asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he now has for the abolition of corporal punishment in approved schools.

I am considering, in consultation with the professional and other organisations principally concerned, the development of alternative methods of controlling difficult behaviour so that the use of corporal punishment can be phased out.

The Home Secretary's predecessor last August said that he was going to invite the associations particularly concerned to join the children's department in this consideration. Why has no firm action been taken if that were his intention?

The way is now clear for consultations to begin. They were held up for certain reasons with which the right hon. Gentleman is acquainted, but the Heads' Association have now been invited to discuss their views and their problems, including the need to provide adequate protection for staff and to clarify some of the provisions of the rules.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for records to be kept of the wives and children of polygamous marriages who enter the United Kingdom as dependants of immigrants, in order that some estimate may be made of the likely charge to public funds caused by such dependants.

No, Sir. The hon. and learned Member will be aware from previous Answers that the number of wives and children of polygamous marriages admitted to this country is small.

Is it not strange that the Government are prepared to spend public money in support of polygamy when our United Kingdom citizens in like circumstances would be sent to jail for bigamy? How can the Minister say—as he said to me—that there are very few of these cases when he has no records and will take no steps to get records?

It would be a very time-consuming operation for the immigration officers and would lead to delay if we kept particulars of everyone who arrived, but I assure the hon. and learned Member that the number is very small, that there is no known incident of a man arriving with two wives and very few cases in which a second wife has joined a husband. As for the benefits of the Welfare State, there are no benefits for second wives—even though there are very few such cases—and there are benefits only in respect of the children.

While I recognise that the problem is numerically probably quite unimportant, may I ask whether the Under-Secretary does not recognise that a serious point of principle is involved— that when immigrants come here they are expected to observe the laws of this country, which involves the proposition that a man has only one wife at a time?

I think that that applies to the vast majority of immigrants, but the legal situation, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is that a marriage which is legal in the country in which it was undertaken and at the time it was undertaken is also considered legal in this country. It would be very difficult if it were otherwise.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) why 2,115 men from India and 2,096 men from Pakistan were allowed to enter Great Britain under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, in the month of April, 1968, in view of the fact that there were over half a million permanently unemployed persons, and many more on short-time employment; and if he will now stop all further immigration until those unemployed are provided with work;

(2) if he is aware that 1,321 children and 1,318 women from India, 448 children and 296 women from Jamaica, 919 children and 709 women from Pakistan entered Great Britain under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, in the month of April, 1968, besides large numbers from other countries; and when he expects the flow of immigration to cease.

The hon. Member's figures are of all admissions, including returning residents, visitors and others coming for temporary purposes, and ignore figures of departures. The number of those coming for settlement is much lower in every case. From the whole Commonwealth only 355 men arrived with employment vouchers in April. The majority of those coming for settlement were dependants.

Since unemployment is at its highest for 30 years and the Government are quite impotent to cure it, surely it is reasonable to expect that jobs at home should be safeguarded for our own people before any more are allowed in. I wish to press this matter. May I ask two supplementaries, Mr. Speaker?

Two Questions answered together do not entitle the hon. Gentleman to two supplementaries.

Secondly, the Home Secretary—and I wanted him to reply— voted twice on Second Reading and Third Reading against the 1962 Act, which he is now implementing. Since he has changed his mind once, why cannot he change it a second time?

It is, perhaps, too much to expect some hon. Members to be reasonable about this. I gave the hon. Member the figure. It was only 355 men who came in for employment in the month in question. The vast majority had skills such as those of doctors and nurses, which the country very much needs.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the great majority of recent immigrants have been taking jobs in which there is no shortage of vacancies and that the serious problem is not so much employment but the depression of wage levels in such unattractive occupations as immigrants tend to take?

It is quite certain that the small number of people who come in with vouchers largely come in for jobs for which the country has a substantial economic need.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the report of the International Commission of Jurists regarding the operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, details of which have been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

The article in the Commission's bulletin to which the hon. Member refers does not add anything fresh to the arguments advanced in our debates earlier this year, when Parliament decided that legislation was justified.

