asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will initiate legislation to amend the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, so as to abolish university seats and the consequent plural voting and to reduce correspondingly the number of seats in the Northern Ireland Parliament.

No, Sir. Under Section 14 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to alter the law relating to constituencies for elections to the Northern Ireland House of Commons provided that the number of Members is not altered. I understand that the Government of Northern Ireland have a review of constituencies in hand.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs recently stated that there are great disparities in the electoral position, and would he not at least set up a commission of inquiry to look into the whole scandalous position of the electoral franchise and voting methods in Northern Ireland? In connection with the university seats, does not my right hon. and learned Friend support the policy of the Northern Ireland Labour Party which is to redraw the electoral boundaries so as to redistribute the seats, and does he think that an enabling Act would be necessary?

I have already said that the Government of Northern Ireland have a review of constituencies in hand. There is a well recognised constitutional convention that the Westminster Parliament does not legislate with regard to matters within the province of the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the official Labour Party in Ulster does not want a reduction in the number of seats? May I tell him how much his visit to Northern Ireland recently was appreciated for the courtesy and understanding he showed, and for his recognition of the Northern Ireland Government's good work? Would it not be a good idea if some of his less enlightened colleagues went to Northern Ireland? It does not cost very much, and instead of sniping they would be able to see what the position was for themselves.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now completed his study of the representations made to him by the Abortion Law Reform Association; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has sent to the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds' letter to him concerning the problem of the law on abortion; and what progress has now been made in the preparation of legislation to amend the law on the subject.

The reply indicated that my right hon. and learned Friend had, as requested, taken note of the resolution passed by the National Council of this body. On the general question, I have at present nothing to add to the Answer which I gave on 25th March to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) when I said that we were keeping the matter under review but that we could hold out no prospect of early Government legislation.

Is my hon. Friend fully seized of the weight of public opinion behind proposals for the reform of this law? Is she aware that a recent poll carried out among doctors in London showed a majority of doctors in favour of reform on the lines suggested by this Association? Is she further aware that a National Opinion Poll, as recently as last March, showed that over 72 per cent. of the population was in favour of reform on the lines proposed by the Association? Will she, therefore, bear in mind that she will have the weight of public opinion behind her if, early in the next Session, she and her right hon. and learned Friend will agree to find time for this humanitarian reform?

My right hon. and learned Friend and I are fully aware of all that my hon. Friend has said. As she knows, we met a deputation from the Abortion Law Reform Association. The Government are of the opinion that as there are divergent views on both sides of the House, this might be a good subject for a Private Member's Bill in the new Session, when the opinion of this House could be tested.

Can my hon. Friend give any good reason why the Government should continue to prevaricate on this issue? Does she not appreciate that we on this side gave support to the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), as a Private Member's Bill? Why cannot the same treatment be given to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), since it commands the support of a much greater majority in the country than did that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne?

It is obvious that nothing could be done in this Session, but if any of my hon. Friends, or any Member of this House, were to be lucky in the Ballot, then the Government would have to see what their attitude would be about doing the same as they did in the case of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now intends to introduce legislation to rationalise the law relating to Sunday observance.

In the light of the debates in this House on 15th February and in another place on 17th March, the Government consider that Parliament should be given an opportunity to pronounce on the main recommendations of the Crathorne Committee; and in a matter which so closely affects the consciences of individual Members they believe this could best be arranged if a Bill were introduced in Private Members' time on which all decisions would be left to a free vote of the House. The Government would be very ready to offer facilities for the drafting of such a Bill, but no undertaking can be given to provide Government time.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that was a most unsatisfactory reply? A Bill of this magnitude should be undertaken by the Government, and the responsibility for legislation in a matter of such great importance to every single person in the country should not be shelved by the Government on to a private Member.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be a Bill of considerable magnitude. That was one of the reasons why I said that unfortunately no undertaking could be given to provide Government time.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the private Member's procedure is quite unsuitable for Bills of considerable magnitude? Social matters are a Government responsibility and it is no use shelving them in this way.

