asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to bring up to date those Sections of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, which deal with abortion.

I have no present plans for legislation on this subject.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there are many establishments performing abortions, in many cases in appalling circumstances, and that this causes hardship to many young girls and a lot of misery in the homes? If my right hon. Friend wants details, the Abortion Law Reform Society can supply a considerable mass of details covering the last few years. Surely doctors in this country should have greater freedom, especially on eugenic and rape grounds, to perform abortions. It is over a hundred years since the last legislation on the subject was introduced. Surely it is a matter that the Government should consider now.

My hon. and gallant Friend knows that this is a highly controversial question. He has referred to the views of doctors. I am sure that he is also aware that there is a very strong body of opinion in the medical profession in favour of leaving the law as it is.

Does the Minister's Answer mean that he is satisfied with the present Statute and with all the consequences that flow from it, or does it merely mean that the Government regard it as inexpedient to embark on such controversial legislation at this stage of this Parliament?

Certainly not the latter. I am never satisfied, but I have doubts whether it is now appropriate to introduce legislation to amend this Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of widespread dissatisfaction with the present state of the electoral law, he will initiate all-party discussions with a view to possible amendments.

My right hon. Friend has no evidence of widespread dissatisfaction, but he is considering certain proposals for electoral reform put forward by the parties and from other sources.

Is the hon Gentleman aware that the provisions of the law as far as expenses are concerned are being deliberately flouted by the Tory Party, that the 1949 Act never intended that colossal sums of money should be spent in the way that they are being spent by the party opposite in the months preceding an election, and that action should be taken to stop this abuse of a democratic process?

I expected that the hon. Gentleman had some grievance on his mind, but I would remind him that it is the traditional practice that the electoral law should not be amended in the closing stages of a Parliament. I have given an indication that the whole subject is under review for action in the next Parliament.

Would my hon. Friend, in order to avoid what is in practice a restriction of the franchise, consider giving postal votes to those away on holiday?

This is the subject of a Private Member's Bill which is now before the House and I do not think it is a matter that can be dealt with by way of Question and Answer now.

May we take it, with regard to that Measure as well, that the Minister agrees that there should be no change in the electoral law in any respect in the closing stages of a Parliament?

I think that I have already made that clear.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the damaging effect on respect for English marriage laws resulting from couples from foreign countries who travel across England to take advantage of the marriage laws in Scotland as highlighted by the marriages at Gretna Green; and whether he will consult the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to agreeing the application of a code nearer to that of England in respect of persons not normally resident in Scotland, who wish to marry there.

I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the marriage of minors to which parental consent is required in England but not in Scotland. I understand that from time to time consideration has been given to the possibility of amending the Scottish law on the lines of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but that no practicable method of preventing such marriages has been found which would not involve a fundamental and unacceptable alteration of the Scottish marriage law.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is not a very robust Answer? While not wishing to exaggerate, may I ask whether he is aware that this long-established local racket is now becoming a European scandal, that even the West German Government are beginning to consider it and that people concerned with moral welfare on both sides of the Border have long felt that this is a situation which should be changed? Whereas I am concerned with the shame which reflects on Scotland, I am concerned with such part of the shame as reflects on England. This is happening just across our Border, and surely my hon. Friend will look at the matter again.

In so far as my hon. Friend's Question affects Scottish law, I must refer him to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I am unable to see how it can bring English law into disrepute if foreign minors marry in Scotland.

Would not the Joint Under-Secretary agree that if Europeans want to avail themselves of Scottish law at Gretna Green there is no need for them to go through England to do so?

It is also a misconception to link this practice exclusively with Gretna Green. It is exactly the same in any other part of Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps were taken to prevent any communication between Gordon Lonsdale and George Blake during the period when they were both imprisoned in Wormwood Scrubs Prison in 1961.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the further evidence now available regarding de association in Wormwood Scrubs Prison of Lonsdale and Blake, if he will make an investigation to see whether his instructions regarding these prisoners were fully carried out.