When such a distinguished legal body condemns the 1968 Act as violating human rights, creating second-class citizens, worsening race relations and legislating on racial lines, does not this make the hon. Gentleman wonder for a moment whether his Act was a wise and tolerant one and whether it should not be amended or modified?

I have read the article with care, but I must point out that it is not a report by the International Commission of Jurists but an article published in their bulletin. I have no evidence that they as a body have made any pronouncements on this subject. I certainly would not reach the conclusions reached by the hon. Member. The Act is working effectively and it seems to me that the number of people who apply for vouchers can be properly dealt with.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, quite apart from that expression of opinion by the International Commission of Jurists, the Act was the subject of considerable condemnation during the recent conference on human rights in Teheran and that it is considered by some people to be a violation of the Universal Declartion of Human Rights? In those circumstances, will my hon. Friend consider having further consultations with the Governments of India and Pakistan as it is now believed that the vast majority of these people would prefer to go to India and Pakistan, and it might be possible to reach an arrangement with those Governments if we would relax our own restrictions?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper concerning that matter to which the hon. Gentleman has directed his question. There have been criticisms, but this was carried by an overwhelming vote of the House. I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the words of the Solicitor-General in the debate:

"… if the Bill is to be regarded as not being basically a refusal of entry Bill but a Bill for ordering the process of entry, it does not contravene the principles in international law referred to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1580–2.]

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards there are for teachers in approved schools, whose schools are closed, for greater salary protection on the lines of those for teachers in maintained schools as in section Q2 of the Burnham Report.

The provisions in section Q of the Burnham Report relate to teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools who are affected by the closure or reorganisation of a school or department but who continue in the service of the same local education authority. There is no corresponding provision for teachers in approved schools because at present no comparable situation could arise.

Does not the Home Secretary realise that teachers in approved schools feel, and, indeed, are, at a considerable disadvantage compared with those who come under local education authorities? Is he, further, aware that he has had to have recourse to certain subterfuges to continue to pay for the staff in approved schools? Is it not time that this was regularised?

No, I do not think that there have been any subterfuges, but I would point out to the hon. Member that there is machinery for this purpose and we cannot settle these matters across the Floor of the House.

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter in due course on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Deparement what proposals he has to tighten up security measures in order to prevent illegal entry into and out of Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

All the responsible services are alert to this problem and co-operation between them is close. I shall keep the situation under continuing review.

That is a rather complacent Answer. Is the Home Secretary aware that numbers of crooks, espionage agents, illegal immigrants and even enterprising schoolboys get into and out of this country with or without papers and with forged papers, and that this is becoming increasingly irritating? Will he do something about it?

Even at the height of war, when the country was entirely sealed off from everyone else, it was impossible to prevent the situation to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. We have to make a balance here and I know that the authorities concerned are well aware of the point which the hon. and gallant Member makes.

Would the Home Secretary take the opportunity to say what has happened about the widely publicised case of 29 Pakistanis who came in the other day? Are they the subject of charges, is the matter sub judice or what has happened?

There is a possibility of court proceedings, so perhaps I had better not comment further.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has decided to close the Women's Remand Centre in the Midlands: and what alternative arrangements are being made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what alternative arrangements he has made for accommodation in the Midlands for women and girls on remand, following his decision to close Brockhill Remand Centre to females.

I have reluctantly decided that Brockhill remand centre must be closed because it has proved impossible to provide the necessary nursing supervision. Alternative remand accommodation is being used at Pucklechurch, Risley and Holloway and overnight accommodation will be provided at Shrewsbury.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this remand centre was opened when Winson Green prison was closed for women precisely to prevent their having to be taken as far as Hollo-way? Is he aware that this is extremely inconvenient, both for relatives and solicitors, and that the closure has been condemned by magistrates, social workers and probation officers? Will he, please, look at this matter again and find an alternative solution?

I will gladly continue to look for an alternative solution, but I cannot at the moment go back upon the decision to close Brockhill. There has been much publicity about it. I had hopes that that might attract trained nursing staff. Some local inquiries have been stimulated by the publicity and the deferment of the decision, but, alas, we cannot get the nursing staff there. The care of these women must be our first concern.

