asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will circulate in HANSARD a list of the statements in the report, "Inside Story", which he has found factually inaccurate; which parts of this report he has found to be accurate; and what specific action he is taking to deal with the matters thus brought to his attention.

As the Answer is necessarily long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he at least agrees with one general observation in this report, that there is still far too wide a gap between the relatively enlightened policies and aims of the Home Office and their actual carrying out in administration?

I would put it rather differently. I would repeat what I have frequently said in the House, that there is a great deal of room for improvement in our overcrowded local prisons; but I did not find anything in the report which made suggestions for improving the situation which I have not already considered.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the considerable increase in 1962 in the number of people convicted of being drunk and incapable, he will set up a committee to inquire into the working of the licensing laws; and whether he will make a statement.

I am not convinced that the increase has any necessary connection with the working of the licensing laws, though I would naturally be ready to consider any evidence submitted to me.

In view of the concern which the Home Secretary must have about the increase of 10,000 in convictions for drunkenness last year, and since those figures, hiding behind the statistics of criminal offences and personal ruin, are the highest since 1910, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Housewhat he has in mind for dealing with this problem? Is he looking at the problem of advertising, or is he doing nothing at all?

I have great concern about this, but the hon. Member is suggesting that this is in some way connected with the recent Licensing Act. In fact, we are seeing the working out of a trend which began some time before that Measure was enacted.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the lengthened hours have led to this increase of 10,000? If he does not attribute the increase in drunkenness to the lengthened hours under the last Act, to what does he attribute it?

I have said that I should be very ready to consider any specific information submitted to me by the hon. Member or anybody else, but I really think that is is too early to ask the House to consider amending an Act which was passed so recently.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has sent to the Cardiff and Swansea District Synod of the Methodist Church, concerning its request for an inquiry into stricter control over betting and gaming establishments.

The reply, a copy of which I have sent to the hon. Member, summarised the effect of my replies to Questions by him and by other hon. Members on 7th February.

I am much obliged to the Horns Secretary for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the letter, but, as homes are being broken and people are being ruined by the current gambling craze, does not he think it a cause for anxiety on his part, and what action does he propose to take about it?

It is certainly a cause for anxiety on everybody's part if people are in danger of ruining themselves by gambling. On the other hand, this is a free country and people should, within reason, be allowed to spend their money as they wish. This is another case where I would judge it too early to discuss amending an Act which has so recently been passed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the type of work being undertaken by male and female prisoners in Her Majesty's Prisons.

I would refer the hon. Member to the last Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners, published last week as Command Paper 2030, and in particular to pages 102 to 111, which give details of the types of work carried on, with the number employed on each.

Would not the Home Secretary agree that the type of work undertaken by male prisoners is as important as the number of hours worked? Is he aware that in many of our local prisons work is undertaken of such a nature as could be done by disabled people outside—for example, painting toys? Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that work in prison should require more initiative and more physical energy and certainly a sense of purpose?

I broadly agree with that. Certainly I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about a sense of purpose, although the painting of toys is usually popular in prisons. We are dealing with various difficulties, including the difficulty of obtaining orders for the products of work in prison. But more specifically we are dealing with a lack of workshop space, which is very severe in some local prisons, and with a shortage of prison officers. I am doing everything I can to remedy these two deficiencies.

Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that the Report of the Prison Commissioners to which he has referred also indicates, on pages 18 and 51, various other obstacles which seem to have arisen? Can he assure the House that all possible steps are being taken to remove these obstacles? Will he confirm that probably the best way of giving reformative treatment to prisoners is to ensure that they have adequate and useful opportunities of work while in prison?

If our prison system is to work as I and, I think, the whole House would wish, it is absolutely essential that all prisoners capable of work should do a good working week. For the reasons which I have mentioned, that is not possible, but I will render it possible as quickly as I possibly can.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the practice in certain American prisons, particularly the Federal prisons, where prisoners are doing very useful work for what are known as tax-aided agencies by making furniture, making uniforms for the Army, mending trunks, and so on, which is of great benefit to the taxpayer? Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether this could be done in this country so that prisoners are given work which is not only useful to them but of great benefit to the nation?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that a good deal of work is done for Government Departments which require the goods.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will revise the rates of pay for work done by prisoners in Her Majesty's Prisons in order that they can earn sufficient money to pay their National Insurance contributions.