I would refer to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on 14th May.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is no truth at all in the recent reports in the Sunday Times on this matter, including the statement that a senior Whitehall official had stated that there was an association between these two men? If he cannot give that assurance, will my right hon. Friend say whether he agrees with that particular senior Whitehall official that any information passed on by Blake to Lonsdale must now be out of date, including, I presume, details of the interrogation methods we ourselves used against Blake?

I have had extensive inquiries made and I have no reason to believe that any Whitehall official made any statement that Lonsdale and Blake had communicated. As I said in my previous Answer, strict instructions were given that they should be kept apart. The recollection of those concerned suggests that they were kept apart, but I cannot, at the end of three years, prove conclusively anything one way or another. I certainly can say that even if Blake had had any chance to communicate information to Lonsdale in those few weeks when they were in Wormwood Scrubs together, it is highly doubtful whether it would have been of any interest or assistance to the Russians.

Was not the right hon. Gentleman's Answer rather evasive when he replied to me a few weeks ago saying that precautions were taken in accordance with instructions given to the Governor to prevent any communication between them? Is he aware that he did not, in fact, say that there was no communication? If there was no communication, what action will the right hon. Gentleman take in regard to the affidavits which were sworn by Mr. Andrews, who was in prison at the same time? Will the right hon. Gentleman state specifically whether or not there was any communication?

I have no reason whatever to believe that there was any communication. On my instructions, a number of members of the prison staff who were on duty at Wormwood Scrubs at the time have been questioned and they have all affirmed that to the best of their knowledge and recollection the Governor's instructions, which emanated from me, were carried out.

Since nearly all these people's evidence seems unreliable, may I ask my right hon. Friend why, when those statements were made, it was necessary to wait for Questions to be asked in the House of Commons to refute them? Why did he not immediately come out and slap down the people who caused great anxiety among the public, remembering that it is the public who need to be reassured, not the House of Commons or even my right hon. Friend? Will he slap them down when they make these statements?

I try to show respect to the House of Commons. If I spent my time slapping down every false rumour or statement which appears in every newspaper I should be far too busy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department now that Gordon Lonsdale has been released, what is to be the future of others who were sentenced to prison at the same time.

It is not in my mind to recommend any remission of the sentences in question.

Without in any way referring to the trial or the sentence, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what were the principles on which the Government acted in the Lonsdale case? He appeared to us to be the ringleader of the whole matter. Is it fair to leave the other people in prison? Why is it that Lonsdale alone of the four or so was allowed to go back to his own country?

The Foreign Office statement on Lonsdale and Wynne made clear that the Government agreed to the exchange from humanitarian motives because of Mr. Wynne's physical condition. Surely Mr. Wynne's health since his return has confirmed the humanity of that decision. No similar circumstances arose in connection with Lonsdale's fellow spies.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these cases could not possibly be more dissimilar? Whereas Lonsdale in certain lights could be regarded as a patriot, the other people for whom the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) is appealing are no more than squalid, mercenary traitors.

Without expressing definite opinions on all that, I think that the House will agree that the case for the exchange of Lonsdale and Wynne fell entirely separately from the cases of the other four who had been convicted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that 300,000 Indians and Pakistanis who have no work permit, voucher or money are wanting to emigrate to Great Britain and of the difficulties of deciding how many people from overseas to admit, what recent communications he has had with Commonwealth governments regarding the maximum figure; what action he proposes to take when it has been reached; and if he will make a statement.

We are in touch with other Commonwealth Governments about the working of the control, but it is for us to decide the rate at which Ministry of Labour vouchers should be issued. As has been made clear on previous occasions, this is determined by what we consider to be the rate at which the United Kingdom can absorb immigrants. It is not affected by the number of applications pending.

