asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give some suitable mark of recognition for long service to members of the Civil Defence services; and whether he will make a statement on the subject.

Representations that a medal should be instituted to recognise long and efficient service by members of the Civil Defence services are being considered. I regret, however, that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that such an award would not only give immense satisfaction to the members of this splendid service but would be extremely well received by the country as a whole, which, I think, recognises the value of the work done by these public-spirited men and women, in some cases since 1939?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give instructions that an appropriate leaflet, calling attention to the provisions of the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, will be handed to any person applying for a gun licence under the provisions of the Gun Licences Act, 1870.

My right hon. Friend has considered this suggestion, but he is not convinced that the placing of an extra duty of this kind on post offices would be justified.

As, unfortunately, there are frequent breaches of the Protection of Birds Act, sometimes due to ignorance, would the Minister reconsider this proposal that a small notice should be handed to those purchasing licences in order to draw their attention to the provisions of the Act? If he is not prepared to do that, has he any alternative to suggest?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that post offices have an enormous number of extraneous duties to perform, and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General naturally resists imposing further duties upon them. I have examined this suggestion, but I think that for those reasons it is not practicable. I do not think that I can add to what I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman last week, that further copies of the poster are available to voluntary and statutory bodies who care to apply for them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to forbid the carrying out of an execution at a prison in the county in which the prisoner lives, or in which the murder was committed.

I regret that the considerable practical disadvantages which I see in the hon. Member's proposal outweigh any consideration in its favour.

Can the right hon. Gentleman recall the scenes, both inside and outside Pentonville Prison, prior to the execution of Marwood? Would he not agree that these scenes were aggravated by the fact that Marwood was a local man and that the murder was committed in that area? Does he not feel that if we are to continue with this uncivilised business of hanging people we might make an effort to make it less of a spectacle?

I am aware of the importance of making it less of a spectacle, but I have weighed up the considerations and, on the whole, I do not as yet see the advantage of altering the system.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will set up a committee to investigate the system whereby, under the Cinematograph Films Acts, a trade organisation and local authorities at present censor films, to consider whether such censorship is necessary or desirable, and to make recommendations on legislation;

I am not convinced that such an inquiry would serve a useful purpose.

Would the Home Secretary study the article by Mr. Derek Hill in Encounter, of which I delivered a copy to him and which, I believe, he will realise constitutes a prima facie case for investigation in this sphere? In view of the concern about horror films and the abuse of the X certificate, the anomaly of continuing censorship of cinemas and having no censorship of television, and in view of the ridiculous farce of so-called censorship of plays, surely the time has come to have some form of general inquiry about the future of censorship in the country?

I do not accept that the office performed by the Lord Chamberlain is a farce, because latterly it has been considerably liberalised, I think with some success. I would not suggest that we could find a more logical or efficient way of doing it, however illogical it may appear. I certainly have read the article in Encounter. It leaves the need for some form of censorship as an open consideration. It considers also that censorship is necessary for children. Therefore, on the whole, the non-statutory form of censorship at present exercised for the films is probably as good as we can get. As regards T.V. that raises a separate consideration.

It certainly raises a separate consideration. It is completely illogical to have a situation in which films are shown on television without any form of censorship, whereas an elaborate trade system of censorship is maintained in the cinemas. Without pre-judging this question, would it not be a good idea to have some objective-minded people examine this system and the necessity and desirability of continuing it in future?

I am not persuaded that an inquiry would be advisable, but that is not to say that I would ignore the representations made by the hon Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation in the next Session of Parliament to revise the Sunday Observance and other Acts governing the use of Sunday.

I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the proposals to be incorporated in the Queen's Speech, will he consider this proposal? There is a wide measure of public support in the country in favour of modernising the law on this subject. Both the main political parties, including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, said so during the last election.

Yes. I think that there is a growing body of opinion that something should be done. I cannot help feeling that with all the susceptibilities involved there might be a case for an inquiry. At any rate, I will give the matter further consideration and in due course I may be able to say something about it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that a few years ago there was a very large vote in the House in favour of the appointment of a Royal Commission to overhaul the whole of the Sunday Observance laws?

