asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the introduction of legislation to provide for compensation, by the State and by those convicted of crimes of violence, to the victims of the crimes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department first embarked upon the study of a possible scheme of compensation for the victims of crimes of violence; and when he will announce Her Majesty's Government's intention to introduce such a scheme.

A Working Party of officials of the Departments concerned was appointed in Februrary, 1959, to examine the practical problems involved. Its report was published in June, 1961, with a view to eliciting further opinions. The Government are now studying this important question in the light, among other things, of the various reports by other bodies which have been considering the matter, the latest of which was published last November, and also in the light of further proposals made in the course of a recent debate in another place. I hope to be able to make a further statement before long.

Is it not the case that most of the public opinion which has been elicited broadly supports this kind of proposal? Could the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice)? Are the Government prepared to give some assistance to that Bill?

I am aware of that Bill. The hon. Member who introduced it will no doubt wish to take into account the terms of any statement that I may be in a position to make later on behalf of the Government. I certainly am aware that, as the hon. Gentleman says, public opinion seems generally in favour of action on these lines. Nevertheless, it is rather embarrassing that the four authoritative bodies which presented reports on the subject all differed as to their recommendations. Therefore, it takes some time to work out a scheme which may be generally acceptable.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the first part of my Question? Is it not a fact that more than seven years ago his Department was seeking statistical evidence from chief constables on this very matter? The subject has therefore been under consideration for a very long time. Moreover, in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has said, is it not a very real indication of the widespread public concern about this matter that within the last few weeks the two leading evening newspapers in this country both carried leading articles protesting against the Government's procrastination and seeking immediate action in this matter?

There is no question of procrastination. The Government have already made it clear that it would be impossible to legislate on this matter in this Session. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a period seven years ago. I was at that time Financal Secretary to the Treasury, so I could not say exactly what was happening then, but in my reply I sought to answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question when I said that a working party was appointed in 1959.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further progress has now been made in enabling prisoners to earn adequate wages for work done while they are serving their sentences, in order that they may help to compensate the victims of their crimes and be able to leave prison with fully stamped National Insurance cards.

I have nothing further to add to the full Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 7th February.

Was not that only an interim Answer? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when some real progress is likely to be made which he can report to the House? In particular, now that the Prison Commissioners no longer exist, will he try to prevent under-cutting of the kind practised by the Prison Commissioners, as reported in today's Daily Mail, in tendering at less than one-eighth of the price required by the Birmingham Blind Workshop for a War Office job?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would table a Question on the latter point. As to my previous reply being an interim one, I have more than once explained to the House that I am very anxious indeed that a greater number of prisoners should be able to work a full working week, but the bottlenecks are at present lack of workshop space and shortage of prison officers. We are doing everything we can to make good both of these deficiencies.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this underlines the point raised in the first Question asked today—that it is highly desirable that, in the first place, this compensation should be paid by the guilty party and only in default of their ability to collect should the State itself become liable?

That is one of the matters to which consideration has to be given in relation to the subject of the first Question.

Apart from the payment of adequate wages, would the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about the main purpose of the Question concerning fully stamped National Insurance cards, the lack of which militates against a prisoner getting work when he leaves prison?

I am not sure about the latter point, because I do not think that it should be concealed from any employer that a man has come out of prison. For the purposes of insurance, the National Insurance Scheme presupposes the existence of wages and a contract of service. Neither of those exist, at any rate at present, in prisons, so it would be anomalous to stamp prisoners' cards.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any monkeys, dogs, cats, horses, donkeys or mules have been used in trying to induce lung cancer through the inhalation of tobacco smoke.

No, Sir.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that had he made it perfectly clear that no other animals, apart from those which had been indicated as being used on 7th February, were, in fact, used, this Question would have been unnecessary?

I agree that that was so and I am sorry if my Answer on that occasion unwittingly misled my hon. Friend. I referred then to the animals being so used, including those which I listed in my Answer on that occasion. I did so because I was not at that time quite certain that no other animals, besides those I listed, had been used. I am now certain.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those prisoners who have served sentences of one year or more subsequently suffer a further conviction.

The information available about reconvictions of Star prisoners is given in a table on page 174 of the Prison Commissioners' Annual Report for 1961. I regret that similar information for other prisoners is not available.

