asked the Attorney-General when it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner with powers to investigate individual grievances against Government Departments.

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the conclusions reached by the Government after their consideration of the Report of a Committee of Justice. The statement sets out the difficulties which seem to the Government to stand in the way of the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate grievances against Government Departments.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, however, that while one has not powers of foresight which enable one to see what is in his Answer, none the less there is much sympathy for this idea in this country, and not only in this country but in the Commonwealth as well, and that the Government of New Zealand have, apparently, been able to adapt a similar institution to this to their own Constitution without difficulty whatsoever?

I am, of course, aware of the interest there has been and the discussions there have been in many quarters about this proposal. It seemed to me that the statement which was to be made was too long to be put down in answer to a Question, and I therefore regret that my hon. Friend had not the opportunity of studying it before he asked his supplementary question.

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the statement, although it may reject the suggestion of the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner, makes some other alternative concrete suggestion to enable grievances against Government Departments to be dealt with more satisfactorily than at present?

The statement draws attention to the fact that the Government themselves have reviewed the possibility of further instances where appeals might be given as of right against the discretionary decisions of Ministers. It deals with that aspect of the matter but not with any other.

asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to abolish actions for breach of promise of marriage.

No.

May I press the Attorney-General to reconsider that reply? Now that men, for all practical purposes, no longer sue women for breach of promise, would it not be a good thing for the small minority of women with an inferiority complex to follow the good example of men in this respect, and, in any event, is is not better for a woman to find out before marriage rather than after marriage that the man does not want her?

Being myself a married man, I would not dream of suggesting that women ought to follow the example of men. The law in this respect is exactly equal for both. While I recognise that there may be some cases which are unsatisfactory when litigated in public, nevertheless.there are cases where very grave hardship indeed is caused to a woman, whose body may have been, taken possession of by promise of marriage, or who may have given ten of the best years of her life under the expectation that a man will marry her.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, while nearly all these cases are brought by women, the majority of the women in the country find the whole business most distasteful and would like to get rid of the whole degrading business?

I am perfectly aware, of course, that there are many cases where it would be much better if they were not ventilated in public, but that does not mean that because the circumstances surrounding the actions of our fellow citizens are sordid or unpleasant the law ought not to deal with the respective rights between the parties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of every £1 spent by Her Majesty's Government on civil defence goes, respectively, on administration, upkeep of buildings, miscellaneous expenses, and instruction and training of personnel.

Taking the approved estimates for the defence expenditure of Civil Departments for the current year, of each £1, approximately 4s. 6d. goes on administration, 2s. 5d. on upkeep of buildings and installations, 2d. on miscellaneous expenses, and 4s. 3d. on the instruction and training of personnel.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if I am correctly informed, the figures for the Home Secretary's own constituency are: administration 6s. 8d., upkeep of buildings 6s. 4d., miscellaneous 2s. and instruction and training 5s.? Would it not be absurd if only 25 per cent. of the expenditure went on instruction and training?

The figures naturally vary in different parts of the country. The figures that I have given are for the national average.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he is making for increased accommodation in remand homes.

The responsibility for providing remand homes rests with the councils of counties and county boroughs, and I am in consultation with them. I am glad to say that the remand home accommodation in England and Wales has increased by 190 places, or 15 per cent. since June, 1961. I hope that about 100 more will become available early next year, and schemes are in hand to produce further places.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say what, in fact, is the extent of the shortage at the present time and how far these expansions, to which he refers, will go to meet that shortage?

No, Sir. It is not possible exactly to evaluate the shortage because it is linked up with the shortage of places in approved schools. Boys and girls have to remain longer in remand homes if they cannot go to approved schools, but we are increasing the number of approved school places by 2.000, and, although I am very well aware of the seriousness of the present shortage, a great deal is being done to relieve it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have been pressing this matter for the last two or three years and that magistrates all over the country are finding the position absolutely impossible? While we agree that it is the responsibility of the local authorities, can the night hon. Gentleman say what he is doing other than being in consultation with the local authorities? What pressure is he bringing to bear, and is he likely to review the financial position about this between his Department and the local authorities, such as was promised to us some time ago?

Work is being done on the arrangement for financing remand homes, which the hon. Lady may know can cause difficulty as between one local authority and another. That is certainly in hand. Neither my predecessor nor I have needed any prodding from the House, because we have been pressing forward very rapidly with the provision of new remand homes, as shown by the increase of no less than 15 per cent. in the last fifteen months.

Is it not very disconcerting indeed for juvenile court magistrates, when they take their place on the bench, to be told before any case is started that there is no accommodation in the remand homes? This makes it very difficult when a decision has to be taken on what is to happen to one of the boys or girls who come into the juvenile courts? The Minister knows the difficulty that we are placed in in Liver-pool in this respect. Will not he see whether it is possible to speed up the provision of additional remand homes?

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I take this matter very seriously indeed. It is a consequence of the spectacular rise in juvenile delinquency, and we have to provide accommodation, with the help of the local authorities, that will correspond to the increasing need.

Is the Minister not aware that a farcical position has been reached in many courts where the clerk of the court, prior to the court sitting, phones round to see whether it is possible to remand anybody that day, but very often has to inform the magistrates that it is not possible?

I will most willingly look into any case of that kind, but the fact is, as I have just stated, that this massive increase both in remand home places and in approved school places, which are even more important, is now in progress.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the report of the manufacturers on the three substances involved in the West Bromwich explosion on the 6th February, 1962, has been received by his Department; and if he will make this available to hon. Members;

(2) what results the Home Office scientists in the Explosives Branch have ascertained in respect of their researches into hydrogen peroxide, methyl-ethyl-ketone peroxide and sodium metasilicate.

I understand that the report made by the manufacturers on the investigations which they have carried out is not quite complete. It will be the property of the manufacturers and my right hon. Friend would have no authority to publish it. Some supplementary tests on hydrogen peroxide and methyl-ethyl-ketone peroxide involving the employment of special techniques have been conducted by the Home Office, and the results, which are highly technical, have been communicated to the manufacturers.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I remind him that a previous Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department indicated that when these inquiries were completed regulations would be framed with a view to preventing repetitions of the type of disaster that we had at West Bromwich earlier in the year? Has he these sort of regulations in mind now?

My right hon. Friend will, of course, give consideration to this question when he has received the Report, but he cannot do so until he knows what the Report will contain.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the 2½per cent. rise in salaries to probation officers to be effective from 1st April, 1962, has been rounded down to the nearest £5, and that, consequently, certain officers are receiving an increase of only 1.9 per cent.; and what steps he is taking in order to ensure that every probation officer receives the full two and a half per cent. rise in salary.

