asked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements have been made for training the crews of V-bombers in their new low-level rôle.

Up to date, training has been carried out in this country but, as I said in my reply to a Question on 16th January, from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) the Canadian Government have agreed in principle to the V-force using a low level training route in Canada as an extension of existing training facilities there. Route proving flights have since been flown in Canada and good progress is being made with the detailed arrangements.

Although this may be considered a minor point, will not some annoyance be caused to people in the areas underlying these flights if the V-bombers fly at near sonic speeds at a height of 500 ft.? What estimate has been made of the effect low-level training flights will have on the operational life of the V-bombers, and why is it thought that by flying at the height of 500 ft. they can avoid interception?

We are carefully looking at the question of trouble being caused to individual civilians. There are three general routes in this country and they are kept as far away as possible from any centres of population. We have had little trouble on this score in the past. I will be answering the wider question about the efficiency and efficacy of the V-force at low level in the debate later.

Before the right hon. Gentleman makes his speech in the debate, which we are awaiting with great interest, can he not tell us whether in the training programmes any wear or excessive strain on the planes has been revealed?

No, Sir. I will be dealing with that point in the debate. We have fatigue meters in all these aircraft, many of which are new and some of which are less than a year old. There have been no signs at all of the difficulty the hon. Member mentions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that there is no danger of these planes flying at supersonic speeds?

I have another Question to answer on that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the estimated cost of modifications to the V-bomber aircraft and training of their crews involved by the proposed low-level strike rôle.

It would not be in the public interest to reveal the cost of the aircraft modifications involved. But, in relation to the total capital cost of the V-force, it is very small. The cost of training V-bomber crews is not significantly affected by the altitudes at which this training is undertaken.

The House will realise that this is a most unsatisfactory Answer. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are becoming increasingly concerned because we get no information whatever about any financial aspects of defence policy. Other Governments—the United States Government, for example—issue for public circulation the most detailed cost figures for missiles and planes, and almost all aspects of their finance. Surely, this cost can be given to the House, and if the right hon. Gentleman will not give it now, will he justify his conduct in the debate that is to follow?

I am afraid that I always find it difficult to justify my conduct to the hon. Gentleman, but I will endeavour to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what instructions he proposes to give to pilots of TSR2 bombers in order to safeguard the civilian population, in view of the low-flying operations of these machines.

Low-level flying by Royal Air Force aircraft is already most carefully controlled. Each flight has to be specifically authorised in writing; a minimum height is laid down and routes are chosen so as to cause the least possible disturbance to the public. In particular, pilots are briefed to avoid built-up areas. The same stringent precautions will apply to the TSR2.

Since there is nothing more terrifying than living in an area over which aircraft fly low, will the right hon. Gentleman consider acquiring some of the depopulated villages which have been designated by local town planning authorities as areas which are virtually dying and utilise them for this purpose and, as far as possible, minimise, if not eliminate, the necessity for pilots and crews to be trained in rooftop flying over centres of population?

R.A.F. aircraft will not be required to fly supersonically at low level in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why a memorandum reference 44/64, giving information about the Royal Air Force Anniversary Concert, 1964, was circulated in the Air Ministry under a restricted security heading.

Hitherto staff memoranda have been regarded as part of a restricted series. I think this practice can be improved upon. In future each memorandum will be classified according to its content. I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing this matter to my attention—and I almost feel like asking for the hon. Member to be invited to the concert.

I would not mind coming to the concert if the right hon. Gentleman will get the Prime Minister to take the same action over the whole of the Civil Service and so get rid of this nonsense.

This matter is always under review, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that an improvement has been made.

The whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for his efforts, but can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not only look at this series but at restrictions on security generally because of the growing feeling that this House and the country generally have been denied essential but not security matter on which to form a real judgment of defence policies?

I am aware of the point the hon. Member has in mind and he may know that I have had a look at the matter at a higher level to see if we can make some improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why he is requiring civilian air traffic controllers to join the Royal Air Force or lose their jobs.

About 80 civilians are employed on behalf of the United States Air Force for air traffic control duties at American bases in this country. They were recruited on a temporary basis specifically for this purpose. Because of a reduction in the number of U.S.A.F. bases, about 24 will be redundant by the end of June. I am not responsible, of course, for this reduction in the requirements of the U.S.A.F.

Does it not look a little like conscription by back-door methods to say to these men, who have done useful work in the past, "Join up, or be sacked"? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, first, that there is a shortage of air traffic controllers and, secondly, that in the new national air traffic control organisation, which looks after civilian and Service aircraft, there is room for this kind of qualified person, who really should not be thrown on the scrap heap?