But would not my hon. Friend agree that in the study of criminology and its treatment the compilation of statistics of this nature would be very helpful to his Department?

I agree that statistics can be very useful, but one must place some limit on the quantity of statistics collected. Those which the Prison Commissioners published in the Report to which I have referred include the information which my hon. Friend seeks, though not in the detail for which her Question asks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now consider the need to establish a service for the after-care of prisoners, especially those released after serving long sentences, to help them in the first few months in resuming normal civilian life.

The after-care of discharged prisoners is at present the responsibility of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies or the Central After-Care Association, according to the class of prisoner, with the assistance of a Government grant. I am looking forward to an early report from my Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders on the whole organisation of after-care, because I want to consider this very important subject with a fresh mind in the light of whatever that report may say.

I express my appreciation of the work the voluntary societies mentioned have done in this connection, and I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend hopes to receive this report fairly soon. Is there anything he can do to expedite his Advisory Council in its deliberations and in the preparation of its report?

I do not think that the Advisory Council needs any prodding. It is as concerned about this subject as I am—and, I believe, as the House is—and I hope that we shall have a report of great value, because I attach exceptional importance to this subject.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a slight gap which could easily be filled in that the representatives of the National Assistance Board do not usually see a discharged prisoner until the day of his release? If arrangements could be made so that these representatives could see prisoners 10 days or a fortnight before release, it might save a good deal of trouble.

Yes, Sir. That point has been brought to my attention and I have certain other points in mind, but I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I do not commit myself on any of them until I see the report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been sent to prison under the Street Offences Act, since the Act came into operation; and if he will make a statement on the working of the Act.

The number of women sentenced to imprisonment for offences under the Street Offences Act from 16th August, 1959, the date on which the Act came into operation, to 30th September, 1962, is 1,185. In addition, 1,129 women were committed to prison in default of payment of fines.

Would not the Home Secretary agree that since the Act came into operation there has been a considerable increase in the growth of undesirable clubs—places of organised vice and crime—and would he not agree that while the Act may partially have got rid of unorganised vice in the streets, it has encouraged organised vice in the clubs? What does he propose to do about it?

I know that the hon. Member was opposed to the Measure when it was going through the House. I must say, however, that it appears to me that the Act has accomplished its main purpose very effectively. There are, of course, other evils and vices, not necessarily arising from this legislation. I certainly am not blind to them, but I do not think that at the moment a case for further legislation is made out.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of hours worked per week by male prisoners in Her Majesty's local prisons.

At a recent date, of 10,000 men working in workshops in local prisons, about 3,000 worked for 17 hours or less, 4,400 between 18 and 25 hours, 1,500 between 25 and 30 hours, and 1,100 for more than 30 hours.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the reformative training of prisoners should be a hard day's work? Will he tell us a little more about the statement his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made in reply to an earlier Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) about the various schemes which are now being considered for increasing the number of hours that prisoners work? Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that prisoners should work at least as long in prison as they would be expected to work in industry outside?

I certainly agree with the first point in the hon. Member's supplementary question. On the second point, I hesitate to add to what my right hon. Friend has already said. I recognise that the low figure of hours worked in the case I gave of 3,000 prisoners is unsatisfactory. It occurs in the large local prisons where the shortage of workshop staff and other demands on the staff, to which my right hon. Friend referred, are acute. But we are thinking of ways in which this can be remedied.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations he is giving to the future of the probation service in London.

I hope shortly to be in a position to circulate proposals to those concerned, for their comments. Meanwhile I wish to express my gratitude to Judge Aarvold for accepting my invitation to become chairman of the London Probation Committee, which advises me on the administration of the London Probation Service under present arrangements.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great pleasure his announcement will cause among the members of the probation service in London?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

Can the hon. Gentleman say if there has been any improvement in recruitment following the improved salaries for probation officers?

Yes, Sir. As the hon. Member probably knows, I am extremely glad that it was possible to reach that settlement on probation officers' pay. We are, of course, still short of probation officers, so if the hon. Member can help me in increasing recruitment I should be grateful to him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the doubts that exist, he will draw the attention of all concerned to the rules and regulations relating to the conditions under which legal aid in criminal cases can be given by magistrates' courts; and if he will make a statement.

I am not aware of any general difficulties, but I would gladly consider any particular difficulty that my hon. Friend may have in mind.

