asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last five years permission to prosecute a person licensed to perform experiments on living animals, under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, has been refused.

No application for my right hon. Friend's consent to a prosecution was made in this period.

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will realise that there is a certain amount of public apprehension about the possibility of cruelty in these cases. Can he assure the House that if any case of cruelty comes to the knowledge of his Department a prosecution will be instituted, even if a private complaint has not been laid?

I can certainly give that assurance. We believe that there have been no prosecutions because the Act is honestly observed to the best of their ability by those who work it. The minor infractions are, of course, reported in the annual returns, and my hon. and gallant Friend will see that in those cases it is almost always a case of inadvertence rather for a more serious motive

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the widespread apprehension that exists about these experiments and the widespread fear that there is unnecessary pain and cruelty? Seeing that there are now only six inspectors compared with three twenty years ago, when then the experiments were about one-fifth of what they are now, will he ask his right hon. Friend to set up a small committee of inquiry into the whole issue, if only to relieve public anxiety?

I am well aware of the degree of public anxiety, but I can assure the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) that it really is based on the misconception that the experiments of which there has been the greatest growth are in any way surgical experiments. The growth is almost entirely due to the fact that now, by Statute, we are obliged to see that many new substances that are necessary for the health of the human race are injected or fed into animals. In the vast proportion of cases there is no question of cutting or vivisection in the old sense of the word.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends taking concerning suffering caused to rabbits, details of which have been sent him by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion; and, in view of the fresh evidence contained in these cases, whether he is still satisfied that his staff is adequate to meet the situation.

Inspectors under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, are always ready to inquire into any case of unnecessary suffering alleged to have been caused in experiments; but the information sent by my hon. Friend is not sufficiently specific to enable us to trace the place and circumstances in which these experiments are said to have been carried out.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is making quite big propaganda— if one cares to call it that— throughout the country, presumably quite genuinely, on this whole subject, not only with regard to rabbits, but with regard to other animals as well? The Act seems to be rather out of date today and, presumably, there are various loopholes in it which are being used. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many people are very dissatisfied that practically no prosecutions are brought under the Act by the Home Office representatives, and does he feel satisfied that enough is being done to prevent what reputable societies such as the R.S.P.C.A. regard quite definitely as very bad practices?

We have had a Question today about the number of prosecutions and I dealt with that part of the matter then. There are subsequent Questions about the pamphlets issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I am waiting for more details of the experiments mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question because we should hope to examine them. Often in these cases, when details are finally sent, including photographs, we find that they relate to experiments which have taken place outside the United Kingdom altogether.

On a point of order. In view of the fact that it is obviously impossible to get an answer to these questions——

No.

I ask leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment because of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies.

I have repeatedly to ask hon. Members to adhere to the traditional formula and not to make speeches when giving notice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has studied the recent demands of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, details of which have been sent to him, with regard to experiments on animals; and whether he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The proposals made are in line with those put to my right hon. Friend when he received a deputation from the Society last year. My right hon. Friend then gave a full reply to the Society's representations and an assurance that every care was taken to see that all the requirements of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, are fully observed.

Are there sufficient inspectors to watch the more serious operations on animals? If not, would there be sufficient qualified vets to act as additional inspectors if more were thought to be needed? Would it be helpful to invite one or two extra additional veterinary surgeons to serve on the Advisory Committee, and would it be helpful in reassuring public opinion to try to arrange, possibly, for hon. Members of this House to visit some of these licensed premises?

In reply to the latter part of that question, certainly we should be happy to try to at-range for these visits. As to the appointment of more inspectors, we are of opinion that there are at present enough inspectors for this purpose. We should welcome inspectors with veterinary qualifications provided they also have medical qualifications. On this latter point, my right hon. Friend insists. There is at present one veterinary surgeon serving on the Advisory Committee, but if one or more others are suggested, we will certainly consider that and see whether, with the agreement of the Chairman, they could be co-opted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in United Kingdom immigration laws will be necessary if the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community.

Her Majesty's Government are examining the legal implications of adherence to the Treaty of Rome, but I cannot yet make any statement about changes which might be needed in our immigration legislation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position in this country under the recently passed Commonwealth Immigrants Act is, if anything, more liberal than the position obtaining in the Common Market at present, and does he think that this Act would have to be amended if we joined?