In calculating the new scales, the usual practice was followed of rounding the increase at each point up or down to the nearest £5. As a consequence, the actual percentage increases at different points of the various scales ranged from 1.9 per cent. to 3 per cent.

The Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service has recently failed to reach agreement on a salary claim for further increases with effect from 1st April, 1962, and I understand that the claim is being referred to arbitration. My right hon. Friend must now await the outcome of the arbitration.

Would the hon. Gentleman say why on earth even on a meagre, silly, increase of 2½per cent. he still finds it necessary to reduce that amount so that in some cases £5 or £6 is saved by the Treasury as against the probation officer? Does he not feel that the probation service is of such a highly essential nature that every consideration should be given—there should be no cheeseparing—and will he see to it that the recommendation of the Morrison Committee for a 31 per cent. increase shall be accepted? Is he aware that there is very considerable agitation about this in the service itself, and that it does us no good?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I can say that, of course, some get more and some get less. This rounding up and down is a practice followed in all these matters in fixing, for example, local government salary scales. As to the second point, since it is now in arbitration it would be quite wrong for me to say anything further, except that immediate and sympathetic consideration will be given to the outcome as soon as it is known.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that 2½per cent. in the first place was a ludicrous amount to offer and that to reduce the 2½per cent. below 2 per cent. is just adding insult to injury?

In some cases it was raised to 3 per cent., otherwise we get, in these matters, into the difficulty where we have fractions of a penny and things like that. Rounding up and rounding down is, I think, a commonsense approach to the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to forbid experiments on animals in which they are forced to inhale tobacco smoke with the intention of inducing lung cancer.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that experiments of this kind may properly be performed with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge, or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering.

Does my hon. Friend realise that this is really a shocking answer in view of the fact that the Americans have stated that, for a considerable time, they have been endeavouring to induce animals to contract lung cancer by forcing them to inhale tobacco smoke, but without success? Why is this experiment to continue in this country despite the American experience? Will my hon. Friend instruct the people concerned to get in touch with the Americans who have already been carrying out these experiments so that this cruelty can be stopped?

Research workers in this country are, of course, in touch with work in the United States, but the fact that experiments undertaken so far have not produced cancer in animals does not necessarily mean that further experiments carried out under different circumstances would not be liable to do so.

Is it not a fact that the Government have accepted that there is a connection between smoking and lung carcinoma? In view of this, is it really necessary to allow these very cruel experiments to be carried out?

In the judgment of qualified medical research workers, on whose advice my right hon. Friend relies, the answer is "Yes."

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons licensed by him to undertake experiments on living animals are third year undergraduates at a university; and how many such experiments were carried out in the first six months of 1962.

Two hundred and forty-five undergraduates who have passed their Second Year M.B. hold licences under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. Information about the number of experiments performed this year will not be available until after the end of the year.

Is it not the case that these licences are issued under the condition that the animals are kept under complete anaesthesia during the whole of the experiment and are not to be allowed to recover, and that students shall perform these experiments only under supervision? Can my hon. Friend guarantee that all these provisions are carried out in every case in which these experiments are conducted?

The information contained in the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is correct. If it were known to him, or to any of his informants, that there were any cases in which the regulations were not being strictly carried out, we should be grateful if that information were conveyed to us, when it would be investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits to how many premises registered for experiments involving animals were paid by his inspectors in 1961

1,407 visits were made during 1961 to 525 places registered under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern not only about experiments in general but about methods of animal slaughter, broiler plants, battery hens and inadequate dog kennels? Has not the time come for another Royal Commission, since the last one was a very long time ago? Will he consider that?

The question of the need for some form of inquiry in relation to the administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act was one of the matters referred by my right hon. Friend to his Advisory Committee headed by Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest last summer. The Committee has held a number of meetings and has completed its work, and my right hon. Friend expects to hear shortly from it.

The question of an inquiry into the subjects which my hon. Friend has referred to would go somewhat outside the scope of the Cruelty to Animals Act, and any recommendation which the Advisory Committee made would be confined to the operation of that Act. Further steps would be for other Departments, such as the Ministry of Agriculture.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am not an anti-vivisectionist or a crank but that I am profoundly shocked by the complacency of the Home Office in regard to vivisection? Is there not a case for a greater number of inspectors? I hope that my hon. Friend will pay attention to what I believe to be a strong movement of public opinion in this connection.

I am very well aware of the strong feeling in this connection, but there is some misunderstanding about the role of inspectors, which cannot be directly related to the number of so-called experiments carried out in the year but more to the number of establishments which have to be inspected.

Mr. McMaster

rose —

In many cases, the research work and the work carried out in such laboratories is only in a technical sense experimental. Many are what are called "diagnostic experiments which are not devoted to medica research in the normal sense.

Order. Everyone is trying to be very courteous, but I am concerned that we should try to make better progress.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to implement the recommendations of the Hall Committee and to assist the Government of Northern Ireland to reduce the level of unemployment in Ulster; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the debate on Monday last. I am also circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of a statement made by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland on 23rd October, with the approval of the United Kingdom Government, dealing more fully with the recommendations of the Report.

According to the words used in the final passage of the debate— recorded in column 731 of Vol. 666 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—the Government are not at all satisfied with the problems of Northern Ireland, so I would like to press my right hon. Friend to answer this question: if the Government are not satisfied, will they address attention particularly to some of the proposals on which the working party could not agree, especially the opinion in paragraph 122 of the Report that, because of the dismal future forecast for employment in Northern Ireland, there should be a tax holiday?

Will my right hon. Friend look again at that proposal and devise some form of tax holiday which would encourage firms freely and willingly to go to areas of high and persistent unemployment. such as Northern Ireland?

No, Sir. I cannot go back from decisions reached and indicated by the Government in the very recent past. In Monday's debate, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that the Report and its consideration did not close this matter and that the United Kingdom Ministers would continue to work very vigorously alongside Northern Ireland Ministers who tried to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland, about which I do not take so pessimistic a view as does my hon. Friend.

Statement by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons, Stormont, on Tuesday, 13rd October

1. I have the authority of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to make the following statement on the conclusions reached after consideration by the two Governments of the report of the Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland, which is being published today.