I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's replies of 7th February and 4th April last to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg).

Will the hon. Lady say whether she has any plans for supplying prisoners, when they are discharged, with a fully stamped insurance card?

We are looking into this problem the whole time. I think that the House would be well advised to await the Report of the Advisory Committee on After-Care to see what recommendations it makes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the normal period of time between the hearing of a case by the Mental Health Review Tribunal and the giving of a decision by the Minister.

The patient is usually informed of my right hon. Friend's decision within a month of his receiving the Tribunal's advice, and often sooner; but some cases take considerably longer to decide.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in a recent case about which I have had correspondence with her a decision was reached by the Review Tribunal in November last year and six months elapsed before any decision could be given by the Ministry? Is she also aware of the anxiety which is bound to be caused to relatives and others concerned when delay of this kind occurs? Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that rather quicker decisions are made?

My hon. Friend will recognise that this was an exceptional case of very considerable difficulty, but I draw his attention to the fact that, in the year 1962–63, of 116 cases, 98 were dealt with within a month and that, of that 98, 78 took only 14 days to be dealt with.

Does the Minister normally accept the advice of the Mental Health Tribunal, as this House confidently expected he would when the Mental Health Bill was under discussion?

My right hon. Friend looks at every case on its merits.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that it is impossible to defend the civil population against a nuclear attack, if he will now reorganise the Civil Defence Corps into a civil rescue service.

The training given to members of the Civil Defence Corps has enabled them to render valuable service in peace-time emergencies but the primary purpose of the corps remains that of training to save life and relieve human suffering in the event of war. My right hon. Friend has no intention of changing this purpose.

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is admitted on all sides that there is now no such thing as civil defence? Is it not a fact that for years Ministers of Defence have admitted that it is impossible to organise the defence of the civil population in case of nuclear war? Since he admits that the purpose of the corps is to rescue survivors of war or of natural disasters, would it not be better overtly to recognise this purpose and reorganise and rename the corps to take account of it?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. May I make two points? First, nuclear attack is not the only possible form of attack against which defence may be necessary. Secondly, civil defence as defined in the 1948 Act

"includes any measures not amounting to actual combat for affording defence against any form of hostile attack by a foreign power or for depriving any form of hostile attack by a foreign power of the whole or part of its effect…"

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the recent advances of science and changes in the risks to British citizens, if he will now alter and extend the scope and duties of the Civil Defence Corps.

The Civil Defence Corps exists to help save life and relieve human suffering in the event of war, in whatever conditions may result from attack. Whilst this fundamental purpose should not be changed, my right hon. Friend would not hesitate to introduce changes in organisation or training shown to be necessary by any changed appreciation of the type of attack that might be made. For the present my right hon. Friend does not consider changes are called for beyond those introduced last October of which the House was informed on 12th July. 1962.

Surely the hon. Gentleman must agree that the advance of science makes it essential that the education and testing of people seeking to enter the Civil Defence Corps should be enhanced in the public interest? Will he do that and also publish details as to the increased educational requirements of people seeking to enter that corps?

I am entirely in sympathy with that point. If the hon. and learned Member studies the circular put out last October, which set out the new arrangements, he will find the details of the substantially higher standards which are expected of recruits to the corps now. Of course, the ordinary member of the corps is not expected to have highly technical scientific qualifications, but I am glad to say that we are able to recruit a number of trained scientists to the corps for specialist services and their services are extremely valuable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions Her Majesty's Government have reached on their consideration of the effects of the railway closures foreshadowed in the Beeching Report upon civil defence plans.

The effects of possible railway closures are still being examined, but they do not seem likely to lead to major changes in civil defence plans.

In the light of the evacuation plans which have received publicity from the Home Office from time to time, may I ask whether it would be accepted by the Government as a paramount argument against railway closures that the railways would be required in case of war for the evacuation of the population?

There are, in fact, no evacuation plans at the moment. There is a plan for dispersal, which is a different kind of concept altogether. But certainly that will be taken into account in any decisions which are reached.

