related only to the question of deportation. They are nearly complete, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement. Her Majesty's Government have no proposals to make at present for a general control of immigration from the Commonwealth.

Does my right hon. Friend not think that the four conditions mentioned in my Question are reasonable? Does he not think that the people in this country are entitled to have safeguards against immigration, just as the people of the Commonwealth are entitled to have safeguards in relation to their countries? Why should not British people have the same right to safeguard the position as people in the Colonies demand for themselves?

The Mother Country has always had a special attitude towards immigration and, up to now, we have never had power of deportation. I have stated publicly that there is something to be said for power of deportation, but our consultations reveal that there is not unanimity on the matter and, therefore, it is a matter on which further consultation is necessary.

Is it not a fact that two immigrants from the Commonwealth have recently been admitted to this country without a valid passport? Is it the intention of the Department to continue this practice in connection with other illegal immigrants?

I should want details of the case to which my hon. Friend refers.

Since my right hon. Friend told me months ago that he was considering this problem, is it not time that something was done, especially in view of the fact that he has said that there is something to be said for it? Why should we not protect our people?

I have stated my personal view, which I did a year ago, and therefore I have beaten my hon. Friend by six months. I have caused inquiries to be made. We are dealing with other Governments within the Commonwealth family. Replies from one or two of the territories most directly concerned are still awaited, and not all the replies received so far are in favour of the proposal. Therefore, I am obliged to take this matter more slowly than perhaps I might have wished.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to prevent private business interests spending large sums of money on political propaganda immediately preceding a General election, to expend enormous sums of of Parliament when it imposed limitations on a candidate's expenses at such elections.

My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that the law on this subject is inadequate or is not effectively enforced.

Is it not the case that when Parliament imposed a maximum limitation on the expenses of Parliamentary candidates it was clearly intended that there should be fairness between candidates, and that personal wealth should not have undue advantage? Surely it vitiates the whole of that principle if wealthy vested interests are allowed, immediately preceding the Election, to expend enormous sums of money to create a climate of opinion favourable to the Government party and unfavourable to the main Opposition party? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that unless something is done about this by the Government themselves somebody else will certainly have to do something about it?

I am sure the hon. Member realises that this is covered by the Representation of the People Act, 1949, and that Section 159 provides for information to be given to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would draw his attention to that Section.

Would my right hon. Friend have a look at this question most carefully and bear in mind the considerable expenditure on the part of the co-operative societies and especially that part which was spent on propaganda during the election period in plastering all their windows with the words, "All Prices Reduced", thus contributing to Conservative victory?

Is it not rather extra ordinary that a Question of this importance should not have been answered by the Home Secretary? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House would like to take all these matters into consideration, including the co-operative societies? Is the right hon. Gentleman not further aware that the authority of the House will be reduced in the minds of citizens if it is widely felt that the election has been rigged—

Take your beating like a man.

Rigged by means of vast expenditure of money in the possession of the wealthier members of the community? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members will permit me to put my supplementary question. Is it not a fact that if we cannot retain the authority of the House, then, of course, people will try to redress their wrongs in other ways?

Threats.

The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the protests against the electoral law have come equally from both sides of the House.

Nonsense.

That, indeed, is the case. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will, of course, accept the suggestion that the whole question should be looked at.

Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that, whatever objections are taken to the electoral matter by the major parties, they are nothing to the objections taken by the smaller parties?

Since the right hon. Gentleman says that there is nothing wrong in private employers indulging in propaganda to suit the Tory Party, would he say the same if the boards of the nationalised industries decided to defend themselves in the same manner?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.