No, Sir. It is precisely because we are at the beginning of negotiations and because the full implications of the Treaty of Rome are not clear that I cannot yet give an answer to my hon. Friend's Question.

Is it the Home Secretary's conception that, if we join the Common Market, nationals of Common Market territories will, as a consequence, be able to come to this country without restriction?

No, Sir. The articles of the Treaty of Rome which relate to this are not so simple as that. They entail the question of obtaining and having a job to come to.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Territorials are exempt from service as jurymen when on part-time duties but Royal Naval Reserve officers and men are still being called to sit as jurymen; and if, in his review of the need for legislation regarding jury service, he will take into account the desirability of enabling Royal Naval Reserve personnel also to be exempt from jury service.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the position and has noted it for consideration.

Will the Minister tell the House what his attitude is on this matter? It seems somewhat extraordinary that there should be this discrimination against one section of the Forces.

We recognise that there is an anomaly here. We do not think that it leads to hardship in practice in view of the fact that persons charged with summoning a jury have a discretion to excuse anyone so summoned for good reason. The persons whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind usually have a good reason which they could substantiate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the National Greyhound Racing Society of Great Britain concerning the closing hours of betting offices.

The Society has brought to my right hon. Friend's attention a resolution passed at its annual general meeting on 16th May opposing any extension of the present closing hours of 6.30 p.m. for licensed betting offices.

Will the Minister resist any pressures put upon him or his Department to extend this form of betting, bearing in mind that to extend the hours would not be in the public interest?

When the Bill was before the House, a majority of hon. Members were in favour of the closing time of 6.30 p.m. which had been recommended by the Royal Commission. We certainly shall not be rushed into making any change.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the congestion which occurs nightly in Down Street, London, W.1, where cars are parked on both sides of the street and often half on the pavement, in Derby Street, and in Chesterfield Gardens where three and sometimes four lines of cars are parked to the great inconvenience of residents; and what action he is taking to prevent this congestion.

The Commissioner of Police is aware that obstruction is sometimes caused by vehicles parked in these streets, but, in view of the shortage of manpower, the police must at present give priority to keeping the principal thoroughfares clear. My hon. Friend's Question has, however, been brought to the notice of police officers on duty in the area.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is virtually impossible at night to pass through some of these streets and that Chesterfield Gardens is a cul-de-sac and, since motorists are not always aware of this fact, they enter the street and then have to turn round in order to come out again, thus making matters much worse? At least, could a sign be erected at the entrance of Chesterfield Gardens indicating that it is a cul-de-sac, and also might it be possible for some of the police who not so long ago were extremely active in Curzon Street to go round and look at the motor cars parked there?

I have no doubt that the Commissioner will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I ask him to remember that the streets named in his Question are used by only a small amount of traffic in the evenings and it would be difficult to justify large-scale removal of vehicles or other proceedings by the police.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise that he is quite wrong in saying that Chesterfield Gardens, for instance, is used by only a small number of cars at night? It is absolutely jammed at night and people find it quite impossible to get in and out of Chesterfield Gardens.

That is why so few cars use it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the dangerous practice of parking cars by night on street corners in London so as to make it impossible for a motorist entering from a side street to see traffic; and if he will make and enforce regulations to prevent this practice.

The police already have adequate powers to deal with any vehicle which is left on a road in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other users of the road, and I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a large proportion of the cars removed by the police are removed because they are causing serious obstruction at road junctions.

Will my hon. and learned Friend visit Curzon Street— it would be perfectly proper for him to do so— and see for himself whether there is a car parked right on every street corner, with the result that it is quite impossible for drivers coming out of the side streets to see other traffic, and it is equally impossible for motorists in Curzon Street to see vehicles coming in? Is not this an extremely dangerous state of affairs?

I have, of course, visited Curzon Street, and I should gladly do so again in order to examine the conditions to Which my hon. Friend has referred, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the enforcement of the traffic law is a matter for the Commissioner and that, even if I were to inform myself in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, it would still be for the Commissioner to decide how to deal with the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that appropriate police action is taken to prohibit the all-night parking of long-distance lorries in Aldine Street, Shepherd's Bush, W.12.

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the local police give such attention to this problem as their other responsibilities permit, and that suitable action is taken when a breach of the law is observed.