Can my right hon. Friend say, first, what is the maximum number of Commonwealth immigrants the Government consider this country can safely absorb and, secondly, since it is the working class people in the poorer districts of our great cities who must put up with the social consequences of this invasion, and since overwhelmingly they want it stopped, will not my right hon. Friend heed their cry and do something for them?

I want to make one thing absolutely clear. The Government were fully justified in bringing in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act when they did, despite the vigorous opposition of both the other parties. At the same time, my hon. Friend should bear in mind the fact that the number of Commonwealth immigrants unemployed is less than one-third of the number who were unemployed when the control came into force two years ago. I hope that he will trust my right hon. Friends and myself to administer in a wise way these powers of control which Parliament has now given us.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that if these 300,000 outstanding applicants and their dependants were allowed in in the next few years it would create a calamitous situation? If my right hon. Friend does not intend to allow them in, should he not state frankly that he will not do so and also state that those without jobs to come to or without special skills will not be considered as applicants until further notice?

The issue of vouchers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and not for myself. My hon. Friend has done right in drawing attention to the fact that there are now 300,000 people who have made application for vouchers to come to this country and that vouchers have not been issued to them. Had the Act not been passed I cannot see anything that could have stood in the way of all of them coming here.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the baby farming which has developed amongst immigrants and the increase of foster-homes, many of which are dirty, unhealthy and dangerous, run by people willing to look after babies for £2 or £3 a week, with a view to taking steps to strengthen the Children Act 1958, which makes provision for the fostering of children; and if he will make a statement.

This is a problem to which I have been giving attention for some time, and about which I know that some local authorities are concerned. The provisions for the protection of children who are privately placed with foster-parents; were strengthened by the Children Act, 1958, and the powers now available to local authorities are a good deal more extensive than has been suggested. My Department and its inspectors will continue to keep in very close touch with the local authorities and their children's officers about the full and effective exercise of the statutory powers available to them.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the powers under the Children Act, 1958, are being fully employed, for is he not aware that in the last few weeks the Daily Mail has produced a series of articles giving the most appalling examples of baby farming? Surely my right hon. Friend should have this stopped and, once again, surely he will admit that this is another aspect of Commonwealth immigration which we must regret?

No.

Oh yes, it is.

The articles published in the Press have not been wholly correct. It is not for me to issue instructions to local authorities as to the action they should take in this matter. I am quite satisfied that there are powers in the hands of the local authorities, which some of them are not exercising. They would be well advised to do so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while we deplore baby farming, however it takes place, it is not confined to one section of the community? Is he further aware that if men had sufficient money so that their wives need not go out to work and if we had proper nursery schools and nursery classes it would not be possible for these baby farms to exist?

The fortunate thing is that under the Conservatives we have very high employment and very good wages. I am adressing myself to the main Question, which is whether there are children who are in the hands of foster-parents who are not fit to have them. My answer to that is that the local authorities have power to intervene in those cases, and I should like to see them doing so.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will designate the services, civil defence, housing and local government, health services, transport services and other government or local government services, which are contained in the geographical areas for which regional commissioners are appointed in peace time; and to what extent these regions are self-contained.

In a national emergency regional commissioners would be appointed to take control, as necessary, of all services of central and local government and other bodies in their regions. Civil Defence plans are made on the assumption that, after a nuclear attack, the civil defence regions would have to be as self-contained as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what modifications he proposes to make to the scheme for compensating the victims of crimes of violence; and if he will make a statement;

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to announce the names of the chairman and other members of the Victims of Crimes of Violence Compensation Board; what are the terms and conditions of their appointments; and whether they are to be on a full-time or part-time basis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the criticisms made of the White Paper on Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence, when he proposes to issue a further White Paper outlining the scheme he now recommends.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have considered all the points made in the debates in this House and in another place on the White Paper on Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence. We intend to make a number of modifications to the scheme outlined in the White Paper, and I shall be making a further statement to Parliament about this very soon, and announcing at the same time the name of the chairman of the compensation board and the date on which the scheme will come into operation.