I repeat what I have just said, that unfortunately it is impossible to find Government time, having regard to the priority of other legislation which the Government propose to introduce.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of what the Prime Minister said in Glasgow 10 days ago—that he can get any Bill through this House at any time? What is the difficulty in the Government finding time for this Measure?

Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell us why the Opposition were not fully seized of the importance of this Bill during their period in office?

The Home Secretary has many responsibilities but that is not one of them.

Does the Home Secretary realise the significance of the comment he made a moment ago when he said that, because of the size of this Bill, and, presumably, the importance of it, Government time could not be found for it? That is surely the best reason why Government time should be found. Will he stop passing on these Measures of great importance to private Members when they ought to be the responsibility of the Government?

I do not for a moment wish to imply that it is not a Measure of great importance. Of course it is. It is, however, necessary for Government time to be available before one can bring it before the House in Government time. I am sorry, but it is just not possible to find Government time for it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many monkeys have been used in this country for stomach ulcer experiments resulting in their death or killing for autopsy after six months; what medical knowledge has been gained from these experiments during which great anxiety and physical suffering was caused to the animals used; and if he will refuse licences for the carrying out of these experiments in future.

No authority has been given for experiments of this kind. If such authority were sought the application would be considered with full regard to the restrictions imposed by and under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, and to the risks of pain to the animal.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that was the reply I expected? Is he also aware that, while animal lovers appreciate the zeal with which anti-vivisectionists in this country press their case, the manner in which they sometimes collect evidence of excesses in vivisection carried out abroad, and present this as if it had happened in this country, is to be roundly deplored? In connection with this, will the hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend, despite the manner in which time presses upon the Government from many points of view, and consider the possibility of debating the Littlewood Report early in the next Session of Parliament, if they are still there? Would he also consider the possibility of introducing legislation to bring forward and put into operation some of the recommendations of that Committee?

I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that on the last part of his supplementary question there is a question on the Order Paper to be answered later today, if it is reached, put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). On the first part, the hon. Gentleman has a high reputation, both in the House and outside, on all matters relating to the care of animals. I know that his strictures will be noted by those to whom they refer, and I support them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to prohibit salesmen and other tradesmen and door-to-door callers from leaving polythene bags at dwellings in circumstances potentially dangerous to young children.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to prohibit the distribution through private letter boxes of plastic bags.

I have for some time been keeping under close review the danger to children from polythene bags and following discussions between the Home Office and the Packaging Film Manufacturers' Association in 1962 the trade has arranged for many such bags to carry a printed warning of it. The Home Office has also asked the firm mainly concerned with the door-to-door use of old clothing to use bags of not less than 150 gauge, with holes down the side and centre.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is very real and grave widespread concern about this and that his own efforts and the efforts of other Ministers in his Department are very warmly appreciated? Will he accept that the indiscriminate distribution of bags of this kind is a very great danger and that notices on them are not very effective where young children are concerned, especially when the bags sometimes contain things attractive to children, like toys? Will he keep the possibility of legislation very firmly in mind?

Yes, Sir. I certainly have in mind the risk of the use of these bags. The difficulty about introducing legislation is this. Polythene bags are now an object of ordinary household use in their millions. Simply to prohibit their distribution to private houses would not make any significant impact in diminishing the risks which they involve. The difficulty about legislation is that we would have to try to do something to prohibit the use of polythene bags in general, and that is a scarcely practical proposal, having regard to their extraordinarily widespread use.

Will the Home Secretary look at this matter from the point of view of bags which are put through letter boxes? Will he see whether they can be banned entirely, particularly in view of the danger, not only to young children, but to mentally handicapped children? Will he also have a look at the case which I brought to his notice in which the implication is that these bags are distributed on behalf of handicapped people? Will he see whether action can be brought in cases of this kind under the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Act, 1958?