That is all very well, but is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are adequate enclosed car-parking facilities available within 200 yards of this area which are not used, that minor accidents are being caused to children who play around the lorries in the evenings, and that my constituents are being kept awake at all hours of the night by lorries arriving and departing? As car-parking facilities are available within 200 yards, why cannot the police insist upon them being used to the full?

It is not quite as easy as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The street is, in fact, little used for through-traffic and, therefore, it is not easy to get a prosecution for obstruction. Nevertheless, the police have taken action in a good many cases in the last twelve months. On the question of the general nuisance caused by night parking of lorries, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has appointed a working party to hold an inquiry.

The Minister's statement is not true. The street is used for through-traffic. Anybody who knows the area will realise that Shepherds Bush can be avoided by using this area. It sometimes cuts out as much as twenty minutes' waiting time at traffic lights. It is no good saying the street is not used. Car-parking facilities are available and should be used, and the police should have authority to ensure that they are used. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman do something about it?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken by the Metropolitan Police to deal with the growing inconvenience caused by parking of private and commercial vehicles in residential areas.

Inconvenience in itself is not a ground for police action, but I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that suitable action is taken when a breach of the law is observed.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that that kind of answer, which we have been getting for a long time past, gives no satisfaction at all to the residents who are affected by all the day and night parking that goes on? Does he not realise that this is an intolerable nuisance? Is it not a fact that the matter has been brought to the attention of the various Government Departments concerned on many occasions during many months past and yet nothing is being done to provide those who live in the residential areas of London with the peace and quiet to which they are entitled?

As I indicated in answer to a previous Question, the Minister of Transport realises that this is a question which needs to be looked into and is having an inquiry into it. Meanwhile, the duty of the police is to enforce the law. They have, of course, to enforce the law relating to obstruction of highways. They have no power to enforce a law which does not exist, and there is no law which prevents minor inconvenience, or even major inconvenience, of this kind unless a criminal offence is committed.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this is not merely a question of inconvenience and obstruction? Have there not been numerous cases in which the habit of parking lorries in private streets has encumbered the fire services in dealing with fire risks in residential areas of London?

I understand that where that occurs, if it occurs on the highway, then there is, of course, obstruction, and the police are able to take action.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the need to raise the limit on election expenses; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received very few representations. He is not aware of any widespread demand to change the existing arrangements.

Did not the Minister see the resolutions from Conservative associations and the statement by the Leader of the House that the 1949 scale of expenses was quite unreal today? May we take it that this utterly unfair proposal, which would give still more power to the money-bags, has now been dropped, even if vast sums of money can still be spent in other ways?

I am aware of the resolutions to the Conservative Central Council, which are, I think, what the hon. Gentleman has in mind I spoke against those resolutions myself, and I am glad to say that they were defeated.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is making a mockery of election law if, at the same time as there is a restriction on the spending of individual candidates, vast sums of money may be spent nationally by the national party organisations in the months preceding a General Election? Will he, far from increasing the amount which can be spent by candidates, restrict the amount which can be so spent nationally?

That goes very much wider than the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the general disquiet among people responsible for the children's services in the London area at the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to fragment the London County Children's Department into 14 small separate authorities; and what representations Her Majesty's Government have received in the matter.

Direct representations about the reorganisation of the child care service in the Greater London area have come mostly from the London County Council and its staff, but I am aware that concern has also been expressed by others. These views have been considered, but the Government adhere to the belief that responsibility for child care is a proper function for for the proposed London boroughs. We recognise that there will be difficult transitional problems, particularly in relation to residential establishments and to the needs of children requiring residential care, and we propose to discuss with the authorities concerned the best way of overcoming these difficulties and of ensuring that the well-being of the children is safeguarded.

Is the Secretary of State aware that among those whom he dismisses as others "are some of the most authoritative and impressive people working in this field? Is he further aware that this is an absolutely vital service, quite as vital as the education service, and that his colleague the Minister of Education has been able to make some fresh proposals departing from the Government's original ideas which have made people feel rather happier? I raise this matter, not in order to argue the general issue— we have argued that before, and I do not propose to argue it again— but because we are terribly frightened of what will happen to this service if it is broken up in this way in view of the vast distinctions which there are between boroughs. When the right hon. Gentleman is giving further thought to this matter, will he be willing to see me and some of my hon. Friends to discuss it?