Taking the hon. Gentleman's reference to dispersal, will he answer the question whether the Government accept as a paramount argument against railway closures that such railways might be required for the dispersal of the civil population in the event of war?

If they were indispensable, it certainly would be a paramount consideration. If not, it would be one consideration amongst others.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that railway transport is likely to be much more vulnerable in the event of attack on this country than road transport?

That is certainly a point to be borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Commonwealth immigrants, and immigrants from the Republic of Eire, respectively, have been recommended for deportation under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act after conviction in the Metropolitan Police area for living on immoral earnings; and how many such recommendations he has confirmed.

Thirteen, including three citizens of the Republic of Ireland. I have considered eight of these cases and six of the offenders have been deported, including two citizens of the Republic. In two cases I have decided not to act on the recommendation; five, relating to persons now serving sentences of imprisonment, await my consideration.

As the great majority of Commonwealth immigrants convicted of these offences escape deportation through having been resident in this country for five years or more, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when such recommendations arising from these offences are received he will not reject them except on the strongest possible grounds?

I myself consider every one of the recommendations for deportation. Parliament decided to give the Home Secretary discretion whether to act or not. In certain cases there are personal or compassionate grounds which are so strong that I think the deportation recommendation ought not to be implemented. But, obviously, I pay very great regard to a recommendation from a court.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Commonwealth immigrants have been recommended for deportation under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act for being in possession of dangerous drugs; and how many such recommendations he has confirmed.

Thirty; in three cases however the recommendation was disallowed on appeal. Of the balance of 27, I have considered 1x and have signed deportation orders in 11 cases; nine, relating to persons now serving sentences of imprisonment, await my consideration.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many magistrates are deeply concerned that they are unable to recommend deportation in many of these cases and in other cases of serious crime because of the residential consideration and that this was emphasised in the recent case of Aloysius Gordon? In view of this, will he review the whole matter with amending legislation in mind?

The House decided not to give leave for the introduction of the Bill which my hon. Friend sought leave to present recently dealing with this matter. In the particular case which he mentioned, I think the man had been in this country for 12 or 13 years. It is a genuine difficulty, if an alien can become naturalised after five years, if we are to talk about deporting Commonwealth citizens who have been here much longer than five years.

Will the right hon. Gentleman put this matter in its true perspective by indicating what percentage of the total number of Commonwealth immigrants is represented by people in these categories? Is it not infinitesimal?

I am glad to say that it is a very small proportion. At the same time, I think public opinion generally feels that if a Commonwealth citizen who has been here a short time commits a serious crime and is recommended for deportation, the Home Secretary ought to consider that recommendation seriously.

Does not the Home Secretary think that this series of questions is calculated to stir up hostility towards Commonwealth immigrants? Will he agree that by far the most important thing for him to do is to ensure that adequate steps are taken to ensure that Commonwealth immigrants are as fully and as rapidly as possible integrated into the life of the community?

I agree that everything possible should be done for the welfare of Commonwealth citizens in this country. At the same time, I should deplore it if hon. Members on either side of the House were inhibited from asking Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assistant governors class II have been appointed since 1st January 1962, and of these how many were prison officers; and how many assistant governors class I have been appointed since 1st January 1962, and how many of these were originally prison officers.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does the hon. Lady remember her right hon. Friend saying yesterday in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) that he thought that prison officers receive far too little recognition for the excellent way in which they do their jobs? Could not her Department and my right hon. Friend do more about this by promoting more of these officers to assistant governors class II and taking more energetic steps to provide training if it is considered that some of them are not quite up to the mark?

I am sure that we all recognise the work which my right hon. Friend is doing in this respect. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that discussions will shortly be taking place with the Prison Officers Association with the

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of persons convicted of participation in protection rackets during the last six months, and the number for the preceding 12 months

I regret that this information is not available, because convictions of offences arising from protection rackets are not separately recorded

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of cases involving narcotics for the latest available year, and the corresponding figures for the five previous years.

In 1962 there were 675 convictions for offences involving dangerous drugs The corresponding figures for the years 1957 to 1961 were 100, 155, 236, 275 and 357 respectively.