I have made very special offers and terms for these people. All their training has been looked at, and if they come into the Royal Air Force they will be given seniority based on the work they have already done. Those young enough can compete for establishment in the Ministry of Aviation. As I have already said, some 40 of them have put in inquiries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the air traffic controller, acting in the civilian capacity, has for long been dissatisfied with his salary position? Will that state of things be cured if these men are conscripted into the Royal Air Force, and what effect does he think that will have on civilians?

There is no question of conscripting anyone into the Royal Air Force. These men are on short-term contract. We have made them an offer. If they want to come into the R.A.F. we shall be happy to have them, and training and skill will be taken into consideration as to seniority.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what sum was expended on new aircraft and equipment for the Royal Air Force in the financial year 1959–64; what sum is proposed for this purpose for 1964–65; and what percentage of these sums has been allocated to Bomber Command, Fighter Command and Transport Command, respectively.

Expenditure on new airframes, engines and major weapons for the years 1959–64, was approximately £510 million, of which some 43 per cent. was for Bomber Command, 28 per cent. for Fighter Command and 13 per cent. for Transport Command. Expenditure for 1964–65 is estimated at £64 million, of which the corresponding percentages are 17 per cent., 35 per cent., and 5 per cent. respectively.

Does not the Secretary of State consider, looking back, that it would have been much better had a greater amount of the new aircraft expenditure been on Transport Command and rather less on Bomber Command, in view of the great strains now being placed on the mobility of air forces?

No, Sir. I think that we have recently met all our mobility requirements—and that is perfectly true —but next year, 1965–66, we shall have the Belfast and the VC10 putting a heavy load on Transport Command finance.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he is planning far enough in advance to meet the needs of Transport Command?

I am planning quite a way ahead, yes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to empower persons other than the applicant to appeal against the decision of the licensing justices to grant a licence for a betting shop.

No, Sir.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that as the applicant for a betting licence has the right of appeal if his application is refused, those who oppose the application should also have this right of appeal? Is he aware that in the London areas, and in the fringes, a number of local authorities are getting concerned at the proliferation of betting shops? Is he also aware that, in Carshalton, the council has three times opposed the granting of a betting shop licence and, on each occasion, its opposition has been turned down? Does not my hon. Friend feel that the position should be looked at?

We naturally looked at the position as soon as my hon. Friend put down his Question, but we cannot see any grounds for altering the present procedure for an appeal, which is in line with that for the grant of planning permission under the Act. The Franks Committee looked at the matter in connection with planning permission, and came to the conclusion that it would be impracticable to provide for third-party appeals in the case of licensing. It seems to me that there is certainly no stronger case here, because, as his constituency experience shows, it is possible to renew objections annually.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that although a planning authority may decide that there should not be a betting shop in a certain place, there is no need for the committee responsible for licensing to take notice of the planning authority's recommendation; and that in many cases licences have been granted when the local authority has refused planning permission?

As the hon. Lady knows, the Home Office is not responsible for planning matters. The decision rests, and must be left to rest, with the licensing authority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of concern about the contents of the Home Office Circular 31/64, being the publication containing the new Judges' Rules and Administrative Directions to the police, he will introduce legislation to govern the rights and duties of police officers when questioning any person from whom they may believe useful information leading to discovery of offenders may be obtained.

No, Sir.

Is not the Home Secretary aware that there has been considerable criticism of these Rules by the police and by lawyers, who are concerned both as to their content and their practicability? Would it not be desirable to afford this House an opportunity for public debate of Rules that fundamentally alter the law on the admissi- bility of evidence? Is not it desirable that we should not abdicate the responsibilities of this legislature in matters affecting the liberties of the subject to people whose job it is not to make the law of this land?

I do not, of course, control the debates in this House, but the Judges' Rules give guidance on the circumstances in which evidence would be regarded by the judges as admissible or not admissible, and the judges can exercise their discretion to determine whether the evidence in a case should or should not be admissible. I doubt whether we could get the same flexibility with any statutory rules.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these Rules do not merely affect the admissibility of evidence in court but also affect the whole question of how suspected persons should be dealt with while in custody? Does he now realise that these new Rules have been severely criticised—and I would emphasise this—by the police themselves, and by lawyers, the Law Society, and others concerned with the administration of justice? Does he not agree that a matter of this kind, which is in the nature of legislation, should be fully ventilated by this House at an early opportunity?