I did not mean to dismiss anyone in a derogatory way. We have had a great deal of thought on this matter, which is a very difficult one to decide. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a vital service, but there is a difference from the arrangement made over the education service, because the child care service is based increasingly on work in the field by the child care officers and we feel that a close association with the personal and environmental health service, with welfare and housing, is desirable. That is why I stated the conclusion which the Government had reached. I have indicated that there are difficult transitional problems, and I will certainly be ready to see the right hon. Gentleman and any of his hon. Friends.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his latter statement. With regard to his earlier remark about field work, has he any idea of the difference, for example, between the proposed new borough of Lambeth and Southwark, an area which I know very well indeed, with 18 out of every 1,000 children in its care, and Hampstead, a borough with a much higher rateable value and no more than 5 out of every 1,000 children in its care? The facilities will not be where the need is, and that is why we want so much to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about this matter.

I am aware of the big discrepancies between the boroughs. Nevertheless, the association of the health and welfare services is one to which we attach importance. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about it, let us do so.

The reasons may be good or they may be bad, but is my right hon. Friend aware that many more London children go to residential institutions than are boarded out? Personally, I regret it, but nevertheless that is the position. Anyhow, the result is that London's residential institutions are a model for the country. Will my right hon. Friend take particular care to ensure that they are not broken up in any way?

I am aware of the high quality of the service rendered by the London County Council. I have met the Chairman of the Child Care Committee, who was accompanied by other people of great distinction interested in this subject. I am aware of these homes and their importance, and that is why we are having these preliminary discussions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar problems arise in Middlesex and that to the best of my knowledge no new borough in Middlesex nor any existing one has expressed any desire to take this job from the county council? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the position in Middlesex as well?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in respect of the administration of justice and magistrates courts within Essex local authorities, including the Essex County Council, affected by the proposed Greated London local government reorganisation.

The White Paper on London Government published last November explained that, when proposals for the administrative structure for local government had been settled, the Government would give attention to such related matters as the arrangements for the administration of justice. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend, and with other Ministers concerned, on these matters, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

When will the Secretary of State be in a position to make a statement? Will he consider the desirability of making the prospective new Greater London authority coincidental with the Metropolitan Police area to avoid overlapping? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is need for a closer liaison between the local authorities on the one hand and the magistrates' courts on the other?

All these points have been discussed by me with my colleagues principally concerned. I will keep in touch with the hon. Gentleman and will make a statement as soon as I can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider continuing Summer Time throughout the year in order to encourage trade between the United Kingdom and Western Europe.

This factor will be taken into account in fixing the period of Summer Time for 1963 and later years.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that during active business hours in the winter it is frequently very much more difficult to get through on the Continental telephone than it is in the summer? This is due to the fact that by the time we have taken action on the morning's mail the Continentals are going to lunch and that by the time they get back from lunch we have gone to lunch. In order to increase Continental trade, will my hon. and learned Friend look at this matter very carefully?

Of course, there are certain differences in geography, climate and social custom between this country and Continental countries, but we will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. We shall be considering this matter in the autumn with a view to making arrangements for next year.

Will the Minister of State give an assurance that, even if we join the Common Market, we shall still be able to make whatever arrangements suit us best with regard to Summer Time?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers appointed last year in England and Wales were untrained on taking up posts; what percentage of probation officers during the last three years have taken up posts without prior training; and when he expects to receive the report of the Joint Negotiating Committee to which he has referred the question of the reassessment of salaries.

The answer to the first part of the Question is 94, and to the second part 44· 6 per cent. As regards the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) on 17th May.

Is it not abundantly clear that the figures which the Home Secretary has given illustrate the urgent necessity of giving salaries to harassed and overburdened probation officers which will attract fully trained people? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it costs £ 16 a year to put someone on probation and £ 400 a year to put someone in an institution. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to stimulate rather than to prevent crime by preventing probation officers from having an adequate salary?