2. The two Governments have carefully examined, in consultation, the proposal of the Northern Ireland Government for a subsidy of ten shillings a week in respect of all employees in productive industry which was suggested as a means of maintaining existing employment whilst new industrial opportunities are being attracted to Northern Ireland. The arguments in favour of a subsidy and the objections which have been seen to it are set out very fully in the report. The United Kingdom Government, while recognising that the Northern Ireland Government have attached great importance to this proposal, have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the serious objections both practical and of principle to a subsidy outweigh the likely advantages to Northern Ireland industry. They have concluded also that the possible tax concessions examined by the Working Party are not acceptable, for the reasons stated in the report.

3. However, the report endorses the existing measures, set out in Appendix IX of the Report, to assist employment and to induce industry to settle and develop in Northern Ireland. The two Governments recognise that these measures have met with considerable success in attracting new industry, and are resolved to ensure that adequate finance is available to sustain them.

4. In addition, in order to encourage the maximum activity in existing industry the two Governments agreed on the following measures: — ( a )to accept the additional measures recommended by the Working Party, for 1136 stimulating the use of industrial advisory services, for improving facilities for the training of labour and for improving facilities for tourism, and action to implement these recommendations has been put in hand; ( b ) to maintain industrial de-rating in Northern Ireland; ( c ) to maintain substantial financial assistance towards co-operative publicity by the linen industry; ( d ) to extend the Coal Subsidy Scheme to oil. The Working Party drew attention to the economic disadvantages which derive from the fact that the present subsidy to industrial users of coal and energy derived from it does not extend to the users of fuel oil, and the two Governments have agreed in principle that it should be so extended. A scheme for this purpose, which it is estimated will add £350,000 a year to the cost of paying subsidies, is being worked out.

5.In addition, to assist generally in the development of the area the two Governments have agreed on the following measures: — ( a ) The Working Party expressed the view that there was a case on social grounds for an increase in the housing programme, and the United Kingdom Government have agreed that the present temporary additional Exchequer subsidy of £11 per house—which is at present financed from the proceeds of a special customs surcharge—should continue as a charge on ordinary revenue when the funds provided by the surcharge run out; ( b ) To give effect to another recommendation of the Working Party, arrangements are being made for the investigation, through a study which will be promoted by the Air Transport Licensing Board, of the possibilities of developing the transport of freight by air. Further consideration will be given to the question of the effects of the cost of sea transport on Northern Ireland industry in the light of the Working Party's observations when the report is received of the House Committee, which was set up last year by the Minister of Transport to consider the types and frequency of shipping services between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the standards of service and the reasonableness of charges.

6. Short Brothers and Harland.

The Working Party noted that the future prospects of Short Brothers and Harland gave cause for concern. The two Governments have considered most carefully the representations made that the firm should continue in operation because of its significance to the economy of Northern Ireland.

The two Governments have together agreed that the necessary steps should be taken to provide the finance needed to enable Short Brothers and Harland Limited to complete the current order for ten Belfast aircraft for the Royal Air Force. I understand that a sum in the region of £10 million is likely to be required.

In addition when it was decided recently to place a further order for V.C.10 military aircraft, arrangements were made for a substantial share of the work to be sub-contracted to Shorts.

7. The two Governments agreed that the Report provided a valuable analysis of the problem but should not be taken to be the final word on the subject. They will continue with their close consultations to seek a long term solution to the Northern Ireland unemployment problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the request of Samual Maurice Daffon, now in Her Majesty's prison, Newport, Isle of Wight, to borrow a book entitled "An Introduction to Criminal Law", by Cross and Jones, was refused; and if he will make a statement.

A request from a prisoner for a textbook of criminal law for the purpose of serious study would not usually be refused, but the governor was not satisfied that this was the object of this request.

While not having the least idea as to why my constituent wanted this book, may I ask whether it is really for the governor to say that my constituent could give no convincing explanation? Is it not a little odd that, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to me by letter, the circulation of a book describing the Criminal Law should be deemed, under the criminal law, to endanger good order and discipline in the prisons? Is not that answer rather peculiar? Is it not also a fact that this book belongs to my constituent's mother and is being held by the prison and not sent back to her?

I have no information about that matter. Usually, if the governor were satisfied that the prisoner required the book for the purpose of his own appeal or any legal matters in which he personally was involved, leave would certainly be granted. I think that we have to leave discretion to the governor in this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—since, under the rules as they stand, there is no right to insist upon any particular book.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that, without exception, the more that prisoners have opportunities for learning about the criminal law the better? Ought not the Home Office to lay down a regulation that any prisoner who wants to study a subject should have every facility for doing so?

That is almost always the case, but there are exceptional cases. I do not wish to canvas the reasons here.

Sir Richard Pilkington. Question. No. 16.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

rose —

Order. The position is confusing. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has given notice that he wishes to raise this matter on the Adjournment. Sir Richard Pilkington. Question No. 16.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that I had twice been called by you before my right hon. Friend gave notice on this matter.

I am sorry that my voice apparently does not appear to work accurately. I did not call the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners from the Channel Islands have been accommodated in United Kingdom prisons in each of the last 10 years; and what lengths of sentence each prisoner is serving or has served.

I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a number of these Channel Island prisoners are accommodated in United Kingdom prisons three or more to a cell with United Kingdom prisoners, and that while the United Kingdom prisoners have a right of appeal, Channel Island prisoners do not? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to use his good offices, as the Minister responsible for liaison with the Channel Islands, to ask the Channel Island authorities to set up a court of criminal appeal?

There is a limited right of appeal for Channel Island prisoners to the Privy Council, but it is recognised that it is unsatisfactory and the Channel Island authorities are taking steps to constitute a court of appeal for all the islands.

The above mentioned persons were serving sentences as follows:— 10 years imprisonment 2 7 years imprisonment 3 6 years imprisonment 1 5 years imprisonment 9 4½ years imprisonment 1 4 years imprisonment 6 3 years imprisonment 21 2/7/12 years imprisonment 1 2¼ years imprisonment 1 2 years imprisonment 27 21 months imprisonment 1 18 months imprisonment 42* 16 months imprisonment 1 15 months imprisonment 5 12 months imprisonment 53 Under 12 months imprisonment 7 Borstal training 36 Total 217 * Including one accommodated in a prison in Scotland. † To 31st October.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much damage to yachts and other property was done recently in Brownsea Island, Poole Harbour, by Borstal boys brought over to help in the clearance work for the National Trust; what supervision there was; and what action has been taken in the matter.

Police enquiries into this incident are nearing a conclusion. The precise extent of the damage to property is not yet known. The working party, which consisted of ten boys, was in the charge of an assistant governor and one officer.

Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether any compensation is to be paid, and can he give an assurance that proper precautions will be taken in future?