Is my hon. Friend aware that even these increasing prosecutions do not, in some people's minds, represent the true increase in narcotics offences in this country? Will he do his best to intensify the efforts against this trade?

I am very well aware of public anxiety on this point, and both the police forces and the Customs and Excise are keeping a very close watch on the matter, as we ourselves are also doing, including the possibility of a need for amendment of the law to facilitate enforcement. I would add that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has recently very substantially increased the strength of the Metropolitan Police drugs squad.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the rule prohibiting, in an indictment for murder, counts for other charges, is causing hardship; and if he will introduce legislation to ensure that any man acquitted of murder will not subsequently, as a consequence of the present rule, be charged with other offences upon facts presented to the court which has ordered his acquittal.

This prohibition is contained in a ruling given by the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1918 on the ground that a trial for murder is too serious and complicated to have other counts included in the indictment. The ruling is in favour of the accused, and, as at present advised, I am not satisfied that there is a case for introducing legislation to abrogate it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been considerable hardship in a recent case because the Attorney-General insisted upon a trial proceeding against a man already acquitted of murder, despite the vigorous protests made by a High Court judge—

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me. Is not that case still sub judice—a charge made and pending? If so, we ought not to discuss it.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am raising the question whether the trial should proceed or not. I am not raising a question as to the merits or demerits of the trial itself. All I am seeking to ask is whether it is proper that the case should proceed. The judge has already given his view, and the Attorney-General has already decided that the case should proceed.

If the hon. Gentleman were asking a question of the Attorney-General relating to these activities, it might be a different matter, but I do not think that we ought to discuss now a particular case.

May I take the point further, Mr. Speaker? On the point of whether hardship exists, as I understand the reply of the Home Secretary, what he is suggesting is that the procedure is acting for the benefit of the accused. I am seeking to adduce that it is, in fact, acting to the detriment of the accused. Therefore, I respectfully submit that it is proper for me—obviously, without going into details of the case—to have contained in my supplementary question a reference to a case where hardship has, in the view of the judge, occurred as a result of permitting the case to proceed.

I do not think that discussion of the general principle is objectionable, but to discuss whether or not the prosecution of that case at the moment involves hardship is infringing our rules, and in that respect the matter is sub judice.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear that whatever answer the Home Secretary might choose to give to my hon. Friend's question would have no bearing whatever on any question now before any court? It is a general question about the general state of the law which could not in any circumstances influence the result in the present case, and if that is so, would not the question be in order?

If that were so in my view, that result would follow, but it is not so in my view.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his studies of the various reports submitted to him on schemes for compensating the victims of crimes of violence; whether he intends to introduce legislation on this matter next Session; and if he will make a statement.

I am not yet in a position to add anything to the Answers which I gave on 4th April to Questions by the hon. Members for Barking (Mr, Driberg) and Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been the subject of public discussion for several years now and that, over a period of four years, there have been three Private Members' Bills from this side of the House, a White Paper from his Department and a number of other reports? Is it not time, therefore, that the Government decided their policy on this and made a statement, even if they are not likely to be in office long enough to carry out the proposals?

Nothing can be done in this matter without legislation. As I have said before, we have now received four reports from four different and authoritative sources recommending four different schemes, and the hon. Member himself has introduced a Bill which does not overcome some of the material difficulties to which attention has been drawn in some of these reports. This is not an easy matter. We have not pigeon-holed it, but I am not yet ready to offer a solution to the House.

All the right hon. Gentleman has to do is to make certain decisions on the type of scheme. Is he aware that these decisions would not be of very great complexity? After all these years of consideration, should he not be in a position to announce a decision?

We have to produce a scheme which will distinguish between the innocent victim of an assault and the man who gets beaten up in the course of gang warfare.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was to public funds of the measures taken by the Metropolitan Police to ensure the return of Miss Marilyn Rice-Davies from Majorca to London on 2nd June.

Miss Rice-Davies was asked by the police to return to this country because her evidence was considered essential in the proceedings against Dr. Ward. She agreed to make arrangements to do so, provided that the police refunded her expenses. The amount was £62. Her attendance in London as the case proceeds may, of course, involve additional expenditure.