I have no wish to prevent probation officers from having an adequate salary. We hope that in due course we shall be able to meet their needs, but I cannot add to the statement made on 17th May.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the rejection by the Probation Officers' Association of his proposal to limit a salary increase to 2½ per cent., if he will reconsider his decision in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has received from the joint negotiating committee on probation officers' salaries to his decision that a salary increase shall not exceed 2½ per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the rejection by the National Association of Probation Officers of his proposal to limit the increase in salaries in the probation service to 2½ per cent. he will now approve the recommendation of the joint negotiating committee for an increase of 10 per cent. as from 1st April, 1962, with. out prejudice to implementing the full recommendations of the Morison Committee at an early date.

The Government must regretfully adhere to the decision announced on 17th May. No s communication has been received from the Joint Negotiating Committee since the decision was made known to it on that day.

As the wage pause bears most heavily on this small but important group which the whole House, including the Home Secretary, admits to be understaffed and underpaid, will not the Home Secretary consider the matter again, realising that he can do justice to this little group of important servants of his without jettisoning the Government's economic policy?

I am very sorry, but I cannot depart from the Government's decision or from the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on 17th May, in which he said, as the House will remember, that

"the Government were in no doubt that the probation service ought to receive a substan- tial increase of pay at the appropriate time and were prepared to examine its claims at the beginning of next year."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 139.,]

In view of the fact that the Departmental Committee recommended a rise of an average of 30 per cent. and that the joint negotiating committee recommended a 10 per cent. rise without consideration of the Departmental Committee's Report, and in view also of the fact that the probation officers have refrained from asking for a rise during the latter part of the Committee's deliberations, does not the Minister think that what he is now doing is the most outstanding despicable act we have seen during the incidence of the wage pause?

The facts as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question are correct. In regard to his observations, I can only say that the Government regret their decision. Taken in conjunction with the statement which I have just made about the end of the year, that is as much as I can say at the moment.

Does not the Home Secretary realise that this deplorable decision has caused great indignation and that this is not merely a question of an increase in pay, but a question of giving recognition to the enhanced status of probation officers in the service of the community, as recognised by the Morison Report? This case raises totally different considerations from all other wage claims. In view of the Morison Committee's Report and the recommendation, to which the Home Secretary's representative agreed, for an immediate increase of 10 per cent., will not the Minister reconsider the matter?

No, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot alter the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend and now repeated by me today. It does, however, acknowledge that a substantial increase of pay at the appropriate time is reasonable.

May I ask, because I am a magistrate, whether my right hon. Friend can explain why within the Government's incomes policy some people within the range of Government servants are limited to 2½ per cent. increases, some to 3½ per cent. and some to even higher levels? Why cannot they all have the same, and perhaps at the highest rate? This variety is irritating to understand. Surely it would have been possible to have given the same increase as has been given to university tutors and, perhaps, to those people employed by the Atomic Energy Authority, for whom, I see, Lord Hailsham made a better case than has been made for the probation officers.

I cannot answer questions on the Government's pay policy except to say that, while it has been a painful operation, it has had a salutary effect on the economy as a whole.

In view of the unsatisfactory replies that we have received, I desire to give notice that I will try to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he referred the proposals regarding salary increases contained in the Morison Report to the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service.

Because the proposals raised matters appropriate for consideration by this Committee, which is the established negotiating body for the salaries of probation officers in England and Wales.

Does not the Home Secretary realise that it was a waste of the time of the Committee, if he knew in advance that probation officers would get only a 2½ per cent. increase, to send it the Report of the Morison Committee to obtain its opinion upon it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the debate on 10th May he held out hope of a 10 per cent. increase as recommended by the Joint Negotiating Committee?

It would not have been constitutionally correct if the matter had not been referred. All the reserved rights in relation to arbitration, and so on, would not have been operable had we not referred it.

Surely, the Home Secretary is making a mockery of the whole machinery, if he knows in advance that there is to be only a 2½ per cent. increase, to send the Report and ask the Committee to go through all the pro- cedure and then at the end to say "2½ per cent."

Is it not a fact that the Home Office representative on the Joint Negotiating Committee himself agreed to the recommendation for a 10 per cent. increase?

No, Sir. I would not accept that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the nuisance to residents arising from the parking of ice-cream barrows on the corners of residential streets in Kew during the summer; and if he will ensure that appropriate action is taken by the police to curtail such parking in the future.

So far as their other commitments allow, the police will continue to take action to prevent any breach of the law.