Can the Home Secretary tell the House how soon "very soon" is, and when he expects to make his statement? Will he be issuing another White Paper, or some other details in writing of the scheme as modified? Is it not a fact that many aspects of the scheme were criticised very strongly on both sides of the House in the debate on 5th May? If I am right in thinking that there are to be modifications, ought not the House—and, indeed, people outside the House—to have the revised scheme in writing so that they can see what it involves?

It was not so much a question of the scheme being criticised as of the Government inviting suggestions from both sides of the House on a draft scheme, and welcoming them. I certainly think that in the light of those debates the scheme can he improved. I do not think that it will be necessary to issue another White Paper, but I am anxious to give to the House the proposed modifications in the scheme so that they will be on record in HANSARD. I shall certainly endeavour to make a further statement within the next two or three weeks.

In view of the Home Secretary's assurance that no scheme would be introduced except with the express approval of Parliament, does the right hon. Gentleman really think that a simple statement to the House—with, perhaps, a few supplementary questions—is sufficient? Ought he not to submit a White Paper showing clearly what is involved? On a minor point, in regard to the composition of the Board, has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the criticism made that all the members should necessarily be lawyers?

No, Sir. I never made a statement that the scheme would not come into force until express approval had been given to it in all its details by Parliament. Indeed, I think that it is the wish of both sides of the House that the scheme should be brought into force as soon as possible. In the light of the valuable debates that have taken place, I would ask the hon. Member to await my further statement with regard to any detailed modifications.

The Home Secretary will surely realise that in our debate it became apparent that the White Paper is riddled with ambiguities. He himself was unable to explain, for example, the meaning of the basis, in paragraph 22 of the White Paper, on which compensation would be awarded. He had no clear idea what would be meant by the exclusion of any award for loss of expectation of happiness. Is he not aware that while we all share his anxiety that this scheme should be brought into operation as soon as possible, it is desirable that the ambiguities, and some inconsistencies, in the White Paper should be remedied by a new White Paper setting out precisely the basis on which Parliament has authorised the scheme?

I must rebut the hon. Gentleman's charges. It is perfectly true that we could have presented a White Paper not capable of amendment by Parliament, and asked Parliament to approve it or reject it. I should have thought that the whole House believed that we had done more sensibly and reasonably in presenting the White Paper and asking Parliament to debate thereupon. That debate brought to light some ambiguities and some possible improvements, and I am proposing to make a further statement to Parliament to indicate how far the Government feel able to go, and in a number of directions it will be found that we have met the points that have been raised in order to improve the scheme. Having said that, I do hope that I shall have the support of the whole House in getting this scheme in operation as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he will not allow U Aung Than a visa to visit this country.

I am not satisfied that U Aung Than has either an acceptable travel document or an acceptable motive for wishing to come to this country.

While realising that the Home Secretary has no interest in civil liberty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—is it not, nevertheless, an extraordinary departure to refuse a political refugee a visa to come to this country simply because the dictator of Burma has asked the Foreign Office for the man to be refused one—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."]—oh, yes, I have all the information. And hon. Members opposite need not smirk. This is a very serious matter—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that all remarks addressed by any hon. Member are directed to the Chair; and that, therefore, suggestions to stop smirking should be immediately withdrawn?

Observations should be addressed to the Chair. Questions should not contain observations of any kind. Let us get on.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Will not the Home Secretary look at this matter again, because the dictator of Burma asked the British Foreign Office to refuse this man a visa as a political refugee? He has 800 people under arrest, including most members of previous Governments. He simply does not want the man to come here, because he wishes to curb any kind of opposition that may be raised in Burma. If President Tshombe could be given a visa, although he had no travel document, why could not this man, who is a very good friend of the British, be given one?