Yes. I am also aware that the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) was defeated by a very considerable majority. There was also a difficulty over a Private Member's Motion. Therefore, the position is fairly well balanced, but I think that a great deal of this law is out of date.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now satisfied that most people as well as the 175 organisations he consulted favour some extension of Summer Time particularly by a fortnight in October; and if he will announce the Government's proposals for amending the Summer Time Act.

I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the Answers which I gave to Questions on 12th and 19th May.

Is not my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is always very anxious to keep in line with public opinion, being unduly deliberate in reaching a decision? Is it not a fact that the great majority of these organisations, as well as the general public, would favour a modest extension of Summer Time in October and that the National Farmers' Union in England and Wales has said that if there is this general desire it would not object?

My hon. Friend has not had the advantage I have had of examining the reply to the questionnaire. In fact, there are various replies made to it which do not accord in general with the view of the National Farmers' Union. My right hon. Friend still needs a little further time to consult with his colleagues on this difficult matter.

If the people of this country want an extra fortnight's Summer Time, why should not they have it? Will the right hon. Gentleman please explain that? Does the Home Secretary claim to override the wishes of the majority of the people in this matter?

The answer to the hon Gentleman's supplementary question is that the result of the questionnaire does not show that the people of this country want an extra fortnight's Summer Time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority police in the Metropolitan area have refused permission for motor vehicles to be cleaned whilst they are parked against parking meters.

It is an offence under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, for a person to clean, make or repair any part of a cart or carriage in any thoroughfare or public place to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers, except in cases of accident where repair on the spot is necessary. The police neither grant nor withhold permission.

Will not my hon. and learned Friend agree that that Act of Parliament is somewhat archaic in this day of parking meters? Will he not further agree that in many cases the only opportunity that car owners have of cleaning their cars is whilst they are at parking meters? Provided that it does not create a nuisance to neighbours and others, does he not think that the time has come to look at this matter again, because it concerns many people?

I should want to think about all the implications of my hon. Friend's question, but I certainly do not think that the habit of washing cars in the street should be encouraged.

It is an essential element of this offence that somebody should be annoyed. Who is annoyed? What sort of evidence is necessary? How does one decide who is annoyed? It seems an odd thing to be annoyed about.

Naturally, that must always depend upon the circumstances of the case and the evidence which is available to the police before they decide upon a prosecution?

Does my hon. and learned Friend really believe that only a very few people clean their cars in the street? A large number of people have nowhere else to clean their cars. This happens not only in London, but in every busy city in this country. A large number of people will be astounded by my hon. and learned Friend's reply.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman look at this again? The Act of 1839 can hardly have foreseen parking meters, or, indeed, motor cars. It is extraordinary that he rests upon this old Act in answering this Question. There seems to be a great deal to be said for looking at this again and making the law rather more sensible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the legislation promised in Command Paper, No. 8286, of July, 1951, as a necessary preliminary to the ratification of the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 96, has not been introduced by Her Majesty's Government; and if he hopes to include such a measure in the legislative programme in the next Session of Parliament.

Pressure of Parliamentary business has so far prevented the introduction of this legislation, and I regret that I cannot anticipate next Session's programme.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether all the negotiations with the various bodies have been concluded and he is now only waiting for an opportunity for having Parliamentary time?

Yes. The main problem now is Parliamentary time. As it is not usual to anticipate next Session's programme, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the satisfaction he desires.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales on the subject of fire precautions in shops, offices, restaurants, laboratories and warehouses, which are not covered by the Factories Acts of 1937 and 1959; and when he expects to be able to introduce comprehensive legislation on the subject.

The question has been placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council at the request of one of its constituent bodies and I shall of course give careful consideration to any views expressed. As regards possible legislation, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) on 7th July.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that this matter is now becoming extremely urgent? Many hon. Members will find it an intolerable burden on their consciences if more and more of their constituents object to the hazards of the appalling disasters of which we have seen examples recently?

Yes. I am aware that the present law is not comprehensive or satisfactory. I am aware of the need for altering it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the knife attack by a thief on Miss Dorothy Swallow while she was in sole charge of a Lambeth radio shop; and whether he will instruct the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to consult with retail trade organisations, with a view to ensuring that young girls are not left on their own to protect cash and stock.

My right hon. Friend has received a report on the incident. The Commissioner of Police is considering whether the giving of general advice would be practicable and helpful; but the arrangements for the security of shops and the protection of employees must remain the responsibility of traders themselves.