Is my hon. Friend aware that residents in the Lichfield Road area of Kew will welcome his reply, but will he make certain that the police really go all out to stop parking, which is causing such a great nuisance to many people living in the area?

If the ice-cream barrows encroach upon the corners of the streets and the roads the police would cause them to move on, but where they are not standing at the corners they cause less obstruction than many of the cars parked in the vicinity.

Are we to take it from my hon. and learned Friend's Answer that the prevention of breaches of the law takes a low place in the priority of police duties?

No. If my hon. Friend will be so good as to examine my original Answer, he will find that I said that the police will continue to take action to prevent any breach of the law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence for any person under the age of 18 years to have in his possession in a public place, or on a public highway, a loaded air-rifle, or any other similar firearm, between the period of one hour after sunset and sunrise.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend have another look at this problem? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the restrictions suggested in the Question are very lenient? When will something be done to help the police and the magistrates by imposing a restriction on irresponsible youths who use firearms of this kind? Is the Minister aware that lights at night are not even likely pigeons but are sitting ducks to youths with guns? Will not the Minister do something to prevent them having guns at night time in any event?

The hon. Member may have overlooked the fact that a Bill restricting the possession of air weapons by young people under the age of 17 in public places received its Third Reading in this House on 4th May and is now in another place.

What reason is there for anybody carrying firearms at any time of the day or night?

I do not know whether the hon. Member has ever enjoyed a day's shooting or has ever tried to destroy vermin with firearms. These are two good reasons for carrying them.

But not in public streets.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions under the Dangerous Drugs Act there have been in the Metropolitan Police area during the last three consecutive 12-monthly periods for which figures are available; what were the countries of origin of the persons convicted; and whether he is satisfied that all practicable measures within the control of Her Majesty's Government are being taken to prevent the unauthorised importation of drugs.

Convictions under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, in the Metropolitan Police District numbered 139 in 1959, 174 in 1960 and 227 in 1961. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT information about the countries of origin of the persons convicted. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that all practicable measures are being taken to prevent unlawful importation.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply and assure him that I have the utmost admiration for the efforts of the Metropolitan Police in dealing with this vicious traffic, which I think is borne out by the figures. However, may I ask him whether he feels that perhaps greater use might not be made of the powers of deportation in respect of persons coming from overseas who are convicted of drug trafficking?

Certainly, Sir. Of course, hitherto in the case of many persons of origin outside the country there has not been power to deport.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report on Sunday observance.

It is too early to say when this Committee is likely to report.

asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Prime Minister of New Zealand that the pictures on temporary loan to New Zealand from Admiralty House, which formed part of the Admiralty Collection of William Hodges' pictures of the Second Expedition to the South Seas under Captain Cook, should be permanently retained in New Zealand; and what response he intends to make to this request.

I am in communication with the Prime Minister of New Zealand about the pictures to which my hon. Friend refers. Certain proposals are under consideration which I hope will be satisfactory to all those concerned.

I appreciate the Prime Minister's difficulty while this matter is still under discussion with New Zealand, but may I ask him whether he appreciates my own difficulty in wishing to avoid embarrassing him and yet at the same time feeling that it really is time for a reply of substance to be given to this Question, which has now been on the Order Paper for more than eleven weeks and has been deferred six times? It is a Question in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House and persons outside are interested. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can at least give an assurance that he recognises that these pictures, which are national possessions of historic interest and value, should be returned to this country when he returns to 10, Downing Street, in accordance with the terms of the original loan?

I regret the delay, but I am awaiting a reply from the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would think it discourteous of me if I made any statement before I had the reply.

If I may declare an interest as a trustee of the National Maritime Museum, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the pictures on loan to New Zealand are not all New Zealand pictures? Only three out of the ten subjects loaned are New Zealand pictures and the balance are at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich. Will he bear in mind that possibly the interests of New Zealand, too, would be better served if they would have copies of the New Zealand subjects rather than fragment a unique collection?

I would only say now that the temporary loan has, I think, been a great pleasure to New Zealand. The question of the future must, I think, await the reply I hope to receive from the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the deterrent effect of existing nuclear weapons and the fact that nuclear warfare would involve all belligerents and non-belligerents in nuclear destruction, if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not support a policy of indefinitely seeking parity between Communist and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers in the accumulation, improvement and testing of nuclear weapons since even possibly inferior nuclear weapons possessed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are sufficiently deterrent because of their vast explosive potential.