Precautions will certainly be taken. They were in this case and will continue to be taken, but the incident was quite unpredictable and came as a sad shock in view of the trust which had been placed. Compensation is the subject of correspondence, and since there may be proceedings, I would prefer not to elaborate on that this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the inadequate numbers and sparse psychiatric qualifications within the prison medical service, and the present increase in penal institutions, he will, after consulting the Minister of Health, appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the structure and functions of the prison medical service and its relationship with the National Health Service.

In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health I have already made arrangements for a study of the future of the prison medical service, and this is now in train. I am glad to say that Professor Denis Hill, of the Middlesex Hospital Medical School, and Dr. Peter Scott, of the Maudsley Hospital, have been good enough to agree to assist officials of our two Departments in carrying out this study.

May I welcome the statement of the Home Secretary and hope that full attention will be given by this Committee to the manner in which the prison medical service is now so totally insulated and isolated from all the modern trends within the National Health Service, and that we may build up a service within our prisons which can play a proper rÔle in preventing further crime?

I attach great importance to the prison medical service. In view of the initiation of this study, I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if at this stage I do not say anything which might prejudice those who are making it. But I greatly look forward to receiving the findings of those making the study.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we greatly welcome his announcement, because there appears to be a good deal of disquiet about the whole prison medical service? Will he take into account a suggestion which I made some time ago—that a prison commissioner should be responsible for the prison medical service? Is he aware that at the time I thought that that suggestion had been received sympathetically, but that nothing has been done along those lines?

Yes, I will consider that, but I think that the hon. Lady will excuse me if I first await the report of this study.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men in prisons and borstals during 1961 were placed in strait jackets; what was the maximum time such men were so confined; and why this practice continues to be extensively employed by the Prison Medical Service.

The number of occasions on which a male inmate of a prison or borstal was placed in a loose canvas restraint jacket in 1961 was 86. The longest period for which the restraint was retained was 47¾ hours, excluding the compulsory break of one hour after 24 hours, and other short temporary releases. Standing Orders expressly enjoin that every effort must be made to avoid recourse to mechanical restraints; and a restraint may not be kept on longer than 24 hours without the authority of a member of the visiting committee or board of visitors. Subject to these provisions, the concurrence of the medical officer is required for the use of a restraint, and this is a matter for his professional judgment.

Is not the Under-Secretary aware that no self-respecting mental hospital today would even use a strait-jacket? In days when sedatives are available, do not these horrible facts, which the Under-Secretary has given, of the time which these people are kept under restraint indicate either the psychiatric illiteracy of our prison medical service, or, alternatively, that medical sanction is being given to clearly unlawful restraints? Is it not time that this medieval practice came to an end? If the practice has ended in mental hospitals, why not in prisons?

Whatever the hon. Member may think about it, there is nothing illegal in it. It is a matter of professional judgment, and a prison medical officer has the same liberty of prescribing as any other medical doctor.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say when the prison medical service will learn what mental hospitals learned long ago—that a strait-jacket only makes a violent man more violent?In these days of tranquillising drugs, is not this process a barbarous anachronism and ought we not to get rid of it?

The hon. Member will have heard my right hon. Friend's announcement that the whole subject of the prison medical service is at present under discussion.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what details are now available of the number of accidents caused by fireworks on 5th November last.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has adopted since 1st February, 1962, to reduce the number of accidents from the use of fireworks.

Discussions with the manufacturers of fireworks have led to their setting up a Safety Association with the objects of co-operating with my Department in the safe design of fireworks and of promoting publicity to urge their safe use. Wide publicity was given to safety measures before 5th November this year and my right hon. Friend is grateful for the co-operation of the press and broadcasting authorities.

With a view to considering what further measures might be adopted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has arranged to obtain from hospitals detailed information about people receiving in or out-patient treatment for firework injuries between 15th October and 10th November. No reliable information about the number of accidents on 5th November is yet available.

May I thank the hon. Member for that reply, which indicates that at last the Government are beginning to wake up to the fact that Guy Fawkes dead does far more damage to persons and property than Guy Fawkes was able to do when he was alive? Will the Government now take into account the statistics which are shortly to be forthcoming and if necessary, with or without the co-operation of the manufacturers of these explosive missiles, take some action to reduce the dangers in future years?

My right hon. Friend will take (full account of the statistical and other evidence when it is available, but I cannot in advance commit him to any particular course of action.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires were caused by fireworks and bonfires on 4th and 5th November in the county of London.

The number of fires caused by fireworks and bonfires is not yet known, but the total number of calls received by the London Fire Brigade on Monday, 5th November, was 433, compared with 613 on Saturday, 4th November, 1961. There were 135 calls on Sunday, 4th November, this year.

Did the Under-Secretary see the B.B.C. television broadcast when a firework manufacturer said that the Home Office statistics on this subject were useless? Does he agree with that? If he does, will he take some steps to remedy it, and, if he does not agree with it, will he take steps to see that the maximum publicity is given to and full co-ordination is made of all the statistics relating to this subject?

The answers to the first two of those supplementary questions in both cases are "No". The others, therefore, do not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Mr. J. M. Reimunto, sentenced to a month's imprisonment at Avonmouth as a stowaway, has now been taken back to the ship where he will work while she is at sea, but that when the ship is in port he will be looked in his cabin; and, in view of the fact that no other country will receive him, if he will allow this man, when he returns to this country, to land and remain.

This man stowed away in Norfolk, Virginia, and was formally refused leave to land when the ship arrived at Avonmouth. On the expiry of his sentence, the ship's owners were directed to remove him and on 30th October he sailed for the United States. It is normal international practice to return stowaways to the countries whence they came. It is not established that no other country will receive Mr. Reimundo and the last part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this unfortunate man served a sentence of a month's imprisonment for stowing away, that at the end of a month he was taken down to a ship in the docks, that the ship refused to take him, that he was taken back to prison where he served another fortnight, and that he was then taken again to a ship and put aboard? This man will have to work aboard the ship, and, while he is in a foreign port, he will be imprisoned and a guard put on him, and the shipowner will have to pay for the guard, I ask the Minister whether this is British justice and whether he will do something to receive this stateless man into this country?

One cannot get into this country simply by stowing away.

He is a stateless person and should be taken in.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have occurred during the past 12 months in which magistrates have recommended first offenders and men guilty of trivial offences for deportation.

One hundred and seventeen aliens, 15 citizens of the Irish Republic and 37 Commonwealth citizens not known to have had a previous criminal record were recommended for deportation by magistrates' courts during the past 12 months, of whom 66 aliens, 2 citizens of the Irish Republic and I Commonwealth citizen have been or are being deported; some of the remaining cases are still under consideration.