I saw criticism from both sides when the Rules were first promulgated, but, surely, the right course is to see how they work in practice, and then consider the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why notices describing the rights and facilities available to persons in custody in police stations in the Metropolitan area were not on display by 27th January, 1964, as required by the administrative directions circulated by him; and whether such notices are now on display at all police stations in the Metropolitan area.

As soon as it was known that the new Judges' Rules were to come into operation on 27th January, immediate steps were taken by the Metropolitan Police to have the new notices printed and displayed. The notices were distributed on 31st January, and have since then been on display in all Metropolitan Police stations.

Is the Home Secretary aware that, whatever may be occurring in London, there seems to be good ground to believe that these notices are not being widely distributed throughout the country? Would he be prepared to give administrative instructions to make sure that the notices—which it is suggested within the administrative regulations should be in every police station—are there, so that there should be no appearance of oppressiveness against anybody now in custody?

The Rules should appear everywhere. I do not think that I have power to give directions to the provincial police forces in these matters, but I shall certainly bring what the hon. Gentleman says to the attention of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary.

To take a specific case, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that all persons in custody are informed that one of his own Rules—Item No. 7—is to the effect that any person in custody should be allowed to speak on the telephone to his solicitor or to his friends, and that that notice is brought home to anybody in custody?

Yes, sir. That is one of the objects of these Rules. The notices are on display throughout the Metropolitan police stations, and I have every reason to believe that they are also displayed throughout the provincial forces.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for improving the law relating to the payment of maintenance by husbands who desert their families.

The law relating to matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts was consolidated, with amendments, in the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act, 1960. This Act was based on the recommendations of a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Arthian Davies which reported in 1959. My right hon. Friend has no proposals for further amendments of this branch of the law at present.

Despite his Answer, is my hon. Friend aware that the law still does not seem to work and that there are many of these deserted wives living in Newcastle and there must be many thousands of them in the country generally and that all they seek is the right to maintain themselves and their children? Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is totally wrong that they have to go through this terrible paraphernalia to chase their husbands and obtain their money? I ask my hon. Friend to look at the matter again.

This, of course, is a matter at which we are very willing to look, but the only innovation contained in my hon. Friend's Question is that the State should take over this responsibility, and take over the responsibility of extracting the money from defaulting husbands. But the power to extract money from defaulting husbands already lies with the courts and there is no new instrument that we could produce for the purpose.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty is that the court grants an order but it is afterwards very difficult to trace where a husband has gone? Could not his Department do more to ensure that a husband is found and that he pays his wife?

I am sorry to have to tell the hon Lady that our means of obtaining information about the location of missing persons are no greater than those of the courts.

That does not satisfy the situation. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that because of the present situation many of these women are forced on to National Assistance very much against their will, the husband goes scot-free and the State has to look after the women? It is absolutely impossible in some cases for these women to have the resources to go about chasing their husbands. Will not the hon. Gentleman therefore look at the situation again?

The hon. Lady is qiute right in saying that in such circumstances the State has to look after the matter. This is precisely what the suggestion in my hon. Friend's Question amounted to. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The problem is to extract the money from the defaulting husband. If in the last resort a man is prepared to go to prison for several weeks, which is the present law, there is no power to extract the money from him.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases courts have ordered drivers, who have previously passed their driving test, and who have been convicted of the more serious driving offences listed in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, to take the driving test again.

The relevant part of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, came into force on 29th May, 1963, and statistics of the number of drivers—including those who have previously passed their driving test—who have been disqualified until they take the test, after conviction of offences listed in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act, will be available only after the end of 1964.

If it is a fact that in many cases the courts are reluctant to use their powers under the Act, should it not now be made obligatory on the courts to take away the licence of any motorist involved in a serious offence under the Act and not allow him to regain it until he has passed another and severe driving test?

I have no evidence of the reluctance to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will look at the point he raises.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the recent Vatican Council's recommendation that the date of Easter should be fixed, he will now initiate discussions with the Christian churches in this country with a view to reaching agreement on bringing into operation the Easter Act 1928.

If the Easter Act, 1928, were now brought into operation, the effect would be that, at any rate for a period, Easter would be celebrated on a different date in the United Kingdom from the rest of the world. I believe that this would not be acceptable to the Christian Churches in this country. A new situation would arise if a worldwide agreement among Churches on a fixed Easter seemed to be attainable, and I think that I should now institute consultations with the Churches in this country as to the possibility of that happening.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Is he aware that if he were to attempt to interpolate a year-day to rationalise the calendar he would meet objections from Christians, Jews, and I believe Mohammedans? Is he aware that the proposals of the 1928 Act—that Easter be the first Sunday after the second Saturday—would meet no religious objections and that among the national institutions that would benefit would be the financial year, school holidays and Parliamentary Recesses.