In view of the considerable extensions under the new Regulations which came into force on 1st April, and the potentially considerable cost this involves, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will draw the attention of all concerned to Section 18 (3) of the 1949 Act, which requires a written statement, with appropriate punishment for false statements? I do not think that the attention of magistrates has been called to that.

The courts have been informed of the changes, which took effect on 1st April, in the conditions under which legal aid may be granted. I shall consider the points made by my hon. Friend, but I hope that his public-spirited action in calling attention to this in the House may have the requisite effect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give the names of the departmental committee inquiring into the law and practice relating to jury service.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on this subject a week ago.

When does the Home Secretary expect to be able to set up this committee? Is he aware that in reply to a Question that I put to the Prime Minister I received an Answer that in some 740 cases of committees being set up, the average length of time that it took for each was 19 months? In view of the feeling about the absurd position of the jury system, is the right hon. Gen- tleman prepared to do something straight away, to see if it can be remedied, as it can be if he puts people on the register in the regular list?

Because some committees take a long time, I am particularly anxious to choose and appoint an exceptionally good committee on this occasion. I have appointed a first-class chairman and I hope very shortly to be able to send out invitations in respect of the other members.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many attempts have been made to commit suicide in Durham prison during the past three years.

Among the 12,000 prisoners who have passed through Durham prison since 1st January, 1960, there have been 32 apparent attempts to commit suicide in the prison, of which two were successful.

Will the Home Secretary tell us how these figures compare with those for the rest of the country? Will he say that these incidents will be the subject of the inquiry now taking place, how long it will take before the inquiry has completed its findings, and whether he will publish its report?

I have asked the visiting committee to conduct the inquiry and I do not think that I should now interfere with the way in which it is carrying it out. I hope that it will report as quickly as possible. I can say to the hon. Member that the proportion I mentioned is not excessive, compared with prisons elsewhere.

Will the report be published?

I should like to see the report first.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to extend the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts under Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act 1914, by raising from £20 to £100 the amount the court can order in payment of the amount of the damage caused in addition to any other penalty.

My right hon. Friend has noted this point for consideration when a suitable opportunity for amending legislation occurs.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that answer. May I urge on him that this requires more than consideration? Will he bear in mind that in modem conditions the imposition of a fine of £20 for offences of this nature is far too low, and will he particularly bear in mind the case arising at Hurst, in my constituency, which I recently placed before him?

Yes, Sir. We are aware that there are anomalies in the present provisions, and I shall certainly give consideration to the case to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been for being in possession of dangerous drugs since 1st July, 1962; how many of those convicted were Commonwealth immigrants; and how many such immigrants could not be recommended for deportation because they had been resident in the United Kingdom for five years or more.

The number of convictions is 416. Of those convicted, 272 originated from other parts of the Commonwealth, and of these I estimate that nearly half had been resident in the United Kingdom for five years or more.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been for living on immoral earnings for the Metropolitan Police District since 1st July, 1962; how many of those convicted were immigrants from the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland, respectively; and how many such immigrants were immune from deportation through having been resident in the United Kingdom for five years or more.

In the Metropolitan Police District between 1st July, 1962, and 16th March, 1963, 123 persons were convicted of living on immoral earnings, 52 came from Commonwealth countries and 15 from the Irish Republic. Of these 67, 51 were not liable under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act for deportation because they had been resident in the United Kingdom for at least five years.

Do not the replies to these two Questions indicate quite clearly not only that Commonwealth citizens are particularly prone to these serious offences but that the majority of them escape the penalty of deportation on the ground of residence? Does not my right hon. Friend consider that there has been sufficient experience of the operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act to indicate this serious defect, and will he consider amending legislation to correct the position?

I am not sure from what source my hon. Friend draws his inference that Commonwealth citizens are particularly prone to these offences because, as I have said, out of 123 persons convicted in the Metropolitan Police District for living on immoral earnings, 52 came from the Commonwealth. I cannot hold out hope to the hon. Member that at any rate in present circumstances we should amend the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in the direction he desires.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that when Parliament discussed the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill it was felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House that it would be quite wrong to give the courts power to deport anyone who had been resident here for more than five years?

I did not take part in those debates, as the hon. Gentleman did. I know that there is a feeling shared by numbers of people besides my hon. Friend that in the case of certain offences deportation powers ought to exist, even though the person has been in this country for a long time. However, my hon. Friend knows well, I think, the difficulties that there would be in the way of amending the law in that direction.