The hon. Member says that he has all the information, but I appear to have a great deal more than he has. Mr. Tshombe was not able to come here until he had a travel document. My concern in this matter is quite simple. U Aung Than has not a travel document, and in those circumstances I am not prepared to agree to his admission.

But does not the Home Secretary remember that when President Tshombe went to Spain he had no travel document, either? There is no rule whatever that prevents the Home Secretary giving someone a visa to come here merely because he has not a proper travel document—he can give the person one himself.

I am not responsible for what the Spanish authorities do—I have quite enough to do controlling entry into this country—and it would be wholly wrong, and contrary to all precedent, if I were to agree to the admission into this country of a person who had no valid passport of his own country, and no acceptable travel document.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. It is one of the Home Secretary's usual flops.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend the grant of a free pardon to Harold Graham Dunsmore, 15 Clarence Street, Nottingham, who was released from Rochester Borstal on his instructions on 9th May.

No, Sir. It would be contrary to long established practice to make such a recommendation in such circumstances as existed in this case.

As this young man was convicted of being in unlawful possession of three separate objects, and as subsequent investigation showed that he was in lawful possession of two of them, and the only possible evidence in connection with the third one supported his story that he had found the particular object—which was worth very little, in any case—would not my right hon. Friend agree that the young man's whole story ought to be believed? In that case, would he not think it a very obvious case for the recommendation of a free pardon, particularly as this young man has now served a sentence in a prison or borstal of six months for this offence and, for some astonishing reason, he was refused legal aid at the time of his appeal?

No, Sir. I admire the trouble that my hon. and gallant Friend has taken on behalf of this young man, but no one knows how the young man became the owner of the third of these objects. First of all, he said that he had bought it from a friend in Leeds. Later, he said that he had bought it from a friend in London. At his trial, he said that he had bought it from a friend in Nottingham. Subsequently, he said that he had found it. I really cannot accept this as the kind of clear evidence needed before a free pardon is granted—that he was, beyond question, in lawful possession of the object.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's Answer, I should like your leave to raise the matter later on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children, being persons under the age of 17, were remanded to prison instead of remand homes and remand centres during the period 1st January to 30th April, 1964.

213 persons under 17 were remanded to prison in this period.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that figure seems slightly higher than the figure for the corresponding period last year? Is she aware that as long ago as July, 1960, the then Minister of State, Home Department, promised the House that steps would be taken to end this out-dated practice of remanding children to prison?

I assure my hon. Friend that the number does not show an increase. It is the general trend. We are not complacent about it. We are anxious to bring it down.

Is the hon. Lady aware that in 1961 the then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, promised that we should very soon have many new remand centres opened? When will they be opened? Three years later very little appears to have been done.

There is a Question later on the Order Paper on this subject.

Is the hon. Lady aware that many magistrates, myself included, when they sit in juvenile courts are informed by the clerk of the court before even the case starts that there are no vacancies in remand homes? Is she aware that the magistrates are left in the position, when there is no place of security, despite the fact that they do not want children to be sent to prison, of having to send them there in many cases in order to avoid difficulties and to save the time of the police in looking for boys who do not come to court when they have been allowed to go home? This is a difficult matter which ought not to be allowed to continue any longer.

I think that the hon. Lady will be more than satisfied when she hears the Answer to a later Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the provision of secure accommodation for young offenders, with particular reference to the provision of remand centres.

For borstals and detention centres I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraphs 43 and 44 of the White Paper on The War against Crime (Cmnd. 2296). There are three secure units in remand homes and three are being established in approved schools. Eight remand centres are under construction; all should be occupied in the next 12 months.

Is my hon. Friend aware that four years ago the House was promised nine remand centres? Is she satisfied with the progress that has been made in the provision of these centres?

We are never satisfied, because we always want to go faster, but the Winchester centre will probably be opened next month with 40 places, Cardiff and Exeter about September with a further 40 places, and Leeds in October with 100 places. By the end of 12 months there should be 655 remand places in addition to the 300 at Ashford at present.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the present Foreign Secretary, then the Home Secretary, said over three years ago that seven new remand centres were about to be opened? Why has it taken such a long time to get them opened? We have had only one opened in those three years.