If the object of all this expenditure was to retain her services as a witness, how is it that the first intimation that she or anyone else had that she was on a charge came in an intervention by the Attorney-General during some remarks I made in the Profumo debate on Monday? Does it not strike the right hon. Gentleman as rather curious?

The position is that she is not on a charge. My right hon. and learned Friend was answering a question at short notice. She is not on a charge. She actually has entered into recognisance to appear at St. Marylebone police station on 28th June.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say under what authority this woman was brought back and prevented from leaving the country? Is he aware that in March, when I sought to question him as to why he did not take the same steps that he has now taken with regard to Miss Keeler, he took the view that he was not responsible because there was no warrant out for Miss Keeler's arrest? If this action can have been taken now, why was it not taken than?

The difference is exactly as was explained by my right hon. and learned Friend on Monday. In the one case Miss Rice-Davies was regarded as an essential witness. In the case of Miss Keeler, it was not considered that she was an essential witness for the furtherance of the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that, on the previous charge, when Miss Keeler was a witness, it was not essential that she should give evidence when someone had shot at her?

It is no responsibility of mine—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—to seek to bring back witnesses from abroad. I have answered the Question by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and have explained what I believe to be the difference between the circumstances in these cases.

Is it not a fact that, in the case where Miss Keeler was required to return to give her evidence at the Central Criminal Court, the case succeeded for the prosecution, although she did not appear?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House and the public are deeply disturbed and anxious about the question of propriety of some of these proceedings? When he says that Miss Keeler was not an essential witness in the previous case, is not he overlooking the fact that the prosecution withdrew, and the jury were directed to acquit on, the two main charges for the sole reason that they were unable to be proceeded with without Miss Keeler's evidence? Does it not therefore follow, and does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate, that Miss Keeler was indeed an essential witness in the case—far more so, one would judge, than Miss Rice-Davies in any subsequent case?

Without endorsing one word of what the hon. Gentleman has said, everything contained in his supplementary question appears to be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and not for me.

rose—

Order. We must get on.

Will the Home Secretary please explain—

Order. We really must get on.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of motoring offences were tried during 1962; and in how many cases a plea of guilty was entered.

The number of motoring offences dealt with by prosecution in 1962 was 989,812 and there were 953,600 findings of guilt. The number of persons prosecuted for these offences was 755,753, of whom 735,049 were found guilty. The statistics do not show the number of pleas of guilty.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, in the overwhelming number of minor motoring offences, the solicitor will always advise his client to plead guilty because of the expense and difficulty of attending to defend a plea of not guilty, especially since, in many cases, the court in which one has to make an appearance may be a long way away? Does this not mean that the scales are already overwhelmingly in favour of the police in these cases and that we should attempt to set up some kind of court for trying motoring offences which will impose a much less financial burden on people who wish to enter and defend a plea of not guilty?

That is an interesting and, to me, novel suggestion. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be willing to give it thought.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the increased expenditure on education in prisons and other penal institutions in the year 1963–64 will provide over and above the facilities provided during last year's standstill on educational expenditure.

The main effect of the increased financial provision for education in prisons, borstals and detention centres has been to increase the number of class-hours each week from 4,500 at the end of the financial year 1962–63 to 5,000 in the current financial year. It has also made possible certain increases in the provision for materials and equipment.

I welcome that improvement, but may I ask whether it means that every governor can call on as many part-time tutors as the reasonable demands of the inmates require? Secondly, does it mean that the hon. Lady's Department has as many full-time tutors as is desirable?

I do not think that we shall ever get to the situation where we are completely satisfied, but we are aiming to give every prisoner the educational opportunities he requires.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the concern about the inadequacy of the law for the protection of life against fire at residential establishments and places of resort, such as clubs; and whether he will seek to amend it.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I have examined the law applying to premises of this kind and have concluded that it needs to be both strengthened and rationalised. It is proposed to discuss with the local government organisations and other interested bodies the form that amending legislation should take.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that it will reassure many people in the West Riding and elsewhere who are very concerned about this matter? Will he make it a matter of urgency, for discussions of this sort could take a very long time?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. This is extremely important, but if we are to get our plans right, we must have time to discuss them with the local authority associations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will broaden the terms of reference of the Departmental Committee on Experiments to Animals so as to include an examination of the means by which animals are supplied for this purpose.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Committee's terms of reference are sufficiently wide to allow it to examine this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend bring this matter to the attention of the Committee? Is he aware that there is great concern that both cruelty and theft are being caused by a black market in this type of thing? Will he draw that to the attention of the Committee?