In regard to the remarks of my right hon. Friend that Commonwealth immigrants are not particularly prone to these offences, the numbers given should include 15 Irish immigrants, which makes a total of 67 Commonwealth immigrants coming under the Act. That is more than half the total and is quite disproportionate. With regard to those being in possession of dangerous drugs, 272 out of 416 is more than 50 per cent. Surely this indicates action, and will my right hon. Friend again consider action in this regard?

It is a very serious matter that there are these cases of convictions both for being in possession of dangerous drugs and living on immoral earnings, but I think that Parliament would have to consider the matter very carefully before legislating to the effect that somebody who had been in the United Kingdom for five years should, nevertheless, be liable to deportation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many counties in England and Wales the Hawkers Act, 1888, operates at the present day; and how many prosecutions have taken place in the last five years to the latest convenient date.

The Act operates throughout England and Wales. For the years 1957 to 1961 inclusive the number of prosecutions was nil, 7, 2, 1 and 2, respectively.

Will not my hon. Friend agree that this Act, which is 75 years old—in the days of the horse and cart—is a little archaic to say the least, and that the application of this law hinders certain mobile traders in their business? Will he review the working of the Act in this modern age?

In view of the extremely small number of cases that I have listed in my original reply, it does not seem as if the Act is working too badly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of public concern with the increasing number of wage robberies and their greater violence, he will introduce legislation to impose flogging for such crimes; and if he will make a statement.

I continue to believe that the reintroduction of corporal punishment as a judicial penalty would not be a right or effective remedy for these or other crimes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of people in this country think otherwise—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—despite what the "softies" opposite think? Since it is impossible to make the thugs pay, why cannot we flog them?

I hope that my hon. Friend is not implying that I am a "softy", because that has not been alleged against me before. The maximum penalty for the crime of armed robbery or of robbery with violence is already life imprisonment, and if that is not a sufficient deterrent I doubt whether corporal punishment would be.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority concerning the inquiry into the impact of television on crime; what form the inquiry is taking; who have been appointed to take part; and what progress has been made.

I have consulted the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority about the scope and organisation of the research which the Authority has generously agreed to finance into the impact of television on the young. Following on these consultations, I have decided to appoint a committee to plan and co-ordinate research in this field. I will circulate the terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Vice-Chancellor of Leicester University, Mr. T. A. F. Noble, has accepted my invitation to be chairman of the committee, and I am grateful to him for his readiness to undertake this important public service. I shall proceed as quickly as possible with the appointment of the other members.

I thank the Home Secretary for that reply, but as he and his predecessor promised an inquiry a year ago, has there not been a rather regrettable delay? Will he give some sense of urgency to this inquiry, especially as, in the last fortnight, a young boy has been convicted by the Edinburgh High Court of murdering his mother, and it was stated clearly in court that he had been watching television and acting again scenes on television? This is urgent. Can the right hon. Gentleman really speed up the inquiry? How long is it likely to last?

I attach immense importance to this inquiry, and I am very glad to have had the opportunity to make the announcement today. Certainly, I have never promised to set up an inquiry of this kind, and I did not know that my predecessor had. I am happy indeed, that it should now come to fruition, but I must say to the House that we shall not get reliable results by a quick inquiry into these matters. Serious research must be made. That is why I am glad to have the vice-chancellor of a university willing to take charge of the committee that will guide it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Dartmoor branch of the Prison Officers' Association regarding the substitution of psychiatric treatment for birching in the case of recent attacks on prison officers; and what replies he has sent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he will take in response to the representations made by the Prison Officers' Association about his refusal to allow the prisoners who had attacked prison officers at Dartmoor to receive the sentence ordered by the visiting magistrates.

I have received no such representations.

May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention a very interesting letter in The Times from a former prison commissioner which dealt with the problems of command as opposed to those of administration in H.M. Prisons? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the governor of this prison was wholeheartedly in support of his action in this matter?

I read that letter with great interest. I do not propose to answer questions about whether my officers are or are not wholeheartedly in support of what I have decided. I have no doubt whatever about the rightness of my decision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us, including the prison officers, find it very difficult to understand his action on this occasion? Is it his policy to withhold from prison officers this last protection against the brutal thugs whom they are supposed to try to control? Psychiatry does not take every place in our life.