May I ask the Minister whether he has given any definite instructions to magistrates that the threat of deportation, or a sentence of deportation, should not be made against any man for any trivial offence, but only for a serious one? If not, will he give magistrates instructions to that effect?

As the House knows, I have no power to give instructions to magistrates. What I was thinking of doing was taking a suitable opportunity in the near future to make known to magistrates and to the public generally the considerations which I bear in mind when deciding to act on a recommendation or not.

The Minister said that a number of Irishmen had been deported. How does one keep Irishmen in England? How does one stop them coming over here?

I do not think that they do come back. If they were deported, and if they came back, we should know how to deal with them.

How?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study he has made of the report published by Justice on the question of compensation for victims of crimes of violence, a copy of which has been sent to him; what other views have been submitted to him on this question; and if he will make a statement on Government policy on this matter.

I am studying this important question of compensation for victims of crimes of violence in the light of the report to which the hon. Member refers and also of reports by a Committee of the Conservative Party, by the Bow Group, and by the Police Subcommittee of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I hope to be able to do so before long.

The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that his immediate predecessor gave an undertaking some time ago that when the report referred to in the Question was published he would give it serious and sympathetic consideration? May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will do this in so far as the report has been prepared by an all-party, widely representative Committee?

Certainly, Sir. My task would have been easier if these four responsible bodies had come to the same conclusion as to the scheme which was desirable. Unfortunately, they have come to four different conclusions, and I now have to do some thinking to decide which is the best scheme.

Is the Minister aware that this has been considered now for a considerable number of years, and that there seems to be general agreement outside the House, and on both sides in it, that something should be done? Will he now treat this as a matter of urgency?

I do treat it as a matter of urgency, and, as I have said in public, I hope that it may fall to me to introduce legislation on this subject, but we have first to decide which of these various different schemes which have been recommended by responsible bodies is the best solution as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the number of escapes from Hull Prison during the last 12 months; and what were the numbers due to faulty buildings, administration and shortage of staff, respectively;

(2) what steps are being taken to improve the security of the buildings, to improve the administration and to increase the number of staff at Hull Prison, in order to reduce the escapes of dangerous prisoners into a densely populated area.

There were two incidents in this period, one on 23rd April and the other on 29th October, involving a total of eleven prisoners. The first was due primarily to an error of judgment on the part of a prison officer. The second incident is at present under investigation by the Prison Commissioners. Everything possible will be done to prevent future escapes.

Is the Minister aware of the serious concern among my constituents about these escapes and the fact that the last three who have escaped have been free for 10 days, as I understand it? No doubt the Minister can confirm or deny that. If the security of this old prison cannot be improved, why not abolish it and build another one? Is it not high time that steps were taken thoroughly to investigate the question of the security of the present administration and whether there is a need for an increase in the number of prison officers in this prison to cope with long-service prisoners of dangerous character?

The rate of recovery of prisoners who have escaped is usually extremely good. I cannot tell the hon. and gallant Member the details of the number he mentioned. As a matter of fact, with regard to closed prisons generally, the rate of escape this year is far better, that is to say, far less than last year.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will add some persons with special knowledge of security to (the Committee of inquiry into recent Admiralty failures to provide an efficient security service.

asked the Prime Minister what representations he has now received about setting up an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Vassall spy case; and if he will make a statement.

I told the House on Tuesday, in answer to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, why I decided that this Committee is best suited to ascertain the facts of this case. As to their special knowledge of security, the members of the Committee are experienced in the security problems and practices of Government Departments as part of their day-to-day administration. They can, of course, call for expert advice on any matter if they wish; and they will be guided by the findings of the Radcliffe Committee.

As the House knows, the Committee has already submitted to me an interim Report, which was published as a White Paper last night.

I had not intended to call for an interim Report at this stage, but the atmosphere of speculation and innuendo made it in my view desirable that this White Paper should be published at the earliest possible moment.

I am sure that the whole House will unreservedly welcome the refutation of the serious imputations against my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith). My hon. Friend has told me that he nevertheless feels it his duty to submit his resignation to me, and, in all the circumstances, I have thought it right to accept it.

While thanking the Prime Minister for calling for an interim Report, is he aware that I regret that the ex-Minister has felt it necessary to offer his resignation and I am sorry that the Prime Minister has felt it necessary to accept it?

May I now come back to my original Question? In view of the fact that the country really has had a shock, can the Prime Minister explain why it is that if the country wishes someone who has had modern and up-to-date experience in Russian methods to be a member of the Committee, he does not feel that he should bow to the wishes of the country? May I also ask him whether he does not think that it would be a good idea to have a medical consultant on the Committee to deal with the pervert aspect of this problem? Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this problem will have to be faced at some time, and is it really very difficult for a very distinguished Prime Minister for once to allow democracy to be satisfied?

With regard to the last part of that question, I thought that this would be the quickest way, and I think that it is going to be, having regard to the previous inquiries to ascertain the facts. It will then be necessary to decide what should best be done. As regards the calling in of experts, that can be done, and this problem to which my hon. Friend has alluded may have to be considered.

With regard to the first part of the question, I regret, but I fully understand, the feelings of my hon. Friend, and I think that he will command both the respect and the sympathy of the House.

Is the Prime Minister aware that we for our part agree with what he has said, and that this action by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is, I think, the only right one and is to his credit?

This, however, means that the real issue, namely, whether or not this is the right sort of Committee of inquiry to set up, becomes disentangled from other matters. Has the Prime Minister noticed the phrase in the interim Report: …you have directed us…to produce an interim report… We do not feel that a Committee of inquiry into this sort of matter should be capable of being directed by the Prime Minister to do this. If it can be directed to do this, it can be directed to do other things.

Is the Prime Minister also aware that he has continuously said that this Committee is going into the facts, but that its terms of reference include an inquiry into whether there was any neglect of duty? This is not a fact. Neglect of duty is a judgment, a judgment which civil servants may have to make on the actions of their own highly placed colleagues, or of Ministers, and this does not seem the right sort of inquiry to go into this grave matter of the breach of security.

With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, it is a little fortunate that it was possible for me to ask for this interim Report—or to require this interim report. Had it not been possible, perhaps six weeks or two months of the Committee's proceedings would have been going on with these terrible imputations being made and no method of refuting them.

Will the Prime Minister reply to the second part of my supplementary question?

As I explained, having had first the Romer Report and then the Radcliffe Report, I think that this will be the quickest way of ascertaining the facts, upon which it will be my responsibility to make a judgment.