In view of the overwhelming concern expressed throughout the area concerning the closure, will not the Home Secretary recognise that the information which he has so far received about this matter should be outweighed by the representations of the people on the spot?

I do not think that it should be. I have responsibility for the women who are committed to my care, and they cannot have the proper nursing attention. Despite all the efforts which have been made, some very recently and some thanks to publicity given by my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady, we still have not been able to recruit the necessary nursing staff. Some of the patients concerned are emotionally and mentally disturbed. That must be my first care.

Is not the Home Secretary aware that nursing staff is available? One of the chief reasons why they do not come is that they have to walk about a mile and a half through a borstal centre. If there were a little more flexibility and taxis or some form of transport like that could be used, the Home Secretary could get nursing staff, both from Redditch and from Bromsgrove.

My information is not that of the hon. Member. A number of devices have been tried. I did not want to close the centre. It was started only three years ago, and it seems to me to be a failure that it now has to be closed, but I must have regard to the patients who are committed to my care.

In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the answers to the Question, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce overnight visits by their wives for those serving long-term sentences in Her Majesty's Prisons.

I am considering this and a number of other proposals in the report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System on the régime for long-term prisoners in conditions of maximum security but I have no announcement to make on this subject.

It is not the aim of a prison sentence to break up marriages, encourage homosexuality or punish innocent husbands and wives. Although I am

No, Sir, I cannot give that undertaking. The hypothesis on which my hon. Friend bases his question is susceptible to more than one interpretation. As Professor Radzinowicz' subcommittee said in its report in commenting on this matter,

"the results of an ill prepared scheme could be disastrous."

I agree with that.

Will the Home Secretary realise that this is an extremely controversial proposal and that there are a great many strong practical arguments against permitting such visits? Will he, instead, consider making greater use of home visits by prisoners who are suitable for them?

I think that is a much more promising line of approach.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics are available to him of the number of criminal, motoring and drinking convictions for the years 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967; and what percentage of reported crimes was undetected in each of these four years.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to carry out a nation-wide organisation-and-methods inquiry into the use of manpower by the police forces, with the aim of cutting down the proportion of working time spent dealing with minor traffic offences, and concentrating more of the available manpower on crime prevention and detection.

Many forces have already taken advantage of O. and M. advice to make the most effective use of their resources, and the establishment of the Home Office Research and Development Branch is of further assistance. But it is for each chief officer of police to decide on the relative importance in his area of the different responsibilities that Parliament has laid on the police.

Does not my hon. Friend feel that such an inquiry is urgent in view of the high crime figures? Will my hon. Friend accept that such an inquiry might reveal that there is a strong case for setting up a separate "traffic cop" organisation to deal with traffic movement and prosecutions, leaving the other side of the police entirely free to deal with crime prevention and detection?

Many forces have commissioned O. & M. studies either by local authority teams or by trained police O. & M. officers of various force departments. The statistics concerning crime show that the number of indictable offences known to the police continued to increase in 1967, but at a much lower rate than in 1966. The rate of increase was actually 0·6 per cent., the lowest since 1955.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that I have raised this matter with the Home Office time and again over the last three years? There is strong public feeling that every available officer should be devoted to crime detection and prevention and not be wasted on these other duties which can be undertaken by others.

It is not for me to say whether, where or when any particular police responsibility under the law should be given precedence over any other. This raises a question of substantial constitutional importance. The hon. Gentleman should not take for granted that the fact that officers should be diverted, for example, from minor traffic offences to more serious offences, of necessity makes those officers suitable for that specialist type of work.

Whilst the hon. Gentleman will recognise that many will treat this as yet another reason for objecting to the curb on police recruitment, will he also see that the proposal from the benches opposite to split up the police force into specialised police forces would not go without challenge in this House?

I am sure that the House is aware that traffic wardens are available to help the police with certain traffic functions. I do not think that the House should accept that a mere increase in manpower of necessity leads to direct beneficial results proportionate to the amount of manpower which has been channelled.

As we have now reached the stage at which it is probably fair to estimate that about one in 10,000 minor traffic offences results in prosecution, have we not reached the point at which the traffic law and its enforcement requires reconsideration?