Yes, Sir. I am bringing to the attention of the Committee what my hon. Friend feels about this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Metropolitan Police are taking to deal with the stealing of lorries together with their contents, which has become widespread; whether he is satisfied that the penalties that may be imposed on those who help in various ways are adequate for this type of crime; and what proportion of criminals responsible for the robberies which have taken place have been caught in the last five years.

It is primarily the responsibility of the owner to protect the contents of his vehicles against theft, but the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis is paying particular attention to this increasing problem. The maximum penalties for this type of offence range from 5 years' to 14 years' imprisonment. I do not think it necessary to increase them. Subject to the maximum provided by the law, the penalty to be imposed in any particular case is a matter entirely within the discretion of the court. Separate statistics of arrests made are available only for larcenies from goods vehicles and from 1961 onwards. With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the chairman of one of the sessions has stated that "hi-jacking" is becoming a very big industry? Although I agree that the penalties within the limits he has mentioned are sufficient, in view of the seriousness of the position will he give some indication that heavier penalties should be imposed?

The position is very serious, but the hon. Gentleman knows well that it is not for me to make any recommendations to the courts as to the use of their discretion within the maximum penalties permitted by Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report on After-Care from his Advisory Committee.

I understand that the Sub-Committee of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders which has been reviewing the organisation of after-care has recently completed its report, and that the report is shortly to be considered by the full Council, which will then submit its views to me.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have been waiting for this report for a very long time and the news that at last we are to have it is very welcome? As we have been waiting such a long time, win the right hon. Gentleman take steps to act as soon as he receives the report?

I feel sure that the Committee will have done a very good job. Its inquiry covered an immensely wide range—prisons, borstals, detention centres and approved schools. I shall certainly give very close consideration to the report the moment I get it, because I regard the whole matter as of the highest importance.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that in 1961 and1962, when the home use of steel fell substantially, the position was aggravated by a simultaneous reduction in stocks, thus causing a fall in production greatly in excess of the fall in the use of steel; and if he will consult with the Iron and Steel Board with a view to making an arrangement to prevent a recurrence of such avoidable decline in the rate of production and employment in the industry.

Yes, Sir. The Iron and Steel Board has considered the possibility of arrangements to moderate stock fluctuations, but it came to the conclusion, as mentioned in its Annual Report for 1961, that no solution could be found. The margin of steel-making capacity now available should check such tendencies in future.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there was a fall in production during 1962 compared with 1960 of 3¼million tons? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that during this period world production of steel rose by 36 million tons, and does he realise that while half a million tons were drawn from stock during 1961, 1million tons were drawn from stock during 1962? Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to consult the Iron and Steel Board with a view to stopping a recurrence of this during circumstances similar to those we experienced during 1962?

My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts, and these matters are constantly discussed with the Iron and Steel Board. What I have said is that now there is surplus steel-making capacity available people tend not to have such heavy stocks, so one hopes that there will not be the fluctuations to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that a further reduction in the home use of steel by 940,000 tons in 1962 was accompanied by a reduction in exports and an increase in imports, which together caused a further drop in home steel production of 1,600,000 tons; and what steps he is taking to stimulate increased activity in this industry.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the changes in steel production, consumption and trade in 1961 and 1962. The level of activity in the steel industry depends mainly on the level of activity in the economy as a whole, and the House is aware of the far-reaching measures which the Government has taken to stimulate demand.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this great industry suffers perhaps more than any other British industry from the recurring interference of the Government's "stop-go" policy. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it is time he and his right hon. and hon. Friends got out of Government and left this industry with a clear "go-ahead" to do what it can do in the interests of Scotland and the nation?

I can only disagree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Minister of Power what was the increase in the use of petrol and derv for transport purposes and of fuel oil for steam-raising, respectively, over the past five years, expressed in each case in percentages; and what was the amount of fuel oil imported in 1962.