Is it not profoundly unsatisfactory that halfway through the.proceedings of a (fact-finding Committee, consisting of three civil servants, a Minister should be forced to resign, apparently on the publication of letters which, in themselves, are taken to be perfectly innocent and which appear to be perfectly innocent if, in fact, Vassall was the hon. Member's private secretary, or acting as such, and if there are no other letters unpublished? Further, as there are bound to be allegations about security in our embassy in Russia, is it not an entirely different matter from the question of security in Government Departments, and will it not therefore involve the examination of people in that embassy? In that case, is not this a matter which, as the hon. Lady has said, should at least lead us to see that there are people on this Committee who are cognisant of security, and that it should not consist solely of civil servants?

In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, if the Solicitor to the Treasury—I had meant it to be Sir Norman Brook, the Head of the Civil Service, who has been taken ill—and Sir Charles Cunningham, who has perhaps the most experience of the Civil Service in all its aspects, wish for further specialised advice they can call for it. They have available both the Romer and Radcliffe Reports on the general principles, but if they require to make inquiries overseas they are quite capable of making them.

As for the first part of the supplementary question, in a sense this is fortunate, because I can imagine no more terrible situation than if this continual build-up of rumour and innuendo of the most scurrilous kind had been left without any method of answering it for the necessarily long period that a Committee of this kind would take.

Is the Prime Minister aware that nobody who knows Lord Carrington or the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) could possibly believe that they could conceivably have had any kind of improper relationship with Vassall? Is my right hon. Friend aware that right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have lent their weight to a Press campaign to this effect have not played a very honourable part?

Is the Prime Minister aware that hon. Members on this side are not concerned with the question of the Civil Lord—my right hon. Friend has explained our position on that—but we are very much concerned with the type of inquiry into the Vassall case and what may lie behind it? May I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question put by my right hon. Friend? The Prime Minister has continually said that this Committee is to assemble the facts, but according to the terms of reference it is to judge whether there was any neglect of duty. This is not a matter of assembling the facts. How does the Prime Minister reconcile what he says about the functions of the Committee with its terms of reference? Does not he appreciate that it is precisely this element of judgment which, in our opinion, should not be exercised by civil servants under the direction of and responsible to Ministers, but should be conducted by independent persons?

I think that assembling the facts will disclose whether the rules were kept and whether the proper arrangements—which are now very carefully laid down—were kept, or at what period they were broken, if they were broken. This is the collection of the facts, and from that follows the question whether these rules have or have not been kept.

Although I am grateful for what the right hon. Member has said, I venture to repeat that this was a situation building up which seemed to me to be intolerable to any fair-minded man, in which quite a lot of contributions were made and in which anonymity was kept so that no action for libel or slander would he, yet it was quite clear who were the victims of these attacks.

I appreciate to the full the importance of this matter, but I think the wish of the House would be that we should have more than one Question to the Prime Minister answered.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the nomenclatures of many Ministers are outmoded; and if he will consider taking steps to modernise them in such a way as to make them more descriptive of the work done by Ministers and the duties for which Ministers are responsible.

I am not sure what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, but no doubt his supplementary question will disclose it.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that it would be very much in the public interest to be frank and explicit about matters of this kind, and to avoid confusion? I can give him one instance, namely, the fact that the Lord Privy Seal masquerades in this House as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. We have no Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this House. Would it not be much better to call the person who operates in that Department the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? Another example is the President of the Board of Trade. There is no Board of Trade for him to preside over. That is an anomaly which I am sure he will agree is out of date. The third example is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is often confused in the public mind with the Lord Chancellor.

On a point of order. Will the hon. and learned Member repeat all that? I could not hear it.

That is not exactly a point of order. Perhaps the hon. Member will be able to guess what it was about when he hears the answer.

I understand that some of the older offices of State have historical titles which it might be thought convenient to change. But there are arguments against doing so, unless such changes are connected with some reorganisations of functions. Some people feel that the title of Secretary of State for War is not an accurate one. If there were to be a change in the whole structure, that would be the moment for making changes, but I do not think that we need make them just for the sake of doing so.

Is the Prime Minister aware that most hon. Members on this side of the House are more concerned about the state of mind of Ministers than the labels on their backs?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that the application of the Official Secrets Act is carried out in such a way that every person subject to it undergoes the same limitations with regard to the use, and subsequent publication, of secret and other classified material in the possession of Her Majesty's Government.

The application of the Act is, in general, well understood by those who have control of, and access to, classified information; and I do not think that any special steps are required to ensure uniformity of treatment between individuals who seek to use such information for purposes of publication.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of the Official Secrets Act is in the most appalling mess? Will he explain how it is that Mr. Montgomery Hyde has an access to papers—presumably Foreign Office papers—how it is that Sir William Stephenson has been able to give all his experiences, and how Mr. Sefton Delmer has been able to write a book giving all sorts of experiences of his, while other people have their books refused? Why do some people feel that they must adhere to the Official Secrets Act and others that they need not do so? It is a most terrible muddle, and I think that everybody concerned would welcome a proper definition.

My hon. Friend's question was cast in general terms, and I therefore replied in general terms. If she will give me particular instances I will certainly look at them.

If the Prime Minister is going to carry out an investigation, will he inquire how it becomes possible for Lord Avon to have access to Cabinet material in a way that historians are not able to do, with the result that a highly contentious and coloured account of contemporary events is presented to the public when nobody else has the opportunity of ascertaining the truth?

Lord Avon has complied in every way with the regulations and the customs in clearing the passages that he wished to use.

Does the Prime Minister recall—since this question as originally asked raised the whole question of the Official Secrets Act—that in response to Questions from me the right hon. Gentleman promised at the conclusion of a recent case which went on appeal to the House of Lords that he would consult the Attorney-General of that date to see whether there should be an inquiry into the Official Secrets Act in view of the many doubts and misinterpretations that seemed to have arisen in connection with it? Now that the Attorney-General of that date is the Lord Chancellor, can the Prime Minister say when that inquiry he promised may take place?

I am glad that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) raised this matter with me. I am afraid that, with many other matters, there may have been an oversight, but I will deal with this matter and try to make some reply when I have had an opportunity to consider it further.

asked the Prime Minister (1) if he will move to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the office of Serjeant at Arms;

(2) whether he will consider the early implementation of the recommendations of the Select Committee Report on Accommodation, Staffing, etc., with particular reference to setting up a House of Commons Commission.