I think that there may be a misapprehension that psychiatric treatment is being used as an alternative to corporal punishment. My decision was that these two men should be the subject of psychiatric examination because there were certain facts known to me that seemed unquestionably to need further investigation. I think that I am right in saying that of the last 24 recommendations for corporal punishment in such cases, 15 have been confirmed. There is therefore no question of each of these recommendations not being considered strictly on its merits.

Is the Home Secretary aware that some of us feel that his action on this occasion was his most courageous since he has been Home Secretary?

Fear the Greeks when they bring gifts.

Although I agree that this is not nearly such a simple question as it may at first sight appear, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would agree that the best way of dealing with these dangerous criminals is to let them know that if they attack prison officers they will be sent for a long time to some place where they will be segregated under the most rigorous and strict discipline?

I think that prisoners who are in full command of their faculties do know that very serious consequences may ensue if they attack prison officers.

Despite the pressure from his hon. Friends, will the right hon. Gentleman continue to rely on responsible medical opinion in dealing with cases of prisoners who are psychiatrically ill?

I shall take into account all the evidence available to me, and I shall then reach my own decision without fear.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he is sending to the petition he has received from wives of Dartmoor prison officers, asking that a stronger line of action be taken against prisoners found guilty of assault on prison officers; and if he will make a statement.

I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the reply which has been sent to the petition on my instructions.

In view of the interest taken in the matter by a number of constituents, I beg to give notice that I shall attempt to raise the question on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will launch a scheme for the prevention of juvenile delinquency, inviting the cooperation of parents, teachers, youth leaders, doctors, social workers and magistrates in a general campaign to tackle the problem.

There is no simple answer to this problem. We need much more information about the underlying causes of delinquency, and I am supporting research to this end. I welcome local and personal initiative of the kind suggested and am already in touch with areas and organisations in which it has been taken, and I am also considering what further initiatives might be taken centrally.

Does not the root of this problem lie in the failure of our educational provision and our whole social environment to encourage the idealism of young people, both girls and boys, and to provide worth-while outlets for their energies, particularly in the large towns? Should we not be urgently trying to find the answer to this in terms of national social policy on the lines suggested in my Question, which is a far bigger task than any purely personal or local initiative can undertake?

Without ascribing failure to anyone, I think that there is a great deal in what the hon. Lady says, but the subject is not as simple as she suggests. I believe that we have to be prepared to put in hand most careful research in order to obtain hard information on which we can proceed.

Will the Home Secretary look again at the very important observations made on this problem by Sir John Wolfenden in his Report on physical education and recreation, and will he consult his noble Friend, Lord Hailsham, about implementing those recommendations?

I am ready to look at anything in this field. As I have said in public this is just about the most difficult and important task of a Home Secretary, and I shall welcome the assistance of anyone from either House of Parliament or elsewhere who can give me helpful advice and support in the campaign I am seeking to wage against juvenile delinquency.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Metropolitan Police to treat as an offence under the Litter Act the attaching of circulars to the outside of parked cars.

Prosecutions under the Act of 1958 may be undertaken by the local authority or the police, and my right hon. Friend has no power to instruct them what constitutes an offence.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he not recognise that it is an increasing practice to use this method for the distribution of circulars, and that is a palpable evasion of Parliament's intentions as embodied in the Litter Act, since all that happens is that the circulars are put on the bonnets or windscreen wipers of the cars and, a few minutes later, fall on the street? Could he not use his good offices to ensure that, especially in this respect, the Act is more vigorously enforced?

I think that it would be improper for my right hon. Friend to give directions to the prosecuting authorities. The question whether this particular practice would constitute an offence is one that could be settled only by the courts. I do not think that any case has yet been tested.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions under the Litter Act took place in each of the last four years.

The numbers of persons prosecuted under the Act were 2,450 in 1959, 2,599 in 1960 and 2,395 in 1961. I regret that the figures for 1962 are not yet available.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that information, may I ask whether he is aware that a growing body of opinion feels that the provisions of the Act are not being sufficiently well observed? In view of the fact that the Act has now been in operation for five years and that we are approaching the holiday season, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not think that it would be reasonable for his right hon. Friend to appeal to the police, the courts and the public to observe this Act more stringently?