The Government's policy is, pending any agreement on properly controlled disarmament, to do whatever is necessary to maintain the effectiveness as a deterrent of the forces of this country and her allies. I accept that "enough is enough", but there are many divergent opinions as to what level of nuclear and other armaments might constitute an effective deterrent. What is certain is that we and our allies could not accept a position in which a series of Russian tests might put us in a dangerously backward position. In the present state of the world therefore we are compelled in our own interests and those of our allies and friends to watch very carefully all scientific and technical developments to ensure that our forces can really deter.

While accepting the Prime Minister's statement that enough is enough, and, indeed, not attempting to refute his arguments, may I ask whether he would not at least agree in principle that if sufficient nuclear power already exists to destroy the world there cannot be any point in trying to obtain more nuclear power to destroy the rubble? Surely, in those circumstances, it could be affirmed by Her Majesty's Government that a point might be reached when for no reason of prestige would the Government proceed still to support a policy of indefinitely increasing nuclear power?

Yes, Sir; but the object of the tests is really to secure the quality of the deterrent rather than its total quantity, to make sure that anti-missiles and other things cannot be worked out to our detriment.

Does the Prime Minister agree that there can be no hope of achieving a disarmament agreement so long as one side or the other insists upon maintaining its military superiority until the last bayonet is destroyed?

That is really the point. For three years we maintained a moratorium. It was then broken. The problem was what we should do. We have tried hard to get an agreement, but we have so far failed. I believe that the House and the country as a whole recognise, however reluctantly, that the only course is to support what the American Government and we decided upon.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Kennedy and the Prime Minister of Canada that the Western Governments should jointly initiate United Nations action to provide food for the millions in mainland China who are now threatened by famine.

I am sure that we all agree that ideological differences ought not to be a barrier to the relief of hunger. We have no precise information about the extent of the threat of famine in China, but there is certainly a serious food shortage and I have been thinking whether there are any ways in which we might help. But if food is to be got to the Chinese people, with the vast problem of distribution, it can only be with the willing co-operation of the Chinese Government. So far the Chinese Government have made no request for food, and I fear that an unsolicited offer is not likely to benefit the Chinese people.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in 1922 Dr. Nansen of Norway proposed a League of Nations loan to help the Russians in the famine of that time without a request from the Russians? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that many people think that if that had succeeded the course of history might have been changed? Does not he think that an imaginative act of statesmanship might have the same result today?

Yes, Sir. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, very large quantities of food have been purchased by the Chinese recently from countries with surpluses. Of course, it is the countries of surplus which have to make the largest contribution. Nevertheless, I am considering this in communication with some of our friends.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chinese Government succeeded in reaching agreement with private firms for the purchase of surplus wheat in America and that our American allies prohibited the fulfilment of that agreement for the reasons hinted at in my right hon. Friend's supplementary question? If that is so, will not the Prime Minister make representations to our American allies to withdraw this prohibition?

I am not altogether sure that that would be well received by our friends in Australia and Canada, who have sold very large parts of their surpluses as a result.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the different views of Soviet and Western scientists, he will discuss with President Kennedy a proposal for the appointment of a committee of independent scientists by the United Nations to investigate and report on the problem of the detection of all nuclear tests.

As I explained to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) on 15th May, the Russians have repeatedly ignored suggestions at Geneva that their scientists should meet others to discuss this problem. That being so, I do not think any purpose would be achieved by trying to transfer the problem to the United Nations.

Would not an impartial investigation by a body of neutral scientists of the facts of verification be of the greatest value to public opinion throughout the world, especially in view of the fact that there is direct conflict of views and advice between the scientists of the Soviet Union on the one side and the scientists of the United Kingdom and the United States on the other?

While I accept that the opinions of independent scientists might be valuable, the fact remains that it is the scientists of the nuclear Powers who naturally have the greatest and most extensive knowledge of this matter. In the last resort progress depends on reconciling the views of the scientists who advise the Governments of the nuclear Powers, and if we were to exclude them from this work I do not think that this would necessarily lead to what we really want. I wish that we had an agreement by the Russians that our scientists and theirs should meet together, which is what we persuaded the Russians to do three years ago.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the co-operative effort between the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government in testing nuclear devices, and the sharing of resulting scientific information, if he will now give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not test any more nuclear weapons in Nevada, United States of America.