I will certainly bear all those things in mind. So far as I am aware, none of the casualties which have taken place is traceable to polythene bags put through letter boxes or distributed to houses. That is one of the difficulties. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have the danger of polythene bags fully in mind and will certainly examine what he has suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make inquiries into the possibility of using the operation of castration in cases of persistent sexual offenders who are a danger to the public, in view of the fact that this operation has shown good results in a number of European countries.

I have no plans for action in this matter.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree to hear representations on this matter in the near future?

I will be glad to listen to any representations which my hon. Friend may wish to make to me, but I can give him no undertaking in the matter.

Will the Home Secretary express his horror at an idea which is more in keeping with the traditions of Nazi Germany than this country?

I do not think that I can usefully add to what I have said, namely, that I cannot give any undertaking about this matter, but that I will always listen to any representations which any hon. Member makes to me.

In view of the fact that these revolting sexual offences have increased from 2,000 to over 20,000 in the last 20 years—violent, fierce, filthy attacks—will not something be done, even if this course is not accepted?

I share the hon. Gentleman's abhorrence, as everybody in the House does, of sex offences. What I am trying to do, as I think the House knows, is to build up the strength of the police force and to put the police in a better position to combat the commission of criminal offences.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to establish a fixed fee which private employment agencies may charge when placing employees in appointments, or to take such other action as may be necessary to prevent private employment agencies nominating wages in order to secure maximum reward for themselves.

My right hon. and learned Friend is keeping in mind the possibility of legislation to ratify the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 96 on the regulation of fee-charging employment agencies, but he cannot undertake to give priority to it.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that somewhat encouraging reply. Is he aware that the Government, in regard to their economic policy, should look at this matter very quickly because the present position is that these agencies nominate a fee related to a salary which they nominate from the beginning? Because they nominate a salary, much higher salaries than are justified are paid. This is a built-in incentive to inflation.

The hon. Gentleman can rely on the speed of the Government in the right direction, as at all times.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the practice which is growing up in some of these private employment agencies of keeping the address of a person whom they have placed in employment and then, when he has been there for a few weeks, writing to him and offering him alternative employment, encouraging him to leave the job which they found for him originally and trying to place another person in that job? This is a very clever little racket which is growing up and to which I should have thought my hon. Friend would pay attention.

I will listen to my hon. Friend, whose accent I so admire.

This is the fourth time in 20 minutes that we have been told that desirable legislation cannot be introduced because of the pressure on Government time. Should not the hon. Gentleman consult the Leader of the House about this and get some of these sensible Measures introduced?

We have our priorities. Of course, I will speak to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make proposals to provide that conviction on a charge involving loss by theft or malicious damage to private or public property shall include restitution of such loss in addition to any penalties, pecuniary or otherwise, ordered by a court; and whether he will give power to the courts to require security for such restitution by impounding or charging the personal effects of the convicted person.

The criminal courts already have power, under Section 4 of the Forfeiture Act, 1870, to order an offender to pay compensation up to £100 for loss suffered as a result of a felony, including theft, and there are certain other powers under which they may award compensation for malicious damage; such orders may be enforced by distress of the money and goods of the offender. The Criminal Law Revision Committee, in its recent Report on felonies and misdemeanours, has recommended that the power in the Forfeiture Act should be applied to any offence triable on indictment and should include compensation up to £400 for damage as well as loss.

While welcoming the hon. Lady's lengthy reply, may I draw her attention to the fact that there is a real need to look at this question? Is she aware that many people in this country would like to see thuggery dealt with by the introduction of corporal punishment? Will she agree that the present cult of softness has brought about a lot of our problems?

The Government are very concerned at the malicious damage, but I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that corporal punishment would be in any way effective in dealing with it. Indeed, the past has shown that flogging and birching did not reduce crimes for which flogging and birching were used.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are laid down for local authorities to use when judging whether the emigration of a child in their care would be in his or her best long-term interest.