I deduce from my hon. Friend's supplementary question that he approves the terms of my Anwer.

In the meantime, is it the Government's intention to make any statement on altering the dates of Bank Holidays?

That is not a question for me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce legislation to enable justices of the peace to claim reasonable allowances in lieu of loss of wages.

This matter was raised on the Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill on 29th January, and it may well be discussed further by the Standing Committee which will shortly be starting its consideration of that Bill.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. Will he take into account the fact that many justices of the peace who attend to their duties are now sufferiing because of loss of income? Is he also aware that there are many who cannot attend to their duties because of loss of wages and that there are also many people who would make very capable justices but who are reluctant to allow their names to go forward because they cannot afford to lose wages while attending court?

Representations of that character were made on Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill, which, of course, provides for the first time subsistence allowances for justices. It would not surprise me if some hon. Member moved an Amendment to the Bill and if that happened I would consider all that would be said. The hon. Member would not like me to reach a decision until I have heard the arguments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the practice of his Department with regard to the recording of messages from outside bodies, and particularly of telephone messages from newspapers.

Messages from outside bodies received in the Home Office are noted in the relevant official papers. Details of an inquiry made by telephone on a routine matter are not necessarily recorded, but a note is kept of any inquiry involving a matter of importance, and of the answer given. In addition, questions asked by newspapers are recorded if they necessitate inquiry within the Department.

Will the Home Secretary look at this matter again? Evidently his present procedure has gone astray. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have had correspondence with his Department about a certain prisoner and that my local newspaper telephoned his office on two separate occasions and on both occasions a Home Office representative said that there was no knowledge, record or information whatsoever about the case. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on both occasions the newspaper claimed that that was the reply given to it? Surely there must be something wrong, because for months past there has been this correspondence.

I have seen the correspondence. The hon. Member is not quite right. On 1st January the paper concerned telephoned the Home Office and was told that a letter sent to the Home Office was being considered and that a reply would be sent in due course. There is, however, no trace whatever of any subsequent telephone inquiry by the newspaper.

Even accepting what the Home Secretary had said, may I ask why the newspaper was told on the first occasion that there was no information about this matter and the newspaper published that reply on two separate occasions? There must be something wrong somewhere.

The hon. Member has got it wrong. I have explained what happened and I have indicated the information which was given in reply to the first inquiry. There is no trace whatever of the second inquiry having been made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he consulted consumer interests before agreeing to the recent increases in London taxi fares.

My right hon. Friend, naturally, regards it as incumbent upon him, when considering an application for an increase of taxi fares, to take into account the interest of the travelling public as well as to see that the taxi trade receives a fair return.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the 2s. fare now becomes 2s. 6d. and the 8s. 6d. fare becomes 11s., and that those changes represent increases of 25 to 30 per cent.? How can he defend such increases to a particular section of the community when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are urging industrial, professional and commercial workers not to make demands for increases beyond 4 per cent.?

The increase was an average of 25 per cent. over the whole range of fares—

That is still no excuse.

—and it was the first such increase made for seven years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the primary interests of the travelling public is that there should be a taxi service and that taxis should not disappear from the streets.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this increase is, in fact, at a rate lower than that recommended for industry generally and that, it an increase at least as large as this had not been made, there would have been no taxis for people to use in London?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and because it does not give the true facts, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of the Irish Republic have been convicted of indictable offences in Great Britain since the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act; and what were the corresponding figures relating to citizens of Commonwealth countries who are covered by the provisions of the Act.

I regret that this information is not available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of the Irish Republic, and how many citizens from Commonwealth countries, have been recommended for deportation since the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.

Up to 31st January, 540 and 422 respectively.

I thank my right hon. Friend for those illuminating but disturbing figures. Does he consider that the time has now come, or is fast approaching, when he should study the possibility of controlling the hitherto unrestricted flow of Irish immigrants into this country?

That would require either control at the British ports or control along the land frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that these figures are a very small proportion of the number of immigrants?

Yes, I certainly agree.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps, as recommended by the Second Report of the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council, to appoint a full-time officer to co-operate with local authorities and voluntary bodies interested in the welfare of Commonwealth immigrants, and to collect and circulate information.