We have no present intention of testing further nuclear devices in Nevada. It would be wrong, however, for me to give any firm assurance for the future which we cannot foresee.

Can I not press the right hon. Gentleman to take this a stage further? If it be true, as he says, that we are receiving full scientific information on all the tests conducted jointly at Christmas Island and elsewhere by the Americans and ourselves, why is it necessary for us to go ahead at any time in the future with an independent series of nuclear tests?

Certain weapons are designed in Britain for British purposes, and, although they make use of information received, these devices— whether safety or otherwise— have to be fully tested themselves.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to study the article in theWillesden Chronicleby Alan Ereira which I sent to him ten days ago? Is he aware that His Excellency the United States Ambassador is forwarding a copy to the White House? Does not the Prime Minister think that this 17-year-old schoolboy is showing a much greater sense of responsibility about testing than the statesmen of Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union?

I very much regret that by some error I have not had this article brought to me, but I will see that I read it this evening.

asked the Prime Minister how many atmospheric nuclear tests have now taken place near Christmas Island; and whether he has yet received an approximate estimate of the damage to human health likely to result from these tests.

The answer to the first part of the Question is 13, all of which have been reported in the Press. On the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member on 8th May and 10th April.

While accepting the Prime Minister's assurances that the fallout which causes the damage to human health is being kept to a minimum in these tests, may I ask him if he realises that the word "minimum" is meaningless unless there is some definition of it and of the number of cases involved?

No increase has been detected by the Atomic Energy Authority in the incidence of radioactivity in the air attributable to these tests. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Second Report of the Medical Research Council published in 1960, which dealt with this whole question. I would not wish to summarise in a sentence that very carefully balanced Report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he referred me on a previous occasion to a report of a United Nations Committee in 1958 and that when I looked at it I found that it did essay tentative figures of the kind I had asked for? Why are they not obtainable now?

I do not think it would be possible to obtain them. But I will see if I can make a fuller statement at a later stage. This is a very difficult and complicated matter. It would be wrong to lay downex cathedradecisions on such a subject.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will put forward in his conversations with President de Gaulle the need for negotiating an agreement on international guarantees for the independence of West Berlin and freedom of access to it, and for thede jurerecognition of the existing Polish frontier with Germany.

I cannot give an undertaking to put forward any particular propositions in my talks with President de Gaulle.

Could the Prime Minister at any rate make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will not be deterred from entering into negotiations by the refusal of France and Germany to start negotiations or to adopt a give-and-take attitude? Will he further make it clear that in no circumstances shall we be committed to war by allies who have not come to terms with us on how to make peace?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's deduction is quite false. As I understand it, certain explanatory soundings are being conducted between the American and Soviet Governments. It is true that the French Government were somewhat sceptical as to whether these would lead to practical results. But they have not opposed them. Nor have they been opposed by the German Government.

Since the Polish border cannot be changed except by a third world war, and since a third world war is unthinkable, is it not time that the Western Allies told West Germany that she could make a great contribution to the pacification of Europe by declaring that she has no further territorial interests in changing the Oder-Neisse line?

No, Sir. I agree with the hon. Gentleman if he means that change by force is unthinkable. While a declaration of the nature he suggests might be a useful addition to any wider agreement, I do not think that it would be of any great value to make it without regard to a wider agreement.

asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from President de Gaulle regarding British support for French foreign policy, or the making available to the French Government of information on how to make nuclear weapons, as a pre-condition for French support for Great Britain's entry into the Common Market; and what explanation of Her Majesty's Government's policy in this regard he made in reply.

None, Sir.

Has not the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the repeated public declarations that it is President de Gaulle's intention to make the increase in nuclear knowledge and support for French foreign policy a condition of France's allowing Britain to enter the Common Market? Will he make it clear that in no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government be a party to any such bargain?

I have not seen any such statement on behalf of the French Government, and I doubt very much the accuracy of such a statement. The two matters are not connected. The hon. Gentleman knows— I reminded the House the other day— the terms on which British nuclear information has been obtained from the American Government.