Local authorities act under Section 17 of the Children Act, 1948, which lays down no criteria. They must consider what is in the child's best interests in the circumstances of each case.

While accepting that they must consider what is in the child's best interests and also the paramountcy of parental and family rights and responsibilities, may I ask whether there are not very many children in care today at high public cost who would find a happier and healthier life in Commonwealth countries overseas? Will the Home Office try to persuade local authorities to study the advantages of the Fairbridge Farm Schools and other similar organisations of high reputation?

I have every reason to think that local authorities are very fully aware of what the hon. Member indicated in his Question. Over the last few years about 60 children a year have emigrated under the provisions of the Section.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Fairbridge Farm Schools have enabled thousands of children in the past to start new lives in Australia or Canada, but that the number of children going to these schools has been so much reduced in recent years that there are now vacancies in the Fairbridge Schools in Australia? Would he not give some advice to the local authorities which would enable the fullest advantage to be taken of the great opportunities which exist?

I have no doubt that the question will have been read and will be read throughout the country. I have to give approval in each case under Section 17 of the Act, and I do not think that it would be appropriate in these cases for me to give advice.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in considering this matter, that economic considerations in respect of such children are quite unimportant in relation to the overall need for people to take over the duties of parents to them? Is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House would resent it if economic considerations had the effect of causing the emigration of these unfortunate children?

Of course I will have that in mind, and I have been fully conscious of it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable on the work study produced for the West Sussex Police Force and the extent to which it will improve the efficiency of the force; and if he will seek to extend this survey to other forces.

The report of the survey of the West Sussex Constabulary carried out by the West Sussex County Council O. & M. team was made to the police authority, and it is for them and the chief constable to implement its recommendations. Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary will however keep in touch with what is done. In the search for greater efficiency which is going on in police forces all over the country, the value of O. & M. surveys is recognised. Arrangements were made last year for experimental teams of police officers to be trained in O. & M. work. These teams are now working in several police districts and have produced some useful reports.

Does not the Minister think that this Answer demonstrates that the powers which the Home Office have under the new Police Act are not sufficient to assure uniform application over the whole country of the best methods of running the police force?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funds are to be made available to the probation service in order that it may carry out its extended functions in respect of after-care; and whether he is satisfied that the funds being made available will be adequate to avoid any restriction of the effectiveness of the service.

I assume that the hon. Member has in mind financial assistance for discharged offenders whose needs cannot be met by the National Assistance Board. My right hon. and learned Friend has recently indicated to probation committees his readiness to consider applications for increases in the annual maximum of expenditure authorised for this purpose.

Is it not a fact that those from detention centres are now subject to after-care? Is she satisfied that the probation service has enough in the way of resources, in both physical and financial terms, to do the work which it is now called upon to undertake?

Yes. The hon. Member knows that changes are taking place and have been taking place in the arrangements for after-care. We are very anxious indeed to see that sufficient funds are available for this important purpose. Some of the charitable funds which were to be spent by the Discharged Prisoners Aid Societies have been passed over to the Probation and After-Care Service.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has reached regarding the request of Mr. C. P. Q. Beck of 56 Heol-y-Gors, Whitchurch, Glamorgan, for a full inquiry into his case, as outlined in the correspondence which has been forwarded to his Department.

As the hon. Member has been told, my right hon. and learned Friend can find no grounds to justify the institution of a formal inquiry into Mr. Beck's case, which has already been very fully considered in the light of the correspondence that he has forwarded.

Has the Joint Under-Secretary of State noticed the two main complaints of Mr. Beck, namely, that although the Home Secretary refuses to intervene in this case, in fact the Home Office intervened in a similar case brought to its notice by the Society of Labour Lawyers some time ago; and, secondly, that although there was no reporter in the magistrates' court, a full report of the prosecution case appeared in the newspapers and the defence case, which was ultimately successful in the assize court, was not reported at all—an action which was condemned by the Press Council? Does he not think that there is some ground, in the light of all these circumstances, for some investigation?