Is it not necessary that something should be done about these cases? This is not the first instance of this kind. There are likely to be many more in the future, unless practical steps are taken. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest any other steps than this which might be helpful?

We share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. The Metropolitan Police are always ready to give advice on these matters to traders or trade associations. The Commissioner will consider whether this particular matter could usefully be covered by his general arrangements for crime prevention and by publicity about the steps which can usefully be taken.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the ways of helping in this matter would be to do everything possible to get more policemen on the beat?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that doubt exists whether the introduction of bullfighting into this country is prohibited under existing law; and if he will introduce legislation making explicit such prohibition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, for the avoidance of doubt, he will introduce legislation forbidding the practice of bullfighting in the United Kingdom.

No, Sir; bullfighting is already clearly prohibited by the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very many people believe that bullfighting is a cruel and degrading spectacle and are concerned about the number of clubs which have been formed to promote bullfighting in this country? Since, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, the law is not clear on this point and since it is much easier to stop these things starting than to intervene when they are established, will he give an assurance that he will take the powers necessary to prohibit bullfighting if it is found that there are loopholes in the present law which permit it to be started?

If the hon. Lady will examine Section 1 of the 1911 Act she will find that it is very comprehensive, but I give the assurance that if there is any loophole—I believe that there is no loophole—steps will be taken to stop it.

Is the right hon. Member aware that his reply will come as a relief to many people in this country who would be averse to the introduction of this barbaric sport? Is he further aware that clubs have been formed in an attempt to get round the law? Will he assure us that he will enforce the provisions of the Act, and will he also consider whether the present penalties are sufficiently stringent? They are, at present, only £25 and/or three months' imprisonment.

I am not quite certain whether it is for my right hon. Friend to enforce the Act, but I will give the assurance that I will examine the question. I am aware that clubs have been formed and they have taken legal advice on the matter, but my legal advice is that there is no loophole in the present law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to withdraw his approval of those approved schools whose managers have declared themselves in favour of the introduction of the cat, the birch, and the stocks, as instruments for the punishment of children.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that the managers of approved schools are entitled to exercise all the powers of parents in respect of the children in their schools, if he is satisfied that all the schools approved by him in the North-West of England are managed by people fit to exercise such powers; and if he will make it a condition of the continuation of his approval that all managers should show themselves to be so fitted.

The appointment of managers of approved schools is not subject to my approval. I have no reason to suppose, however, that the management of approved schools in the North-West of England is other than in strict accordance with the statutory requirements. No question arises of withdrawing the certificate of approval of any of them because of views expressed by a few anonymous members of their management committees.

The right hon. Gentleman says that these are a few anonymous people, but is he aware that thirty-four of these people are in favour of the introduction of the cat for children; that two go so far as to approve giving the cat to children aged seven years; and that others approve the stocks? Indeed, one is surprised that no one has suggested the thumbscrew. Are these really the gentlemen, who are in a position in loco parentis, to deal with these children? Whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility or not, does he feel that one should approve schools in which gentlemen with this sort of extraordinary view are given parental control of children who are, after all, in the public charge and, I should think, in the right hon. Gentleman's charge?

I believe that the hon. and learned Member's statistics are approximately correct. I understand from the north-west branch of the Managers' Association that the report containing this reference was unofficial and was made public before the reference had been considered by the branch. The position is that there is no question of the views of these anonymous persons affecting the conduct of the approved schools, and the aims and methods of the approved schools will remain exactly the same—and the rules affecting corporal punishment. I therefore do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's apprehensions need extend to the fear that the administration of the approved schools will be altered by the views of these anonymous people.

Since the managers of approved schools exercise all the powers possessed by parents, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he could get any parent, no matter whether giving an unofficial or a private view, to express the views of these managers? Since the Home Secretary says that he has no power over the appointment or dismissal of managers of approved schools, and is not called on to approve them, does he not think the time has come to change the law in this respect so that he might have some control over them?

Arising out of the Durand Report and in relation to proposed legislation in the autumn, I am completely reviewing the situation of approved schools, some of which are under local authorities, or otherwise controlled, and some of which are virtually completely free. I am investigating the position. I have personally conducted a tour of investigation into many of the schools. I cannot say any more at Question Time, but I would ask hon. Members not to regard the views of these anonymous people as being typical of all the managers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to ensure, before giving his approval to an approved school, that the managers are suitably qualified.