The Advisory Council recommended that a Government grant should be made to finance the appointment of such an officer by a voluntary committee. As I announced in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) on 6th February, the Government accept this recommendation, and the necessary provision is being made in Estimates.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that that reply will be very generally welcomed?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the strength of the inspectorate concerned with approved schools; how frequently such schools are inspected; and, in particular, when were the last two occasions upon which inspections were carried out at Greenacres, Calne, Wiltshire.

The number of children's department inspectors who are normally concerned with approved schools is 36. The aim is that each approved school shall be visited by an inspector at least six times a year. Apart from a visit on 30th January, 1964, in connection with the hon. Member's recent letter to me, Greenacres School was last visited on 21st November, 1963, and 6th January, 1964.

Is the Home Secretary satisfied, from the reports made by inspectors as a result of their inspections, that comparable conditions apply in all schools as regards the treatment of pupils and, particularly, the imposition of punishments?

Yes, Sir; but I should like to give a fuller answer in reply to the hon. Gentleman's next Question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the trouble is due to the fact that many approved schools are run by self-appointed local committees which are responsible to nobody? Is it not the case that the managers of this particular approved school are a local committee not under any form of democratic control whatever? When will the right hon. Gentleman take action with regard to the whole of the approved school system?

I cannot accept the argument about "most of the trouble" as though there were constant trouble regarding the management of approved schools. In fact, there are very few complaints about it, and I should hesitate to say that local authority schools were better run than voluntary approved schools, or vice versa.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent his Department controls punishments imposed at approved schools; and what are the conditions governing the use of detention rooms at such schools.

The range of punishments is prescribed in the approved school rules. Within the permitted range, the punishment imposed in a particular case is a matter for the school, but all punishments are reported quarterly to the Home Office. The rules also prescribe conditions for the use of detention rooms, the most important of which are that there shall be means of communication with a member of the staff and that detention shall not be continued for more than 24 hours without the written consent of one of the school managers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the publicity arising from the recent case on which I have had correspondence with his Department, it appears that the particular school concerned has a rather bad record in this respect and that correspondence I have received suggests that there is a great disparity in the imposition of punishments? Is it not most desirable, therefore, that his inspectorate should see that punishments approximate to one another from school to school and are not dependent, as they seem to be in this case, upon the enterprise of the local managers?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I am deeply concerned about a particular matter which occurred at this school. At the same time, I am informed that it is the first serious complaint regarding a punishment in this school for 10 years. I am extremely anxious to get the matter thoroughly cleared up, and I should be pleased to have a talk with the hon. Gentleman about it, if he would like that.

May we assume from that reply that it is the desire and intention of the right hon. Gentleman that it should not matter to anyone sent to an approved school whether he or she goes to one or another school, and that there should be comparable standards in regard to punishments and detention rooms throughout the whole system?

It must matter whether they go to one or another because some approved schools are for Roman Catholic children and some are not. But I am in process of revising the approved school rules, and all approved schools must see that the rules are adhered to.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent recommendation, a copy of which has been sent to him, made by the Law Committee and the General Purposes Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations that the costs of prosecutions undertaken by the Director of Public Prosecutions, either directly or using a local agent, should be borne by the Exchequer, he will now reconsider his decision not to seek to alter the law as it stands at present on this matter.

I received the recommendation of the Association of Municipal Corporations the day before yesterday. I am considering it.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the old law dates back to days long before there were motor cars, aeroplanes or railways and that it is grossly unfair, for instance, to a place like Brighton which has been landed with the charges for the horse doping case in which there was no one from Brighton involved at all and to a place which faces a still worse case arising from the railway robbery in Buckinghamshire?

I have answered Questions about the mail train robbery, and I have said in reply to my hon. Friend that I am considering the letter which has come from the Association of Municipal Corporations which raises rather wider issues than those which have hitherto been put put to me in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many betting offices are now licensed to operate in the City of Liverpool; and how many applications are pending.

The numbers are 475 and 14 respectively.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some concern in Liverpool about the continuing growth of the number of betting shops in the city, and does he know that many magistrates are not satisfied that the powers they have to refuse an application are enough to see that the application does not succeed as it goes through further stages of appeal and application higher up?

I have no evidence of the disquiet among magistrates to which my hon. Friend refers. If he will communicate their anxieties to me, or if they will communicate them to the Home Office, we shall certainly consider them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in London also there are far too many betting shops and that this complaint could be applied to all our major cities? Is it not time that the local authorities had far more say than they have now? Cannot they be brought into the picture more and their objections be taken into account? We have more betting shops than grocer's shops in my constituency.