The hon. Member knows that his constituent met my predecessor in office, that he was heard by the Minister then dealing with this matter that for three years the Home Office has been receiving correspondence upon the matter and that it has been thoroughly looked into.

No.

The hon. Member ought to know, because he has sent me more letters than anyone else—and that is saying something. The hon. Member may be assured that we have looked into this case with the utmost care, as did the last Administration, and we have reached the same conclusion.

While I am sure that the Home Office has looked at the matter carefully, may I ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that what is required in this case is some form of independent investigation into the matter? Does he not accept the fact that those who have looked into the details outside the Home Office have reached a conclusion that some independent inquiry ought to be made? Will he, therefore, undertake to reconsider the matter with that in mind?

No, Sir. The inquiry which took place in the Home Office was an independent inquiry and not a biassed inquiry. It was an inquiry by people who have all the facts at their disposal, and I see no reason at all for asking for a special inquiry in this case.

Does the Minister realise that to a great majority of people in the House, including myself, the details of this case are unknown, but that what creates anxiety is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) in his supplementary question and reinforced by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)? Unless the Minister is prepared to dispute these facts—and if he is, will he tell us so—does he not agree that there is a case here for an inquiry?

What has been said this afternoon is not new. All this has been looked into. I do not seek to dispute what the right hon. Gentleman said about publication in the Press, but I assure him that these facts were borne in mind during our investigation and during the investigation of his right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), who reached the same conclusion as we have reached.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to increase the fines for the illegal parking of caravans on roadside verges and open spaces.

Proposals will be made at a suitable opportunity for increases in certain maximum penalties bearing on this matter.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply? I am glad that the Department is taking this matter up in this way. Will she urge her right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to find a solution to this problem and to urge local authorities to set up proper sites for these people?

This matter involves several Ministries, not only the Ministry of Housing and Local Government but also the Minister of Transport, who has already said that he intends at a suitable opportunity to seek an increase in the penalties in the Highways Act.

These several Ministries have been investigating this question for at least two years, since it was first raised by me. Is the hon. Lady aware that the immense time and trouble which is taken by the police to bring these people to book is quite useless, because they find it much cheaper to pay these fines than to pay rates and taxes?

Yes. I realise that this is a very difficult problem and that, strictly speaking, it is not solely a problem for my right hon. Friend. The various Ministers concerned are determined to do something to try to make the position better.

When the hon. Lady is looking into this matter, will she look also into the question of gipsy fairs, which cause appalling chaos in some parts of the country, certainly in my constituency, when several dozen of these people descend on a district for periods up to a fortnight?

Yes, this is another problem entirely, and principally one for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and under the Public Health Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now authorise the demolition of the two communal air-raid shelters at Elm-Grove Place, Dinas-Powis, Glamorgan, which were designed for use under the conditions of the last war; and if he will arrange for their early removal.

As the hon. Member has been informed, there appear to be no grounds, under existing policy, to justify demolition in this particular case.

Is it not somewhat absurd that air-raid shelters designed for use in the conditions of the last world war, in 1939, should be retained in circumstances which are deplored by all the local residents, when the shelters are most insanitary, when they are the sort of buildings which attract youngsters in the most undesirable circumstances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and, in view of the fact that they are quite unsuitable for any future war, will the hon. Gentleman give instant instructions for the demolishing of these buildings?

I take the hon. Gentleman's word for what may happen at these shelters, but he ought to be aware, as I am aware—we both know these shelters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the interruption. But the hon. Gentleman ought to know that these shelters have been closed up—

Yes.

—and that the rural district council has already declined his suggestion that they should be closed down. The general question as to the use of air-raid shelters in a possible war is not raised by this Question.

In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I should like to raise the matter at the earliest moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hostel prisoners have continued in the same employment after release; and for what length of time.