The Answer contains a number of figures and I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures disclose that the market for fuel oil is rising very much more rapidly than that for petrol and derv and other refined oils? Does not this lead him to some fear lest there is a shortage of fuel oil in the not very distant future?

The figures show that there has been a greater increase for fuel oil than for motor spirit and derv, but there has been a very considerable increase on all sides. I think that this shows the need to keep a balance between imported and indigenous fuels. The fact is that we are still producing considerably more refined oil than we are using at home.

asked the Minister of Power what arrangements exist to co-ordinate the production and sales policies of the nationalised coal, gas, and electricity industries.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mother well (Mr. Lawson) on 28th March.

Since the Answer did not convey anything at all to the House, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are no further forward? Is he aware that all of us on this side of the House know that there is provision in the original Act for co-ordination, but the Government have repeatedly said that to them co-ordination means competition? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the reason for the inordinate delay in arriving at a decision on a generating station in Scotland is the direct result of the Government's policy? Will the Minister take a lesson from that and seek to take active measures to encourage real co-ordination without these industries spending lots of money to get at one another's throats?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has read my Answer to his hon. Friend. In it I said that I had regular meetings with the chairmen of the nationalised industries and that they had regular contacts with one another. That remains the case and is, I think, the best means of effective co-ordination in the future as it has been in the past.

asked the Minister of Power what arrangements exist for consultation between the Electricity Council and the South of Scotland Electricity Board in planning expansion of the generation and distribution of electricity supplies.

The chief officers of the Scottish Boards attend the Electricity Council's regular conferences of chief officers of electricity boards in England and Wales, where matters of common interest are discussed. The Council also organises close collaboration in research and development. In addition, the South of Scotland Electricity Board and Central Electricity Generating Board have arrangements for direct consultation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these arrangements are adequate, and that, despite the division of responsibility for generation between the C.E.G.B. and the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the country as a whole gets the most economic electricity supplies?

Certainly. The fulfilment of the demand for electricity directly north of the border is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the responsibility of the South of Scotland Electricity Board. This Board will decide for itself how it can most economically provide the electricity for that demand. If it wants some from England, it will ask the C.E.G.B. to supply it. If it decides to develop its own electricity, it will make the necessary preparations.

asked the Prime Minister what communications he has recently received from the Greek Government regarding the proposed visit to Great Britain of the King and Queen of the Hellenes.

Any communications of this nature would be confidential.

Can the Prime Minister at least say whether he has any information clarifying the present position as between the King of the Hellenes and his previous Prime Minister, lately resigned? Is it not rather unusual, in a democracy, for a constitutional monarch to reject the advice of his Prime Minister?

This is a matter for the Greek Government and constitution. We are simply waiting for our Greek allies to decide.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation making it compulsory for political parties to issue annual balance sheets indicating their complete sources of income.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how serious and detrimental is this method when unknown donations are received by political parties? Do they not definitely need examination and ought not the public to be aware of them?

I think that this is more a matter for debate than for Question and Answer.

Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his Answer? Does he not realise that there are two aspects to this matter? One is the right of the electors to know how the parties are being financed and the other is the right of shareholders to know how their money is being spent without their knowledge. Does he not owe it to both groups to introduce some legislation to get people some rights in this matter?

As the hon. Gentleman says, this is a wide question, but I do not think that I can deal with it in Question and Answer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this business, as in others, a very large body of opinion in this country has full confidence in his leadership?

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the consultations he has had with the heads of state of Commonwealth nations regarding the recognition of the independence of Southern Rhodesia.

Her Majesty's Government are in touch with other Commonwealth Governments on this question but in accordance with normal practice such consultations are confidential.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the House will have to make the ultimate decision upon this matter, it is desirable that hon. Members should be aware of the point of view of other Commonwealth countries? Can he say whether it is the case, as has been reported not only in Salisbury but in London, that not only the Asian and African members of the Commonwealth, but some of the Dominions have expressed the view that the independence of Southern Rhodesia should not be accepted until there is a change in the Constitution?