Where the managers are not a local authority I would, before issuing a certificate of approval, satisfy myself of their suitability and competence by making such inquiry as seemed necessary.

But these inquiries are not being carried out in the case of at least certain schools in the north-west of England. Is not the Home Secretary aware that an undue proportion of these approved schools are run by self-appointed cliques, which seem to include some nasty old men with nasty old ideas? It is time that the Home Secretary carried out the policy that he says he has been carrying out, though with very small effect.

This particular Answer, of course, is relevant only in so far as many of these schools were approved a long time ago, and my predecessors' powers to approve the schools arose only before they gave approval to the schools. I think that it is quite possible that we shall need more extended powers in the examination we shall give to the matter in the autumn.

Is it not the case that the questionnaire referred to by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) was extremely loosely drawn, and that quite a number of different deductions could be drawn from the answers; and that as they were anonymous, my right hon. Friend need not attach very much importance to this loosely-drawn questionnaire?

I should attach much importance to it if the intention was to introduce these practices into the schools, but as I have no intention of introducing them into the schools, and as the rules for corporal punishment are set out for all to see and read at the approved schools, I shall adhere to the rules.

Is the Home Secretary aware that it is not so much a question of whether or not these practices are to be introduced into the schools as the fact that people who hold these views are managers of approved schools, and are looking after our children? Will he not approach it from that point of view?

Oh, yes. I think I said to the hon. Lady that the whole of this matter is under review at the present time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, in addition to the imposition of five different forms of punishment awarded to Henry Richard Owen, prisoner at Her Majesty's Prison, Winson Green, Birmingham, in November last, including nine days' No. 1 diet, solitary confinement was also imposed upon this prisoner for 23 hours daily for over six months; and why, in view of his wife's illness, he was not transferred to Cardiff Prison earlier.

This prisoner was kept apart from others under the stautory provision which enables this to be done in the interests of good order and discipline. His case was regularly reviewed but the visiting committee could not allow him to be returned to association with others because he threatened to attack other prisoners.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I visited this man in prison he had been in solitary confinement for over 200 days—nearly seven months—and had not been called before the visiting magistrates after the first month? He was refused permission to attend Mass for six Sundays, although he is a practising Catholic. I think that it is no exaggeration to say that when I saw him he was approaching the condition of being almost mad. Is this really a sensible way of dealing with prisoners?

This prisoner was the subject of a letter I sent to the hon. Member on 2nd June. I think that my right hon. Friend would not wish the segregation of prisoners to this extent to be frequent but, in this case, in the interests of other prisoners as well as of the staff, it was thought necessary, and the extension was endorsed each month by the visiting committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Gerald William Cawley, prisoner at Her Majesty's Prison, Winson Green, Birmingham, was in solitary confinement for 23 hours daily from 26th November, 1959, until 1st June, 1960 and whether he will consider the undesirability of keeping prisoners in solitary confinement far such long periods.

When the prisoner had completed his punishment for a serious disciplinary offence he was segregated from others, under the statutory provision which enables men to be kept apart in the interests of good order and discipline; when it was decided that he could safely be allowed to return to association with other prisoners, he refused to work with them.

This is a similar case. Is the Home Secretary aware that this man was in a condition of nervous tension, and was being threatened with return to exactly the same conditions in which he had been before? He objected to that and those concerned refused to consider removing him. Is it not fair that, in those circumstances, a man should be removed to some other area rather than that he should be kept in solitary confinement? He is not allowed to speak, even on exercise in the morning, either to the prisoner before him or behind him. They are all in single file—a mediaeval practice.

Subject to the fact that this lies a good deal within the province of the visiting committee, I think that the hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear that I have asked for this general practice to be reviewed by the Prison Commissioners. There was a reason why the prisoner was kept apart in this case, because he himself refused to work with others but, in general, this has caused me concern, and the matter is under review.

In this case, why does the Home Secretary suppose that the man himself refused? Does he think that the man chose solitary confinement for fun? Has he examined, or will he examine, the background against which the man was originally put in solitary confinement? Is he aware that this prisoner stopped work in sympathy with a large number of prisoners who went on strike, in effect, against appalling food and unsatisfactory pay rates, and that he is, or claims to be, one of a few of those who were victimised?