Precise figures are not available, but it is estimated that about one-third of hostel prisoners continue in the same employment after release, and that about one-third of these remain in it for at least six months.

Is it not desirable to obtain more precise figures than these so that we can assess the success of the hostel scheme because, from the information which the hon. lady has given, is it not clear that this scheme has been valuable so far and should be extended?

It is very difficult to get precise figures since if a prisoner is not under after-care it is difficult to know where he is at work, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these hostels are very important, and we are doing all we can to extend them. Three new hostels are expected to open within 12 months, and others are planned, and we hope to be able to extend them as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why records are kept by the Metropolitan Police of persons active in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and what these records are.

The Commissioner of Police informs me that no special records are kept by the Metropolitan Police of persons because of their activities in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Why not?

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the fact that earlier this year he gave me an Oral Answer in which he stated that details were taken of people returning from a nuclear disarmament rally in Paris by a police officer? There is various evidence we get that records are kept. While we are very happy to be assured on this matter, would my right hon. and learned Friend review what he has said to make sure that it is absolutely true?

I am quite satisfied that what I have been told is true, and I do not think there is any need to review it. With regard to the former Answer to which my hon. Friend refers, I think, if I may say so with the greatest respect to him, that I said that only routine, normal inquiries were made.

But would the Home Secretary consider, in the interests of security, immediately asking for such particulars to be kept?

Hear, hear.

I am quite satisfied that the security service in this country discharges its task extremely efficiently.

asked the Prime Minister what instructions he has given to senior Ministers of the Crown concerning the use of their names in advertisements.

There are no specific instructions, but it is well understood that Ministers do not lend their names to advertisements, and certainly not on any commercial basis.

Can the Prime Minister assure the House that when it is said, as it is,

"The Right Honourable Frank Cousins, M.P., slept here"

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want us to embark on a censorship of advertisements. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to send me a copy of this advertisement. I am informed—I have not had a chance of checking it yet—that it is some four or five years since the occasion celebrated in the advertisement, and that it is only recently that this advertisement has started to appear.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the matter underlying the Question by my hon. Friend cannot be dismissed quite so lightly? Does he recall that on 2nd March I said to him across the Floor of the House that a conflict of interest was likely to arise if the right hon. Gentleman kept his job as general secretary of his union as well as his position in the Cabinet? Is it not clear that this position has now arrived, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will act?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question belongs to Question No. Q2. The point at issue here is that my right hon. Friend, in his previous capacity, before he was a Minister, slept in an hotel—I hope that that is all right—and that four years later, as I understand it, the owners of the hotel put out an advertisement saying that he once slept there. I find it difficult to see how, with this time interval, there can be any question of a conflict of interest. If the right hon. Gentleman will put his question on Question No. Q2 I will try to deal with it.

Will the Prime Minister, perhaps, have this advertisement put in the Cabinet Room, where it would seem to be appropriate also? But I will return, if I may, to the subject on Question No. Q2.

About putting it up in the Cabinet Room, I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that when we went to No. 10 there were quite a number of Conservative posters, and that we do not plaster the place with political posters, anyway.

asked the Prime Minister if he is still satisfied that no conflict of interest is involved in the joint holding of a Cabinet post and the office of General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, in view of the fact that the union is opposed to the incomes policy of Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir, no conflict of interest arises. No statement, therefore, is necessary.

But is not the most likely explanation of the Minister of Technology's conspicuous failure to lend his support to the First Secretary's incomes policy the retention of his trade union office, or does the Prime Minister consider that if the Minister of Technology had attended his union's conference this week the Government's economic policy, instead of being rejected by 800 votes to 16, would have been defeated by only 800 votes to 17?

That sounds very laboured. The hon. Gentleman must realise that on all matters decided by the Government—I would hope this would be true of all previous Governments—there is full collective responsibility for all decisions. That members of a Government who have had active associations with outside organisations should therefore derive that kind of slur from the hon. Gentleman, that they must necessarily, in their Cabinet capacity, be taking instructions from outside organisations, would be totally wrong.