These are matters for the licensing committees.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a prisoner who appeals against his sentence, and is retained in custody during the period of waiting, has to serve up to 42 days in addition to his sentence, as the period of waiting in prison is not calculated as part of the sentence; and if he will take steps to ensure that any prisoner who appeals against his sentence will not in future be penalised in this way.

The law on this subject, which is contained in Section 38(2) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 and is not exactly as stated in the Question, will be among the matters open to review by the Committee on the Court of Criminal Appeal, of whose appointment I informed the House yesterday.

Is the Home Secretary aware that a prisoner who is aggrieved at the severity of his sentence is told that he can appeal, but it is said, in effect, that during the period of his appeal he will remain in prison and this will not be part of his sentence? Does not this place a penalty upon a man for exercising the right to appeal against his sentence which the law gives him?

The prisoner does not lose time it he has received leave to appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal or if he is given a certificate for appeal by the judge who tried him. I think that it is important to have some discouragement to wildly irresponsible appealing, but, as I have said, the law will be under review by this new Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider his decision not to advise Her Majesty to consent to place her interest in so far as it is affected by the Titles (Abolition) Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.

I wrote to the hon. Member that it appeared most unlikely that an opportunity would arise for this Bill to be debated on Second Reading, and that I did not have in mind to make a recommendation to Her Majesty. That remains the position.

Does not the Home Secretary realise that, when the House unanimously gives leave to introduce a Bill, it is his constitutional duty to get the Queen's consent, according to precedent? Why is he going on strike in this matter?

It is not my constitutional duty. If the hon. Member wishes to have his Bill debated, I wonder why he has put it down for a date in the middle of the Whitsun Recess.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the Leader of the House has not yet announced the date of the Whitsun Recess? Is he further aware that I postponed my Bill out of chivalry because of certain events in connection with Her Majesty, and this is the reward I get?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman's decision not to recommend Her Majesty to consent depend upon his judgment about the likelihood of time being found to debate the Bill in the House of Commons? Was it because he thought that this would arise in the Whitsuntide Recess that he decided not to make the recommendation, or has he some other reason? If he has some other reason, would he indicate it to the House, because it seems to many of us that the purpose of Parliament would be frustrated and defeated if, when it gives unanimous leave for a Bill to be introduced, the Home Secretary can frustrate that purpose by not getting the necessary recommendation?

The question of whether I should make a recommendation or not is one on which I must act in my own discretion. As I said, at present I see no likelihood of time being found for this Bill.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment before the Whitsun Recess.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what co-operative action is taken between the Metropolitan and other police authorities in order to check overall journey times of vehicles subject to vehicle speed limits.

All police forces cooperate closely when making inquiries into possible offences against the law and collaboration arrangements operate between forces policing a number of main trunk routes, but any general check on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would be impracticable.

The hon. Gentleman says that it is impracticable, but is he aware that that is not so in the case of speed limit vehicles and that overall checks of journey times involving cooperative action by the police are factual? He should ask the forces to think of the possibility of doing this. Will he look at the article in The Times of 11th February and ask his right hon. Friend to do something about this matter?

We have consulted the police on this matter, but if the hon. Member will reflect on the practical difficulties here, such as the fact that speed limits vary at different points on different roads and that on the motorways there is no speed limit at all except for towed vehicles, he will realise that it would be an impracticable procedure for the police to operate.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the Powell Report on the Nuclear Power Programme.

The Committee has now submitted a Report to the Government and this is being studied.

In considering the Report, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are those who are disappointed with the development of marine reactors and with the nuclear power stations, which are still uneconomic? Will he issue a White Paper for the information of the House?

I will consider the points which my hon. Friend has raised. I have said that I will consider in what form the information can be given to the House.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when I asked a question on the all-important matter of nuclear power the other day I was given the answer which I was given seven years ago? Does this indicate the speed of action on the modernisation of Britain for which, apparently, the Government are supposed to stand?

Whoever answered my hon. Friend was at least consistent. However, I will look into the matter.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that, since the last contract has now been placed for the generating stations of the current nuclear programme, there is extreme anxiety about the long delay in producing this Report and the great secrecy surrounding, it?