I am sure that the hon. Lady knows of the difficulties in planning and opening these remand centres. We have got them going and in the next 12 months we shall have a very satisfactory record.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the scope and terms of reference of the Departmental Committee he has appointed to examine and report on the arrangements and machinery for providing legal aid in criminal proceedings in such a way as to enable the Committee to consider and report on the costs of such proceedings and on the provision of compensation to persons injured or financially damaged by criminal acts.

I do not consider it advisable to extend and complicate the Committee's task in these ways. The Government is already, as the House knows, introducing a scheme for the compensation of victims of crimes of violence.

Does the Home Secretary realise that that Answer is just as complicated as the reference to the Committee, and gives no information whatsoever? Is he aware that great injustice may be done to a person who is charged and found not guilty and then has to pay his own costs and thereby may suffer great financial and other loss? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Committee provides for this?

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member was not able to understand my transparently clear Answer, but the addition of these other questions, which he suggests, would entirely change the character of the task of the Committee whose members were selected to advise on legal aid.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many divisions of the Metropolitan Police parts of the new City of Westminster will be included;

Under the present organisation of the Metropolitan Police District, parts of the new City of Westminster will be included in seven divisions. I am however examining proposals which the Commissioner has just submitted to me for a reorganisation of the divisions in the Metropolitan Police District, which would in general align the boundaries of police divisions and sub-divisions with those of the new local authorities defined in the London Government Act, 1963, and of the new petty sessional areas that will result from the Administration of Justice Bill.

Is the Home Secretary aware that that is a very satisfactory answer if he is going to bring it into operation when the Act comes into operation? Is he aware that the splitting up of boroughs between divisions is not only administratively bad for police arrangements but from the public relations point of view it creates a lack of direct contact between the police, the courts and the local authorities?

I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member has said. I think that he and I are at one on the purposes which we desire to achieve if possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce amending legislation at an early date to give discretion to coroners concerning cremation where an offence is alleged and prosecution is pending under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.

My right hon. Friend intends, in the course of the next month or two, to make new Cremation Regulations which will include a provision giving the coroner discretion to issue at any time after an inquest has been opened a certificate which will enable cremation to be authorised.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that in my constituency a boy died as a result of a car accident in January and that his body is still in cold storage because of an offence by his friend who was driving his car, which comes under Section 1 of the 1960 Road Traffic Act? This is highly embarrassing to all concerned. May I have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that the amending Regulations which he intends to bring in within a month will take care of that kind of case?

I am aware of the very unhappy case to which the hon. Member refers. I think that he understands the circumstances in which the case arose under the existing law. It will certainly be taken care of in the new Regulations.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the revision of the Cremation Regulations will provide for a maximum charge for death certificates in these cases? Will he also provide for only one death certificate to be issued in the case of cremation instead of two as at present?

Without notice, I could not give the hon. Member an answer on those two points, but they have both been considered in the review of the Regulations.

Will a certificate be necessary for the demise of the Liberal Party?

That is not a question for me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for dealing with the hooliganism which recently wrecked the peace of seaside towns.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will introduce legislation to enable the fines imposed on hooligans to go towards the cost of repairing the damage they have caused;

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment (1) whether he will now introduce legislation to restore the use of judicial corporal punishment as a means of dealing with persons convicted of wanton destruction of property and of deliberately causing physical injury to others;

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to counteract mass hooliganism by young people, particularly at seaside resorts on public holidays.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will introduce legislation empowering the courts to deprive juvenile hooligans who invade seaside resorts of their vehicles and driving licences if convicted of any breach of the peace;

the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to strengthen the powers of the police to deal with outbreaks of juvenile hooliganism.