Yes, Sir. I was referring to communications between Commonwealth Governments and ourselves which I think I have no right to make public. The hon. Member may have observed that in his speech in the Southern Rhodesian Legislature on 18th June, Mr. Winston Field referred to representations which had been made to him by the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand Governments when he was here in London.

As Mr. Field has made that statement, would not the Prime Minister think it better either to confirm or deny it, so that we know where we are in this matter? Assuming that Mr. Field is accurate, as one must surely assume, is it not an important part of the data on which we can reach a decision to have confirmation of his statement?

I am certain that the statement is correct, but that is rather different from publishing the texts of communications which I may have received from Commonwealth Governments.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Lord President of the Council to the North-East Development Council at Newcastle on Friday 14th June, on the needs of the North-East, represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his speech the Lord President of the Council indicated that he had too many jobs and was overworked, a viewpoint with which many of us in the North-East concur? Will he look more closely into this matter before the many jobs which the Lord President of the Council has become one, as they may, in the near future?

I am sure that the Lord President is quite capable of carrying out the work now entrusted to him.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the speech of the Lord President of the Council to the North-East Development Council was extremely well received? Is he further aware that the vast majority of those present, together with the Press of the area, saw this speech as a brilliant appreciation of the underlying problems of the area and its long-term prospects?

Yes, Sir. I am aware of that and I feel sure that, apart from any question of party considerations, the work that the Lord President of the Council has done in the North-East is very much appreciated by the people there.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of widespread opinion that the time is not opportune, he will ask President Kennedy to defer his visit to this country for the time being.

No, Sir.

If the visit is still on, does not the Prime Minister think that the President should be given the opportunity of exchanging views with a new Prime Minister and not a Prime Minister who is under notice to quit and whose political status at home and abroad is inevitably impaired?

The hon. Gentleman has made his point in a way which is characteristic of him, with his usual courtesy, and I leave it at that.

asked the Prime Minister what action he is taking to implement the obligation he accepted to use his best endeavours to develop a multilateral North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear force which would ultimately include the proposed British Polaris submarines.

At Nassau we looked forward to creating a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear force, initially by the assignment of existing forces and later by the introduction of new weapons, to include British Polaris submarines. The first steps to this end were taken by the organisation of nuclear forces approved at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial meeting at Ottawa. Agreement has been reached with the United States Government on the provision of Polaris missiles for British submarines. The creation of a mixed-manned element is under consideration.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his colleague the Minister of Defence yesterday informed the House that Her Majesty's Government had already discharged their obligations under paragraph 7 of the Nassau communiqué, namely, to use their best endeavours to set up a multilateral nuclear force? Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether this most important statement represents the views of Her Majesty's Government as a whole, and whether it also represents the views of the United States Government who also signed the communiqué?

We fully carried out our obligations. We are now considering whether we can help, and if we should help and in what way, the further step which was mentioned in, I think, paragraph 9 of the communiqué.

When the Prime Minister meets President Kennedy, will he ask him whether the American Government feel that Her Majesty's Government are carrying out to the full their obligations under the Nassau Agreement in this particular, and in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to interpret the Nassau Agreement with the fiction that it gives this country an independent nuclear deterrent, will he ask the President of the United States whether he thinks that Britain is going to have an independent nuclear deterrent?

That part of the Nassau Agreement was discussed in great detail and, as the result, the conclusion was reached which is known to the House and has been debated at great length by which, while we will in all normal circumstances assign British nuclear submarines with Polaris missiles to N.A.T.O., we reserve the right in special circumstances of national danger to withdraw them for our own need.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the proposals agreed on at Nassau, which are familiar to hon. Members, have now been superseded by the proposal for a mixed-manned force and in particular by the suggestion that instead of the adoption of the Polaris submarine we should accept the proposal for surface vessels carrying missiles? In view of the change in the situation, and in view of the evasive answers which we received from the Minister of Defence yesterday when he was asked about the probable cost and the nature of the operation conceived by the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Minister of Defence to make a statement to the House which can be debated, particularly as the proposals have been hotly contested by hon. Members on both sIdes of the House?

These matters are under consideration and have to be discussed with us and our allies. If and when any decision is reached it will be stated to the House and there will be an opportunity for debate.