The background in this case will not be forgotten in the review to be undertaken.

While we are glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has asked for this to be looked at again, would he not agree that it is disturbing that so barbarous a punishment as this of six months and more of solitary confinement for 23 hours in a day can go on in prisons? There must be something very wrong when what I can only describe as a barbarous punishment goes on. As I say, we are glad that the right hon. Gentleman is looking at this punishment. It really does need changing.

One of the advantages of our free system of Question and Answer is that these cases come to light. We must acknowledge that they do come to light and, when they come to light, they ought to he looked at. That is what I am doing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of a recent decision of the High Court, in which soliciting from behind closed windows constitutes an offence under the Street Offences Act, he will introduce legislation to amend the Act by restoring the need to prove annoyance.

No, Sir; the reasons why the Government were not prepared to retain the element of annoyance in the offence of soliciting for the purpose of prostitution were fully explained during the discussions on the Street Offences Bill. They are not affected by the case in question.

Will not the Home Secretary agree, in view of the recent decision of the High Court, that there is the danger that an innocent woman who might be tapping on her window or talking to a male passer-by could be charged by a suspicious policeman with soliciting, and ought he not to introduce the element of annoyance into the Street Offences Act in order to safeguard the liberty of an innocent person?

Naturally, I respect the view of the hon. Gentleman that there might be a danger, but I am informed by my advisers that it is very unlikely. I certainly should be wrong if I gave any impression that I proposed to legislate further on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increasing social evils resulting from the indiscriminate registration of clubs, he will now announce his proposals to prevent the existing abuses and to increase the powers of magistrates to refuse registration or re-registration.

My proposal, which I outlined in the debate on the licensing laws on 29th January, is that the law should distinguish between genuine members' clubs, which would enjoy much the same right to registration as hitherto, and proprietary clubs, which would have to apply for a justices' licence if they wished to supply drink. I am considering, in the light of subsequent consultations, the best method of giving effect to this proposal and the powers that should be given to the courts to ensure an effective measure of control. I cannot further anticipate the forward legislative programme.

May we take it that the Home Secretary is now aware that this problem is becoming increasingly serious and is causing a very considerable nuisance in many parts of the Metropolis and elsewhere by reason of the fact that these clubs are growing up and conducting all kinds of undesirable practices with which it is very difficult for the police to deal? May we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will introduce legislation on the subject early in the next Session?

Yes, Sir; it is the present intention that such legislation shall be introduced in the next Session. It is clear to my mind that the reason for the legislation is more profound than we at first imagined, and a review of the licensing laws will give us the opportunity to clear up some very undesirable states of affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has refused to allow the contents of a letter received by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), from a prisoner in Wandsworth Prison, complaining of the circumstances in which he was kept in solitary confinement from 24th December, 1959, to 21st April, 1960, to be released to the Press.

It is not the practice to allow prisoners to send out matter intended for insertion in the Press. They have numerous channels through which grievances may be raised. Hon. Members are free to bring their grievances to the attention of the House, if they think this course desirable. My right hon. Friend did not in these circumstances think it right to allow the prisoner to consent to the hon. Member's proposal to communicate the contents of the letter in question to a Sunday newspaper.

In those circumstances, having been baulked in all my efforts to clear up this matter by correspond- ence, will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interview the prisoners in Wandsworth who have been in solitary confinement and see the cells in which they were so confined, on the understanding that I have a completely free hand afterwards to report on what I have seen and heard?

I will certainly facilitate a visit by the hon. Gentleman to Wandsworth Prison.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has given to the letter sent to him by the chairman of the London Anti-Apartheid Committee on the subject of action by the Metropolitan Police in relation to peaceful protests outside South Africa House.

The writer has been informed that, as the responsibility for the preservation of public order and the prevention of obstruction rests, subject to the courts, with the police, a copy of his letter has been sent to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and that I cannot undertake to advise on questions of law, which can be determined authoritatively only by the courts.