This is a serious supplementary question which I want to put to the Prime Minister on this subject. He said that if he was satisfied that there was a conflict of interest in this case, he would act. How can he say that there is no conflict of interest when in their debates in the last two days members of the Transport and General Workers' Union came out contemptuously against the First Secretary's incomes policy and also against the Government's policy on Vietnam? Is it not quite clear that a conflict of public interest arises? Will the Prime Minister consider telling his right hon. Friend that he must choose which job he will hold?

I am sorry to see that, despite having held the office of Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman does not know what the words mean. The phrase "no conflict of interests" means that in the discharge of his capacities as Minister, he is not in any way subject to any pressures, or any conflicts, upon him not to do the job of the Minister properly. The right hon. Gentleman himself was a member of the National Farmers' Union and during that period, except in election years, there was strong criticism of his Government by that union. I would not suggest that there was any conflict of interest. Like Ernest Bevin before him, my right hon. Friend has no executive responsibility within the union. He is on leave of absence and 100 per cent. of his time is on Government work.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is an important difference in that, although the ex-Prime Minister was a member of the National Farmers' Union, nobody ever dreamed of making him the general secretary? [Interruption.]

Order. Our enthusiasm is preventing us from making enough progress with Questions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a simple question on this matter? Does the Minister of Technology support the Government line? If so, why does he not say so and, if not, why does he not resign?

Yes, Sir. All Ministers support the Government's policy on all questions which have been decided. If the right hon. Gentleman is to take silence on any question as indicating dissent, I can give him a whole string of cases proving that the last Government were divided from beginning to end.

The Prime Minister has told us that the right hon. Gentleman in question has no executive duties; has he any duties in connection with the union? If so, people would feel that that was undesirable. However, if it is merely to establish his right to return to the office, that is no different from the numerous people who return from Government to the numerous directorships which they held before taking office. [Interruption.]

I much enjoy the noise, but it stops us from getting on and there must be less.

I have certainly noticed that many right hon. Gentlemen return to their previous employment, not least the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who has been in and out several times.

rose—

We must get on.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will recreate the post of Economic Secretary.

No, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that if he had attended the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, he would have observed how disillusioned, dispirited and dejected members of the Treasury Front Bench had become? Is he further aware that if he contemplates giving us a further dose of the Kaldor cure in the autumn, he should not only re-establish this post, but devise a method of appointing Dr. Kaldor to it so that he could have some accountability to the House and the country for the Government's disastrous financial policy?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the events of 36 hours ago. On those I would simply say that if the Opposition Whips, when they wake up—[Interruption.]

It was the Prime Minister who was asleep.

Order. The House is doing itself no good. Less noise and on we go.

If the Opposition Whips want to play cops and robbers in the middle of the night, I do not want to spoil their fun, as long as they do not think that it has any constitutional or political significance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As to the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question; if he is trying to make a rather slimy reference to the fact that among the Government's advisers is an individual, or two, of Hungarian origin, let me tell him that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were similarly advised and that we never thought of raising the matter.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will invite the Heads of Government of Poland and Rumania to visit London this year.

The Rumanian Government have accepted an invitation in principle for a visit to this country by a senior member of their Government, though no dates have yet been fixed. The Polish Foreign Minister and a Polish Deputy Prime Minister visited this country last year and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is paying an official visit to Poland in September. No further official visits from either Poland or Rumania are at present under consideration.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that this announced visit indicates a very fine example of the Labour Government doing everything possible to break down the Iron Curtain?

I think that it is a fairly continuing proposition that all Governments welcome visits from members of Governments in the East, even though there may still be a number of points of disagreement between us and them.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the Government's decisions on the Mountbatten Report on immigration; and if he will now introduce legislation to ban all immigration except for genuine students and professional people who will return to their native countries at the end of a limited stay.

I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which is to be made to the House in due course.