The appointment of the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons, like that of Black Rod and of the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Lords—the latter office at present combined as an economy with that of the Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain—has always been made by the Monarch. In making this appointment the Crown does not seek advice from the Executive.

In the words of one of my predecessors, when the question was raised in 1875, the appointment "is in the gift and entirely in the gift of Her Majesty ". This is based upon long precedents going back to the early history of Parliament.

Nevertheless, as the House probably knows, in 1875, and on a more recent occasion, there was a generally expressed view that a particular officer already in the service of the Office of the Serjeant at Arms should succeed, and on these occasions the Crown has been made aware of this feeling and has taken note of it in exercising the Prerogative.

In addition—although, as I have explained, no formal advice is tendered to the Crown—it is, of course, the practice of the Monarch to make informal soundings as to the qualifications required for the appointment and as to the fitness of any particular individual who may be in mind for appointment to it.

This precedent was adhered to by the informal consultations which Her Majesty's Private Secretary had with you, Mr. Speaker, in the early months of this year. These consultations followed General Hughes's intimation to the Queen in February that he wished to be relieved of his post towards the end of the year, and they were concluded before the Summer Recess.

I realise, Mr. Speaker, that one of your difficulties arose from the late Serjeant at Arms' urgent desire that, in the circumstances, his decision to retire should be regarded as strictly confidential. Nevertheless, I think it right to give this account because I know. Sir, that you would be the first to wish to protect Her Majesty from its being thought that in this appointment there was any deviation from the established precedent.

However, if it be the general wish of the House. I am ready to consult with Her Majesty as to whether on future occasions she would welcome arrangements by which some more formal method of consultation might be available to her before she exercises her Prerogative.

I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Will he bear in mind that the latter part of his statement would, no doubt, commend itself to a great many hon. Members? I have promoted a Motion and have received expressions of sympathy from a great many hon. Members opposite. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would convey to Her Majesty the idea that an office which centuries ago merely represented a courtier who was seconded to this House to bear the Mace has now become that of general manager of this House, a high administrative post involving daily contact with all hon. Members?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take it —and this is, at least, my general view, for I cannot speak for all hon. Members —that something which he indicated at the end of his reply, concerning a more modern practice prevailing would rather commend itself to a large number of hon. Members? What Disraeli said in 1874 was, perhaps, true—it may still be true today—but I think that some hon. Members will think it rather ironical that the point of view expressed by Disraeli should have any really great relevance in 1962.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the manner in which he has expressed what I know are his views. I want to be clear about one thing, and that is the Prerogative. In following it on this occasion the Queen followed the strict precedent of informal consultation that has always taken place and as is shown by the dates when that consultation took place. It is true—and I know, Mr. Speaker, that embarrassment was, perhaps, caused— that it was General Hughes's particular wish, no doubt because of his illness, that this should be kept confidential. This may have meant a slight difficulty in the informal consultations being carried on by you, Mr. Speaker, than would otherwise have been the case.

I would make it quite clear—it is fair to the House that I should do so—that from the Queen's point of view she followed exact precedent and made the informal consultations in the way that has always been the practice. I will now, however—if it is the wish of the House— consult her, as I said, as to whether she may be graciously pleased to welcome arrangements whereby a more formal method of consultation might be available to her before she exercises Her Prerogative on another occasion.

I thank the Prime Minister for his full reply and can say that, on this side of the House certainly, and. I believe, generally, there would be a welcome for what the right hon. Gentleman has now proposed, namely, that there should be, after this long period, a slight change in the arrangements and that formal consultation shall take place before any fresh appointment is made.

Do not these difficulties arise because the premises where Members of both Houses have to meet and work are a Royal Palace? Is it not time that this basic position was reconsidered and that these working premises were, in fact, nationalised so that hon. Members, through the Government, could gain control over the running of the House, over their own working conditions and the appointment of the servants of the House who help them?

That, of course, raises much wider questions than I wished to deal with today. What I thought was right, and what I think was received with great generosity by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, was for me to make quite clear—and it was right and proper that I should do so—exactly the part Her Majesty played in exercising her duty.

TO ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to amending the Public Order Act, 1936, to make words inciting hatred against racial groups a specific offence.

With permission, I will now answer Question No. 37.

In accordance with my undertaking before the Recess I have given thorough consideration to all the various proposals put to me for amending the Public Order Act.

The whole House, I believe, regards with abhorrence the expression of views likely to incite to racial hatred. But we need to be certain, before we legislate further, that the present law is less than adequate to deal with the situation which exists and, in addition, that any amendment of it which is proposed would be enforceable and more effective to stop the evil. These are matters upon which we are none of us yet in a position to come to conclusions, because important aspects of the present law are at this moment under consideration by the courts.

There are now two cases involving leading members of the so-called National Socialist Movement which are still sub judice, and they both have a very important bearing on the matter. In the first, Jordan and Tyndall were charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act with using at their Trafalgar Square meeting on 1st July threatening, abusive or insulting words whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. They were convicted by the magistrate, but Jordan's appeal was allowed at the London Sessions. This case is now going to the Divisional Court.

In the second, Jordan, Tyndall and two others were charged under Section 2 of the Public Order Act and have recently been convicted and sentenced. Jordan and Tyndall have appealed. Until these cases are finally disposed of, it is not possible to form a final view as to the adequacy of the present law.

The sanctions provided by the existing law do not rest entirely on statute law. A person who speaks words or publishes matter calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, with the intention of stirring up hatred or hostility between different classes of the Queen's subjects, is guilty of the common law misdemeanour of sedition. This, of course, extends to the stirring up of hatred or hostility on the ground of race as well as on any other grounds. This offence is punishable by fine and imprisonment, and the amount of the fine and the term of the imprisonment are entirely at the discretion of the court.

I have come to the conclusion, however, that the penalties at present available to the courts in respect of offences against Section 5 of the Public Order Act, 1936, and the Public Meetings Act, 1908, are inadequate and need to be increased. The Government propose to take steps to rectify that as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs.

This is without prejudice to any further steps which may be considered necessary in the light of the decisions reached by the courts in the cases which are now sub judice. The Government will review the situation in the light of these decisions, and if the law should then be shown to be inadequate we shall give that immediate attention.

In the meantime, the closest watch will be kept on the situation, and the police can be relied on to continue to make full use of their powers under the existing law to deal promptly with any threats to the public peace. I am assured that prosecution will be instituted in every case where the facts warrant it.