But is not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the conduct of the Metropolitan Police, and is it not his duty, as Secretary of State for the Home Department, to protect public rights and liberties? Is he aware that fifteen persons were threatened with arrest when they were standing without posters on the steps of St. Martin's Church, which is private property, after obtaining permission from the Rector of St. Martin's? Is he aware that other persons who were on picket duty and obeying the regulation distance were similarly threatened with arrest? Will he look into the conduct of the Superintendent of E Division in this matter?

I have already called for a report and I am satisfied that the police have not exceeded their powers. If the hon. Gentleman has any further information, I will look into it again.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us have received complaints about incidents in which the police appear to have exceeded their authority, and will he please undertake to give this matter his personal attention?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Poisons Board to examine the seventeen lipstick colours which the United States of America proposed to remove from the "harmless" list in April, 1959, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) with a view to giving guidance to the cosmetic industry in this country.

My right hon. Friend will ask the Board whether it wishes to make recommendations to him on this subject.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, which will go some way to meet the public concern on this matter which has arisen from the fact that the colours suspended in the United States were found, when they were given in large quantities to rats, to have some carcinogenic effect. When he refers to the Poisons Board, will he ask the Board to consider examining what quantities, if any, of these colours can be absorbed safely into the digestive systems of women using lipstick?

I understand that the view that these dyes have a carcinogenic effect is not accepted, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health dealt with the matter on 9th May. I am sure that the hon. Lady's supplementary question will come to the attention of the Board.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the estimated net inward movement of 14,800 immigrants from the West Indies for the five months ended 31st May, 1960, as compared with 3,500 in the corresponding period last year, and the apparent failure of all appeals to the West Indian Government to restrict this migration, he will consider further steps to deal with the problem.

This matter is one which is under constant consideration. For the time being, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) on 7th July.

Will my right hon. Friend give this matter more urgent consideration and take into account the increasing difficulties in regard to housing, employment and the care of children coming under local authorities as a result of mixed unions and in view of the fact, also, that many West Indians themselves are calling for the restriction of immigration by their own nationals?

I received this week an all-party deputation on this subject led by my hon. Friend. I must tell the House that the figures of immigration are going up considerably, particularly from the West Indies, especially Jamaica. That is why the matter is under constant consideration, particularly with the Governments involved, and that may be the best way of dealing with it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now given further consideration to the Report of the Tucker Committee on Proceedings before Examining Justices; and when legislation on the recommendations of the Committee is likely to be introduced.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has given further consideration to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Proceedings before Examining Justices, Command Paper No. 479, 1958; and if it is his intention to implement some or all of that Report.

I am considering this matter in the context of various suggestions which have been made about proceedings before examining justices, but I have at present nothing to add to the replies which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lt.-Col. Cordeaux) on 19th May and to my hon. Friend, the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith) on 26th May.

As the right hon. Gentleman has already admitted in the House, after a Question I put to him concerning a case in my own constituency which was heard before the magistrates in camera, that there is a need for amendment of the appropriate Act, will he now consider introducing an Amendment in another place in connection with the present Bill, which, I think, would be not very difficult if he applied his mind to it?

I am advised that that is rather difficult. There is not at present a Parliamentary occasion to do this. I am aware of the case at Worksop, and I am aware of the need to pay attention not only to the right hon. Gentleman's representations but to the merits of the case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the incident at Uxbridge on 5th July when acid fell from a lorry in motion and burned several people; and, in view of this further example of the careless transportation of dangerous substances, what action he proposes to take.

Yes, Sir. My information is that a motor-cyclist who had fallen from his machine and a pedestrian who went to his assistance suffered slight injuries from a patch of butyric acid on the road. It is thought that the butyric acid fell from a carboy on a passing lorry, but police inquiries are not yet complete and I am not therefore in a position to say what action it may be appropriate to take.

Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the time has now arrived for new legislation to be introduced in this connection? He may well remember that earlier this year Questions were raised in the House in connection with the transportation of dangerous substances in Leicestershire. This further accident of a similar nature reinforces a request to introduce new legislation

I should like my hon. Friend to know that in the previous case a conviction was obtained under existing powers. It may well be that that will apply in the existing case, but I do not wish to go further at this stage.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman ask the police to be more vigilant with regard to lorries loaded high with substances which may fall from them? There are many such lorries going around the country. Cannot the drivers and owners be prosecuted under the Litter Act?