It is principally for the local authorities to bring proceedings under the Act, and my right hon. Friend has not the power to give directions on this matter. If the law is thought to be inadequate, it would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I will convey the points made by my hon. Friend to him.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of the local authorities are at fault far providing fiddling little baskets on trunk roads where holiday-makers stop and also for the long time that elapses before the baskets are emptied? Is the hen. Gentleman aware that conditions in some places are disgraceful where litter is left in the baskets waiting to be taken away and the local authorities do not take the job seriously?

I am sure that the local authorities will take note of what the hon. Member has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many betting shops have been opened in England and Wales since they became legally permissible; what information he has in respect of the increase in betting because of those facilities; and what recent representations he has received in respect of keeping the number of betting shops within reasonable limits.

The number of betting office licences in force in England and Wales on 1st June, 1962, was 11,558. My right hon. Friend has no means of assessing the volume of betting either before or after betting offices were lawfully established, Apart from Questions by hon. Members and the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) and others, my right hon. Friend has received representations in favour of amending legislation to provide additional control over the number of betting offices from one association of local authorities and in a few letters from members of the public.

May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has not received communications from public bodies interested in the ethical side of betting? In view of the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the number of betting shops, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever may be said on the ground of the public desire or need for the lesser of two evils, to increase the number of betting shops is likely to increase betting as a whole to the detriment of the nation? Cannot the hon. Gentleman therefore inquire more fully into the whole matter?

It is true that apart from the representations to which I referred in the original Answer we have had some letters from members of the public protesting against gambling generally rather than specifically referring to betting shops. The number of betting shops in existence does not exceed and is in fact a bit below the figure which was expected at the time when the Act was passed. That expectation was based on experience gained elsewhere, particularly in the Irish Republic, from the practice of betting shops.

In his original Answer the hon. Gentleman quoted the figure for June of last year. Why cannot he give a later figure? Is he not aware that since June of last year there has been a spate in the setting up of these shops? Can he not show the figure at least to the end of last year?

I am sorry that I cannot give a more recent figure because returns under the Act are due only after 1st June each year. The current figure will not be available until the summer. While it is true that new shops have been opened since June last year, it is also true that there have been closures.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the need to improve the employ- ment situation in the boot and shoe industry, he will increase his Department's purchase of boots and shoes so that all inmates of penal institutions can be provided with hygienic and comfortable footwear.

Prisoners' footwear is made in prison workshops. It would be wasteful to provide every short-term prisoner with a new pair of shoes, but part-worn shoes are not issued unless they are serviceable, and the present arrangements do not constitute any danger to health.

That is a very complacent answer. Has the hon. Gentleman ever inspected the sort of footwear which a great many prisoners are compelled to wear? If not, will he do so?

This is not a complacent Answer. It is a factual Answer to the Question as put.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirements he has imposed upon tobacco products, including cigarettes, under Section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1961, in order to prevent or reduce the risk of death and injury by diseases, including bronchitis and cancer, caused by these products.

None, Sir.

In view of the fact that the Act gives the Home Office specific power to require tobacco manufacturers to indicate on each packet of cigarettes the risks run by the smoker consuming them, why does not the Home Office take advantage of its power? Is this not an indication that the Government did not take seriously the campaign to warn smokers of the dangers that they run?

No, Sir; that is not the implication. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government's policy was stated in a reply to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21st March. I have looked carefully at the possibilities of the Consumer Protection Act, but, of course, it was not devised in order to prohibit any article altogether, and I cannot myself see what requirements could be imposed under that Act which would serve the purpose the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Section 1 of the Act lays down clearly that the Home Secretary has power, in order to reduce risk of death or personal injury, to require manufacturers to put a warning on a package. What is the difficulty in applying this to cigarettes? Will he look at the Act again?

I shall look at the Act, but it cannot be said that tobacco would be "safe" if the yield of the various noxious contents of the tobacco were reduced below any particular level.

In view of the vast sums of money derived by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the sale of tobacco, would it not be suitable for the Government to ask cigarette manufacturers, as a quid pro quo, to print on each packet, "Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer"?

Judging by the form in which the hon. Gentleman put that supplementary question, I think that it would be better put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to lay the order reducing the minimum age for borstal training from 16 to 15 years.