I am certain that for their part hon. Members on both sides will discourage those who imagine that the right way to deal with speakers whose views they dislike is to resort to violence themselves.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome very much a good deal of the statement which he has made today, particularly the announcement about the review of penalties involved in the present law and the fact that he has still not shut his mind to the possibility of a change of the law being applied?

We understand the difficulty of dealing with this matter while the appeal in the first case, at any rate, is going on, but does he not feel that the second case to which he referred, in which the prosecution says "for seeming to set up "—or words to that effect—" a quasi-paramilitary organisation", seems far removed from a reference either to using insulting language or trying to put out racial hatred? To some of us that second case seems largely irrelevant to the issues that we are asking him to consider. Can he tell us how long these appeals will take?

We shall look forward to discussions with him a little later to see whether, in the light of what happens, the law, even so, should be amended.

I am obliged to the right hon. Member for what he has said. The time it takes to dispose of these appeals is, of course, a matter for the courts. I am advised that the application of Jordan and Tyndall for leave to appeal against sentence under Section 2 of the Public Order Act is likely to be heard in the near future. I think it necessary for us to wait until both these cases are decided, although I will agree with the right hon. Gentleman, if I am right in thinking so, that I think one of these cases is more directly relevant to the problem than the other.

While thanking the Minister for the expressions of his views on this shocking kind of thing that happens, may I ask whether he would consider that although cases are pending there is still reason for legislation to be introduced so that the kind of meeting that is held with the obvious object of creating racial hatred shall be stopped, so that, among other considerations, the police and others who are concerned with keeping meetings in order shall not be compelled to go to meetings of that nature knowing full well that that type of doctrine is to be preached there? Does the Minister realise that a very bad impression has been created outside our country because of the fact that this kind of meeting is being held and that there is no legislation here to prevent it?

I have said that, in any case, it is the intention to have legislation to increase the penalties, but I think that the hon. Member will realise that we shall get into very deep water if we think in terms of giving any Government power to prohibit in advance the holding of political meetings by certain persons.

While I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, may I ask that when he is introducing a Bill—as he will have to—to increase these penalties, he will consider making it wide enough to allow the House to decide whether any further amendment to the language of the Bill is required? It may be a question of the Title of the Bill.

I think that the time to consider whether any wider legislation is desired is when we have the final outcome of these two cases.

Mr. Iremonger. I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for not calling him if he rose earlier I failed to notice him, as he was so far distant from his usual place.

While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask him two things? First, could he tell the House what the penalties are for sedition? Secondly, could he find a suitable means of conveying what he has said about sedition to chief constables, because it might seem that it would have been more appropriate in the case of the offence for which Jordan was charged under Section 5 if the charge had been brought under the common law crime of sedition.

I think that I am right in saying that a charge of that sort is not a matter for a chief constable, but for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. In any case, I am quite certain that the statement I have made today about sedition and other matters will have the widest publicity in all relevant quarters.

The reply to my hon. Friend's question about the extent of the penalties is that, in the case of a conviction for sedition, the fine is unlimited and the period of imprisonment is unlimited.

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 12TH NOVEMBER.—Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill and of the Expiring Laws continuance Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolutions.

TUESDAY, 13TH NOVEMBER.—Second Reading of the Foreign Compensation Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution, which it is hoped to obtain by 7 p.m.

Afterwards, there will be a debate on the Government Motion to take note of the White Paper on Aden (Command No. 1814).

WEDNESDAY, 14TH NOVEMBER.— Second Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

Consideration of the Motion on Farm Improvements Grants.

Committee and remaining stages of the Tanganyika Republic Bill.

THURSDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER.—Second Reading of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

FRIDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER.—Committee and remaining stages of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.

MONDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER.—The proposed business will be: Debate on Public Investment, which will arise on a Government Motion to take note of the White Paper (Command No. 1849).

Then, consideration of the Motion on the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations.

Is the Minister aware that, while we are anxious to do everything we can to expedite the Pensions (Increase) Bill, it may be difficult to get it all through on a single Friday this week? Will he find time in the near future for a debate on Service pensions, a subject which, I think, the House has not discussed for a very considerable time?

I appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition has said about then Pensions (Increase) Bill. Naturally, I do not wish to push that business, but perhaps I should make it clear—because all hon. Members will be in sympathy with this Bill—that the pensions are paid from the first of the month which follows the Royal Assent. The House will, therefore, wish to take this as quickly as it can. Subject to that, we shall see how we get on that day.

The Leader of the Opposition asked about Service pensions. War pensioners were covered by a sentence in the Gracious Speech which the Leader of the Opposition will remember. I will take note of what he said.

Can my right hon. Friend yet say when we may expect a debate on the Hall Committee's Report on the economy of Northern Ireland?

No. Sir. It is too early in the Session. The House will recognise that this is inevitably a period when we have to have a lot of Second Readings put through so that the Committees can start work.

On Monday of this week the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House that the President of the Board of Trade today would be making an announcement about further advance factories and, I expected, possible industrial sites. Since the President of the Board of Trade has not taken the opportunity, which he could have taken after Questions, to make that statement, I want to ask the Leader of the House, first, whether that statement is being given to the Press rather than to the House today, and, if that is so, whether he will find time next week so that we may discuss a subject which is of prime importance to the economy of Scotland?

I cannot give an undertaking to find time for that debate. Of course, the Question is first answered to the House. It is a Written Question, and the Answer is no doubt already available. It will then become available to the Press in the ordinary way.

May I ask a question about Tuesday's business? Will the Leader of the House consider consulting the appropriate Ministers to see whether, when we reach Second Reading of the Foreign Compensation Bill, we may be clearer as to what the total sum of money will be, because at present no sum is mentioned in the Bill?

Yes, Sir. I will certainly convey the point which my hon. Friend makes to those who will speak on this Bill.

Does the Minister expect next week to be able to make a statement on visits by Black Rod?

No—or it may be. I should have thought, subject to your views, Mr. Speaker, that if any statement were made on that matter it would be made by you. I am in touch with the Leader of the Opposition on this matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform is likely to report?

I cannot say. I do not think that it will be very long. It was only recently reassembled.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having a debate fairly soon on Malta, a subject which interests many people in the country and in Malta, who are much worried about the docks and the general situation there? We should like to know more about it.

I understand the anxiety which Members who are particularly concerned with Malta feel, but I am bound to say that I cannot at this period of the Session see any likelihood of a debate.

After many promises have been made, will the Leader of the House say when he proposes to arrange for a debate on the Albemarle Report? He and his predecessors have said that they are very keenly interested in it. Has he had an opportunity yet of considering how important it is?

Also, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity at some time of considering a Bill to revise the jury system?