They certainly can be prosecuted under the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations for using unsuitable vehicles or failing to secure the load, as happened in the earlier case mentioned by my hon. Friend. That may apply to the case which he has raised today.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Metropolitan Police have been authorised to import foreign dogs for police work; what limits have been placed on the number of dogs to be imported, and the price to be paid for each; how many such dogs have been imported up to the last convenient date; and what have been the total expenses involved.

My right hon. Friend authorised the Metropolitan Police to import a small number of dogs from the Continent. He was advised that this was desirable in order to improve the breeding strain of the police dog in this country. A purchasing mission recently visited Germany and bought ten dogs, which have now arrived in this country, the average price paid was £41 and further expenses of £440 were incurred, including the cost of bringing the dogs over to this country.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that by the time the dogs pass through quarantine kennels the cost of procuring them is three or four times as much as the cost of procuring equivalent Alsatians in this country, of which there are about 100,000 available? Will he bear in mind that some police forces, such as that in Dorset, have had no difficulty in establishing an extremely efficient team of police dogs bought at reasonable prices in this country?

The cost of importation was undoubtedly fairly high, but it was not a lot to pay if the necessary improvement in the general standard of police dogs in this country is achieved. With regard to the experience of other police forces, I must point out to my hon. Friend that, although they have managed to obtain dogs quite cheaply, the dogs have mostly been of a lower standard than those which were imported.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has given to the Metropolitan Police with regard to keeping observation on the house at 39, Curzon Street, Mayfair, since August, 1955, when Madame Johans, a known associate of Eugenio Messina, was convicted of keeping a brothel on these premises; whether there have been any further convictions in respect of activities on these premises; if he is aware that the display advertisement for private tuition in French in the windows of the same is presumptive evidence of these premises being in continued use for the purposes of prostitution; and if he will make a statement.

It is not for my right hon. Friend to consider evidence or to give instructions to the Metropolitan Police in these matters. The vigilance of the police is being maintained. Two persons have recently been convicted of a total of six offences of soliciting from these premises.

While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that, according to the copy of a Belgian newspaper which I have in my possession, in 1956 Sergeant Gentle of Scotland Yard gave evidence at the trial of Eugenio Messina at Tournai to the effect that he was running a brothel in London? Is he likewise aware that the matter of this particular house was raised in Parliament in 1956 by the late Mr. Richard Stokes? Further, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is evidence that this man is drawing profits from these premises while he is still abroad? Will not my hon. and learned Friend look into the whole problem of men living on the immoral earnings of women?

I will always be glad to hand to the Commissioner any evidence on this matter which my hon. Friend cares to produce.

Irrespective of the merits of this case, will the hon. and learned Gentleman make it quite clear that to advertise the teaching of French is not necessarily to advertise the practice of prostitution?

I think that it may well be that there are occasions when people who say that they are going to teach French are going to teach only French.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken against those responsible for using a loudspeaker van to follow an American artist on 7th June through the streets of London shouting offensive slogans.

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the police have no information about the use of a loudspeaker on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many people are amazed at the tenderness with which these Fascists were treated on this occasion? Is he also aware that I have a letter from a Fascist organisation which not only admits this but warns me of the dire consequences for me of putting this Question on the Order Paper? I therefore ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, if it is not possible to get them into a court of law, he will have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health with a view to having them compulsorily detained under the Mental Health Act so that they can have treatment for diseased minds?

If such a matter were raised it would be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the harm done to racial relations by the action of persons shouting offensive slogans outside the Pigalle Restaurant on 7th June; and what instruction he has given to the Metropolitan Police in order to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

I think that the hon. Member may have over-estimated the importance of this incident. It is not for my right hon. Friend to give instructions on the enforcement of the law to the Metropolitan Police, who are in any case competent to deal with such incidents.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that much of the progress in integrating coloured immigrants into the community is being achieved by multi-racial committees set up for the purpose, and that any question of unfair bias within the Metropolitan Police Force between, for example, demonstrators in front of South Africa House and anti-coloured people outside the Pigalle can destroy the basis of the confidence which exists on the multi-racial committees?

I think that we should get the facts right. In this case all that happened was this. There was some shouting of slogans and there had been a poster parade which attracted little attention. When the shouting began the police called upon the demonstrators to disperse, and they immediately and quietly did so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the chairman of the juvenile court at Doncaster has made a recent statement that it is impossible to find places in remand homes or detention centres for young people; and, since this is the position in many parts of the country, what his plans are for speeding up the provision of such accommodation.