I think that I have explained to the hon. Member a number of times why the Report took so long to produce, namely, because certain prototypes of power reactors had to work for a time before the Committee could make up its mind and report.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, at the Guildhall on Tuesday, 10th February, on economic matters, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

While the Prime Minister may agree with the Secretary of State on resale price maintenance, may I ask him whether he is not rather worried that 14 of his otherwise well behaved supporters have already put down a Motion to reject the Bill out of hand and that this means that if 14 of them are prepared to kick over the traces they must be supported by at least 150 more? Is not the right hon. Gentleman anxious at being faced with a very grave revolt just before the General Election? In view of the dangerous situation in which he finds himself, will he say whether he is prepared to proceed with the Bill or not?

I think that the hon. Gentleman might have looked at unity in his own party before lecturing me on it in mine.

Would the Prime Minister ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a considered and comprehensive statement on the economy and the Government's view of it, because there seems to be some discrepancy between many statements made by members of the Government lately and the events which are taking place?

No doubt my right hon. Friend will oblige with a speech soon.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the progress of English as a universal language, he will advise the setting up of a Royal Commission to report on the best method of assisting this development and on the possibility, in conjunction with broadcasting, Eurovision, and other educational media, of recommending standards of pronunciation and some reconciliation of the written and the spoken word.

No. Sir. It would not be appropriate to establish a Royal Commission for this purpose. Existing national and international organisations to assist the development of English are already active, and conferences of national experts on the subject have been held in recent years.

Is the Prime Minister aware that to develop English as a universal language and to make it possible for people to communicate more easily with each other would be a less expensive and more satisfactory way of achieving peace and good will than perhaps even disarmament conferences?

As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of bodies are very active in this matter, including the British Council and the International Advisory Group, on which the Americans serve with us and other Commonwealth countries. Therefore, quite a lot is going on in this matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not get too enthusiastic; I might not be able to understand him.

Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of setting up, if not a Royal Commission, at any rate an inter-Departmental Committee to go into the question, which has not been answered, in respect of the reconciliation of writing with pronunciation? As an alphabet is already being very widely used in the English speaking world which brings about an acceptable reconciliation, will my right hon. Friend consider setting up an interdepartmental Committee, seeing that possibly this is an epochal development in the future of the English language?

This matter of reconciliation of the written and spoken word has been considered very often by a number of bodies. I will consider what my hon. Friend says. I am rather doubtful whether I should set up a special committee for this.

Will my right hon. Friend resist to the uttermost any attempt to standardise the English language? One of the beauties of the English tongue and life in this country is that we have such wide local variations.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of recent scientific reports on the causal connection between cigarette-smoking and lung cancer, he will arrange for consultations between the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health and the Treasury on the probable results of reductions in the price of cigarettes made possible by the abolition of resale price maintenance, and on the extent to which any consequent increase in the consumption of cigarettes can be offset by inducements to smokers to smoke cigars and pipes instead.

All the implications of these reports for Government policy are considered by the Departments concerned and I am satisfied that the arrangements for inter-departmental consultations are adequate.

Are the Prime Minister and his colleagues serious in their intention to abolish resale price maintenance? Are they also serious in their intention to tackle the dangers to health from cigarette smoking? Does the Prime Minister realise that, in the context of this aspect of the abolition of R.P.M., they cannot very well be serious about both?

I should have thought that we could certainly be serious about both. I cannot tell, I cannot judge at this stage what the effect of abolition of R.P.M. might be on the price of cigarettes, but I cannot think that anybody would feel that the Government are encouraging smoking when 3s. 4d. out of the cost of a 4s. 6d. packet is tax.

Since the Government have, apparently, embarked on a Measure to abolish R.P.M., and as this will affect tobacconists to a considerable extent, does he not think that he should have some idea of its possible effects?

I said that I would not judge in advance. I may have an idea, but I will not judge it in advance.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Copenhagen on 5th February, regarding non-involvement by the great Powers in South-East Asia, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

My right hon. Friend's speech, the full text of which is in the Library, did indeed represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Does the Prime Minister recollect that in that speech his right hon. Friend proposed that East and West should enter into an agreement to leave South-East Asia alone? Does not that mean neutralisation on the lines proposed by General de Gaulle? How can the Prime Minister reconcile that proposal with the support which he pledged to President Johnson for the American policy of intervention in Vietnam to support a tyranny imposed upon the South Vietnam people by the United States and in violation both of the 1954 Treaty and of the United Nations Charter, to which this country is a party?