I will, with permission, answer this Question and Questions Nos. 27, 23, 29, 33, 40, 41, 42 and 46 at the end of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the result of the consideration he has given to the report of the Government Advisory Council recommending the abolition of preventive detention.

The Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders recommended that preventive detention should be abolished and that the powers of the courts to deal with persistent offenders by long sentences of ordinary imprisonment should be strengthened. These recommendations, which would require legislation, raise difficult issues, and my right hon. Friend has not yet completed his consideration of them. My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as possible.

I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said, but will she endeavour to persuade her right hon. Friend to make a decision as soon as possible, as many people were very upset when a man who had committed petty offences was recently sentenced to eight years preventive detention?

I can only repeat that my right hon. Friend is looking at this as a matter of urgency.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the case of Henry Scudder, who was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment at the Central Criminal Court on 12th May, 1960, in respect to which a petition has been sent to him by a firm of solicitors as well as a letter dated 1st May, 1964, by the honourable Member for Erith and Crayford suggesting inquiry into the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.

Inquiries are in progress, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Will the hon. Lady try to get something done in this case? Is not she aware that there is substantial evidence that the man has not had a square deal at all? Does she know that he has been granted legal aid to take proceedings for negligence or breach of contract against the solicitors who should have represented him, and that he has been in prison for four years?

Again, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we realise the urgency of this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in order to deal with the problem of hooligans on the banks of the Thames, he will take steps to set up a joint river police force operating from Teddington Lock up to Lechlade, Gloucestershire, with power to apprehend offenders com- mitting acts of vandalism from the banks of the river.

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis accepts the desirability of extending his river patrols to the stretch between Teddington Lock and Staines, and is in consultation with the Thames Conservancy with a view to making arrangements for this. In the upper reaches of the river, offences are usually committed from along the river banks and adjoining recreation grounds, and can most effectively be dealt with by policemen on foot, rather than by boat patrols. The riparian police forces already co-operate with one another to whatever extent is necessary, and I do not think there is a need to set up a new force.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the throwing of bottles from the banks, the shooting of air guns from the banks and other acts of hooliganism cannot always be dealt with by foot police because of the lack of such police on the banks? Would it not be better either to give powers to the Thames Conservancy navigation officers to go on the banks from a boat or to set up the joint police force which I have suggested?

No. Sir. I know my hon. Friend's sincere concern about all this, but it seems to me that someone throwing bottles or shooting an air gun from the bank is much more likely to be caught by a policeman on the bank than by a policeman in a boat.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young men under 21 years of age were sent to prison during 1963; and how these figures compare with 1962, 1961, and 1951.

As the Answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is there not a general deterioration? Will the hon. Lady consider much more active steps among magistrates, with Her Majesty's judges, to discuss the situation which these figures reveal so that more concerted steps can be taken to keep young men out of prison?

We do regard this as a matter of urgency, and we are keeping magistrates in consultation with us all the time.

Will my hon. Friend remember that, on both sides of the House, we all intensely dislike the fact that young people can still be sent to prison? As I have frequently suggested, would not a good spanking on the behind meet the case far better?

That is a much wider question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how effective detention centres have been so far in checking criminal tendencies in young men under 21 years of age.

Reconviction figures for detention centres are given on page 52 of the Statistical Tables to the Prison Commissioners' Annual Report for 1962; I consider them encouraging, but evaluation of the effects of penal treatment is a complicated matter on which research is continuing. I refer the hon. Member to Part VI of the recent handbook The Sentence of the Court.

Have not detention centres now passed beyond the bounds of an experiment and become a stable part of the penal system, and is it not a fact that there are too few of them and there are difficulties in recruiting staff? What is the Home Office doing about it?

I think that we all agree with the hon. Gentleman that these centres are proving very valuable. At present, with the opening of an additional centre at Usk in Monmouthshire last month, there are now 15 centres in operation. Further measures are in hand.