The demand for remand home accommodation fluctuates, and my right hon. Friend is aware that courts sometimes have difficulty in finding the places they need. The Home Office keeps the position under review in consultation with the responsible local authorities. A new remand home has been provided this year in the South-East, a second is planned in the North-East, and some existing homes have been or are being extended. My right hon. Friend is anxious that detention centres should be available to all courts, and the Prison Commissioners are pressing on with their provision. It is the intention to open two new senior centres at Medomsley, Durham, and New Hall Camp, Yorkshire, before the end of this year.

While welcoming that information, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that, even with the opening of these remand homes and detention centres, there will be sufficient accommodation? This is not only a serious problem but an urgent one. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter most urgent consideration? Further, can he tell us when we may expect the report of the Ingleby Committee which will be dealing with many of these problems?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question is "Yes". The provision of further places in approved schools, which is also in hand, will facilitate the easing of pressure on remand homes. In answer to the second part of her supplementary question, I hope that my right hon. Friend will receive the report of the Ingleby Committee very shortly.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman where the new remand home in the North-East will be, for which area it will cater and how many people it will take?

I can answer the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. It will be in the West Riding. I cannot be more specific than that, but I will advise the hon. Member further.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department with what unions the Metropolitan Police have discussed wages and conditions of service of school-crossing patrols; and when an agreement was last reached.

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis negotiates with the National Union of Public Employees, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers and the Transport and General Workers Union on the wages and conditions of service of school-crossing patrols. An agreement was last reached in 1958, providing for an increase of pay with effect from 1st January, 1958.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that in part of the County of Essex, under the county police, school-crossing patrols now receive half-pay for the school holiday period, whereas patrols in the Metropolitan area are paid nothing at all. There is a good deal of friction in this matter. Cannot the hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to get a national agreement covering the whole country, including the Metropolitan Police District and various other police areas?

I understand that the present negotiating machinery, which includes provision for arbitration, is working smoothly. I do not think that it would be right for me to comment specifically on the way in which it has worked in a particular part of the country. If the hon. Gentleman cares to get in touch with me on the matter, I will be glad to consider it further.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the publication of an annual social survey, on the lines of the Economic Survey and the Defence White Paper, in order that policy and achievements of the social services can be debated as a co-ordinated whole before the discussion of departmental estimates.

I will arrange for this suggestion to be considered.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that very encouraging reply.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will so amend Rule 11 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Children and Young Persons) Rules, 1933, as to ensure that all reports by probation officers relating to children or young persons appearing before juvenile courts are given on oath, and are made available in all circumstances, not only to the child or young person concerned and his parent or guardian, but also to any other person or persons who may be implicated in the report.

My right hon. Friend would prefer to await the report of the Ingleby Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant permission for the administration of morphia by appropriately trained first-aid men in cases of serious injury to quarrymen.

My right hon. Friend will consider this suggestion in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, who is responsible for health and safety regulations for quarries.

In thanking the Minister for that encouraging reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that not only both sides of this difficult and dangerous industry, but also the Inspectorate of Mines, are agreed on the urgent necessity for this reform? Will the right hon. Gentleman please look at it with every sympathy, as we are concerned about the number of slate quarrymen who, being fairly seriously injured, nevertheless needlessly meet their end because of the impact of shock and pain when this kind of relief is not immediately available?

I am advised that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has had no particular pressure for this concession. If, however, the hon. Member would care to elaborate his case to me or my right hon. Friend, that would be helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the communication sent to him by the hon. Member for Carlisle, relevant to men who live on the immoral earnings of women; and what steps he is taking to eliminate the organisation of vice by such men.

My right hon. Friend has considered the communication sent to him by my hon. Friend. The police are doing all that they can to enforce the law.

Is not my hon. and learned Friend aware, however, that the family I mentioned in my previous Question has had many imitators in the Last ten or twelve years and that there is a serious problem afoot about men of this character and we would like to feel that active steps were being taken?

I understand that some members of the family are serving prison sentences in this country and abroad. Again, if my hon. Friend has any further information, perhaps he will let me have it and I will pass it on to the Commissioner.