In answer to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the American troops are there by invitation of the South Vietnam Government. With regard to the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend said "If East and West would leave South-East Asia alone", but if the hon. Member has seen the papers today he will have seen what is happening in Laos and in North Vietnam.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the declared policy of the new revolutionary Government in South Vietnam is the extermination of all Communists and neutralists? As this is in direct conflict with the Geneva agreements of 1954, will the Prime Minister explain whether, in signing with President Johnson the agreement to support American policy in South Vietnam, he has himself torn up the Geneva Agreements as a scrap of paper?

No, Sir. But the whole foundation of the Geneva Agreements was that the integrity and independence of South Vietnam should be recognised.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Saturday, 15th February, in Glasgow, about railway closures in Scotland, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland at Glasgow on Saturday, 15th February, regarding Scottish rail closures, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland concerning rail closures, delivered to the women's conference of the Western Divisional Council of the Scottish Unionist Association on Saturday, 15th February, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland on rail closures in Glasgow on Saturday, 15th February, 1964, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

My right hon. Friend's speech did not contain any new statement of policy. He described some of the possible implications of the Government's policy on the closure of railways.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that speech the Secretary of State said that despite what Dr. Beeching had said, some lines that were scheduled for closure would remain open for several years and some for one, two or three years? Does he recollect that he himself, in this House on 6th February, denied at least twice in answer to questions that that impression that was gained by the members of the Scottish Council when they saw him privately was incorrect? May we please have the truth on this matter and can the Government say whether they accept Beeching and whether the Minister of Transport agrees with the speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Dr. Beeching made proposals that certain railways might be closed. The responsibility for the decision lies with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. Time and again, ho and the Secretary of State have said that each case will be considered on its merits.

Is the Prime Minister aware that we have now had at least four different Ministerial statements about the Government's intentions regarding rail closures and that two of those different statements have come from the Prime Minister himself? Will he, therefore, clear up the confusion that exists by assuring the House that it is the Government's intention that a number of Scottish railway lines scheduled for closure shall not be closed, as the Secretary of State said? Will he also give a commitment that these concessions made to Scotland, if they are real, will be extended to other parts of the United Kingdom?

The confusion lies in hon. Members' minds. I have said time and again, and I repeat, that every case will be considered on its merits and decisions will be announced as soon as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has made up his mind.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that an announcement such as was made by the Secretary of State for Scotland makes nonsense of the proposals of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee? Would he not serve Scotland better if, knowing that some of the lines are not to be closed, he were to stop the closure notices and save people's time, energy and tempers?

Certain procedures have to be gone through. One is the Transport Users'—[Laughter.]—the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) laughs; I cannot understand why. Does he not want the hardship of users to be considered? It has to be considered, as have all the economic implications. Therefore the Minister of Transport, having considered all these matters, will then make his announcement.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite what he has said, there is considerable confusion in Scotland about the Government's policy? May we take it that despite what the Prime Minister said on 6th February, following the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland in Glasgow and following the Prime Minister's announce- ment this afternoon, important railway lines in Scotland like those north and west of Inverness will not be closed for up to three years? Is that now Government policy? Can we have a straight "Yes" or "No" to that question?

No one has ever said that that was Government policy. What we have said is that every case will be considered on its merits. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) does not want to listen, I need not answer, but I was doing him the courtesy of answering. If the economic conditions are such that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport wants longer to decide and he feels that a gap is necessary, he will say so.

Will my right hon. Friend make sure that after the hearings in Inverness on 9th and 10th March, a decision will be come to as quickly as possible, because the uncertainty in the area is causing a great deal of concern?

Yes, as soon as the Minister has the facts and has studied them. We want to get the answer right, but certainly as soon as possible.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement about the result of his recent talks with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.

I have nothing to add to what I told the House in reply to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) on 20th February.

In view of the statement made in Salisbury, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the talks are continuing and will continue? Will he do his best to reach a compromise which, while giving Africa further political advance, will lead to the independence to which Southern Rhodesia is so manifestly entitled?

This matter can only be settled by negotiation and conversations between our country and the Southern Rhodesian Government.

As the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia has accepted the principle of African majority rule, would the Prime Minister urge him to consider speeding up the process so that harmony and good will may exist among all maces?

I think that I, like the right hon. Gentleman, would wish to see a negotiated settlement of this matter. The present constitution contains the principle of majority rule. It is a matter of timing.

As the right hon. Gentleman, in the reply to which he referred, said that it would be best to leave this matter to negotiation by himself and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and as the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia stated yesterday that he did not consider any further negotiations would be useful, what is to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government now?

I think that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia said that he did not feel that he should initiate any more conversations. There are two opinions as to whether further conversations can be useful. I hope he will agree that they will be.