In view of the undisputed fact—[Interruption.]—I do not put this question to the monkeys sitting right behind—

On a point of order. Is it in order to call an hon. Member a monkey?

I have not the slightest idea to whom it was directed.

When I am trying to ask a very serious question and noises like monkeys are made, I expect them to come from monkeys.

The hon. Gentleman wants to ask a question and he would get on better if he did so.

As the vast majority of people in this country, irrespective of party, want to see a drastic reduction in the number of immigrants into this country, because of the tremendous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—because of the tremendous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—

Order. I will deal with it if it is not a question.

I was prefacing my question—because of the tremendous social problems affecting the working-class people of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—will he not—[Interruption.]

I must ask the House to behave itself. We cannot go on behaving in this fashion. Some responsibility rests on hon. Members. They must not call upon the Chair to be troubling them all the time.

In view of the immense difficulty of this problem, will the Prime Minister promise the House that he will introduce some legislation, or some emergency regulations, before the Summer Recess?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent, that this is an extremely important question. I also agree with his concluding words, that it is a very difficult one. It is, therefore, right that the Government should have adequate time not merely to decide, in the light of Lord Mountbatten's report, what the next correct steps should be, but also to have some chance of discussions with the Commonwealth countries. This is what is happening. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that he will have a statement very soon now, at the earliest possible moment that it can be made, having regard to the necessity to consult and discuss the matter with the Commonwealth countries. I very much hope that the statement will be made within a week or two, and certainly before the Recess. As to what it will contain, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to wait and see.

When my right hon. Friend makes the statement, will he make sure that he deals with the entry of aliens and of Irish people so that this does not look like a colour bar?

As the Commonwealth Communiqué showed, Her Majesty's Government made it very clear to our Commonwealth colleagues that, whatever is necessary by way of immigration control, it will not be operated on colour or on racial lines.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will make his statement in time for there to be a debate on the subject before the Summer Recess?

The question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I did not say that I would make the statement. If it is the wish of the House that I should, I shall do so, but it will be more convenient if it is made by one of my right hon. Friends, and it will be made in good time before the Recess.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that this statement will take into full account the great contribution which immigrants to this country have made in the past, and which they can make in the future? Will he also give us an assurance that nothing will be done to sever relations between families and the people who have been accepted as citizens of this country? Will he ensure that no restrictions are imposed which will prevent them from bringing their families or children to this country? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that any restriction which involved that would be a great infringement of human rights?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I am sure that the whole House recognises the great contribution that has been made in this country by immigrants, not least in the hospitals. I am sure that hon. Members and their families know of cases where people's lives have been saved by coloured immigrants. I am sure that that is not in question on either side of the House.

In view of the assurance given by the Leader of the House in reply to a question from me, will the Prime Minister confirm that he himself will be making the statement?

I think that this is a matter of convenience. Although one does not usually announce the composition of Cabinet Committees, it is well known that one or two of my right hon. Friends have been closely concerned with this problem. This is a matter of the convenience of the House. I have spent a good deal of time on this problem. If the House wants me to make a statement, I shall do so—I know how anxious hon. Members are to hear me make a statement—but I should have thought that it would have been more convenient if my right hon. and learned Friend, who has spent so much time on this, dealt with it himself. However, I am very much in the hands of the House in this matter.

Arising out of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepts that if the Government recognise that the problem is one of integration and that that is the angle to be tackled, and not one of restriction, and he resists the short-term political prejudices which are sweeping certain parts of the House, he will be warmly applauded for taking action which recognises the economic importance of these immigrants and the vital rôle of Britain in the centre of a multi-coloured Commonwealth?

My advice to the hon. Gentleman is to await the statement and the White Paper. I have said that the White Paper and the statement will deal fully with the problems of assimilation and integration as well as with certain questions which have arisen about the effectiveness of the controls and evasion. The White Paper will, I hope, be comprehensive in its scope, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to await it.