Provision for lowering the minimum age of eligibility for borstal training from 16 to 15 years was made by Section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961. In accordance with the intention which I announced on 7th February in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir G. Wills), I have now made an order bringing this Section into operation on 1st August. It does not require to be laid before Parliament.

This is a very important matter. In reply to a Question I asked him last week, the Home Secretary said that nearly 2,000 boys aged 16 and 17 had spent periods of imprisonment while awaiting borstal sentence or awaiting removal to borstal, and that of these 461 had spent a period of over a month in a local prison awaiting sentence and 494 had spent a similar period awaiting removal to a borstal. In view of these figures, is it not shocking that the right hon. Gentleman has made an order which will now mean that 15-year-olds will spend these long periods in a local prison?

I agree about the importance of these matters, but I hope that the hon. Lady will approve of my taking action which is designed to make possible the total abolition of imprisonment for offenders under 17. Surely, that is something which the whole House should welcome. As soon as we have enough remand centres, there will no longer be the need for boys who are remanded with a view to borstal sentence to be detained in prison. As the hon. Lady knows, we are pressing forward as rapidly as possible with the provision of more remand centres.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make arrangements to harmonise Summer Time in the United Kingdom and Europe.

The possibility of having the clocks one hour in advance of Greenwich Mean Time throughout the year, so that they would accord with those in other countries in Western Europe in the winter as well as in the summer, was considered when it was decided to make a limited extension in the periods of Summer Time in the years 1961 to 1963. The disadvantages of extending the period throughout the winter have so far seemed to outweigh the advantages, but the question is examined afresh every year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, when he first considered Chief Anthony Enahoro's request for political asylum in Great Britain, he was in possession of a copy of the affidavit submitted by Crown counsel to the British courts concerning the charges being made against the Chief and the penalties attached thereto.

Yes, Sir. This affidavit formed part of the documents which were submitted to the magistrate at Bow Street and were before both the Divisional Court and the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords when they considered the case. It was sent to me, with the other papers, after the case had been disposed of by the courts. A copy was also included among the documents appended to Chief Enahoro's request to me to be allowed to stay in this country.

That being so, and since it is said quite clearly on page 3 of the affidavit that count two of the charges against Chief Enahoro carries the death penalty, why did the Home Secretary suggest that his only source of information on the subject was the Nigerian High Commissioner who had assured him that there was no death penalty connected with the charge against Chief Enahoro, quite contrary to the affidavit submitted to the courts by the Nigerian Government themselves?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed about the contents of this affidavit. There is no reference in the affidavit to the death penalty being a penalty for any of the charges on which Chief Enahoro's return was sought. If there had been, I have no doubt that counsel for Enahoro would have raised the matter in the Divisional Court when he was seeking to persuade the Lord Chief Justice that it would be too severe a punishment to return him to Nigeria.

Has my right hon. Friend referred to the previous treason trial in Nigeria in which Mr. Tarka was charged in 1961 with a number of offences, including conspiracy to commit treason? If so, has he noted that it was made clear in the course of those proceedings that that charge carried the death penalty?

What I can say with assurance—and I am sure that the Attorney-General would confirm this—is that the charges on which Chief Enahoro's return to Nigeria was sought do not carry the death penalty.

When will the right hon. Gentleman be making a statement on Chief Enahoro's request for political asylum? Is it not highly desirable that there should be a final decision on this as quickly as possible?

Yes, Sir, but it is not for me to announce the future business of the House.

In coming to his original decision, should not the Home Secretary have noticed that, in view of the contents of the affidavit filed at the magistrates' court, there were charges in Nigeria which might involve the death sentence? In view of that possibility, should not the Home Secretary have taken that into account, and should not he have come to the conclusion that, in those circumstances, this man should not be sent back?

No, Sir. I took everything which was before me into account, and I reached the same conclusion about the risk of Chief Enahoro being liable to the death penalty as his counsel in the British courts apparently reached.

Has my right hon. Friend yet seen a document which arrived from Nigeria today from the leading defence counsel in the treason trial, Mr. Akintoye, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and various other right hon. Members, and in which he puts forward a reasoned argument that Chief Enahoro certainly faces the death penalty on count two? If my right hon. Friend has seen it, will he bear it in mind? Does not he feel that, after three temporary reprieves, justice would now be done if this man were set free?

I have not seen that document. I think that questions on the legal interpretation of the affidavit should be put to the Attorney-General.