That is a totally different question and raises very much wider issues.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will make a decision on the application of the London Cab Trade for an increase in fares;

(2) when he plans to make regulations to fix fares from London Airport.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now take action to check the abuse by taxi drivers of charging excessive fares from London Airport.

I would refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's reply on 27th June to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt).—[Vol. 767, c. 115.]

As that Answer said that the matter will be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, is it not another example of the Government shuffling off responsibility on to the Board? Ought they not to take a decision themselves, since the application is long overdue in view of Government rising costs?

Not at all. The application would have been for an increase of about 11½ per cent. and it was proper that my right hon. Friend should refer it to the Prices and Incomes Board for its adjudication. Because my right hon. Friend has done that, it would certainly not have been appropriate to have raised fares for the longer distances.

With regard to fares from London Airport, is there not a case for the Government taking immediate action to protect the good name of Britain and also the reputation of the cab industry, the majority of whose members condemn the activities and unscrupulous racketeering of an unrepresentative minority?

It is because the Government take this view that they introduced the Measure that passed through the House a short time ago. I recognise that there is some evidence of excessive charging from London Airport, which is to be deeply regretted. I believe that it affects only a small minority of the taxi drivers concerned. To introduce new fares now would mean changes in meters, which would affect the amount coming into the pockets of the taximen at this moment when awaiting the report from the Prices and Incomes Board, which would be inappropriate.

Apart from the alleged abuses that operate at London Airport, how long is it since there has been a rise in taxi fares? Is it not a long time since there was an increase, and would not an increase do away with the obnoxious habit of tipping?

The last increase was in 1964, but we must await the outcome of the report of the Prices and Incomes Board as to what will now arise.

As this application was put in over a year ago, will the Minister say what his Department was doing during the period before it referred this application to the Prices and Incomes Board?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is incorrect in the period of time that he gave.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will obtain from the Chief Constable a report on the steps which are to be taken to protect hoteliers and guest house keepers from the dangers of letting rooms to students of the University of Sussex who are in the practice of bringing in and leaving proscribed drugs in their rooms.

No, Sir; but if the hon. Member is concerned about absolute offences under the law relating to dangerous drugs, I would refer him to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 16th May to a Question by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle).— [Vol. 764, cc. 1391–2.]

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that at present the agreement with the University of Sussex has terminated and we are now starting a new one? The university is refusing to delete the clause that students should be allowed to bring male and female friends into their rooms in the hotels up to 11 o'clock at night. Does the hon. Gentleman realise—[Interruption.]

Order. This is a Question about drugs.

I would point out that people sometimes take drugs and peddle drugs when they go to their rooms. The hoteliers are nervous about getting caught and being held responsible and the university will not help them. They have been told that the Government may bring in some Act to protect them.

This question obviously raises matters of rather wider import than drugs. I have no reason to believe that the hon. Gentleman's sweeping allegations against the students are justified. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the full examination which my right hon Friend has set on foot, in conjunction with the Law Commission, will cover the whole sphere of absolute liability under the dangerous drugs laws. The need for legislation will be considered when this review is complete and also when the report of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependance, concerning cannabis, is received.

I realise that the review was only recently initiated, but will the hon. Gentleman accept that we on this side attach enormous importance to the danger of absolute liability attaching to people who are completely innocent? Will the hon. Gentleman do what he can to expedite the results of the review?

I accept that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consultations on the question of giving further guidance concerning the basis on which costs are awarded to acquitted persons; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

rose—

I am sorry. The Answer should have been, "Yes, Sir". There is a slight difference.

Guidance on this question was given by the Lord Chief Justice in a statement in the Court of Appeal on 16th February, 1968, which my right hon. Friend brought to the notice of the courts. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

I was about to say, "Not good enough", but perhaps I should say, "Thank you very much". I shall study what the hon. Gentleman sends me with close interest because there is great concern among people who have had costs awarded against them that they are in fact being punished even though they have been acquitted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will take steps to place an immediate ban on the sale of polystyrene tiles which are not of the self-extinguishing type, in view of the fact that such tiles have been shown to have accentuated fires;

(2) what action is being taken to investigate the possible fire hazards from all types of polystyrene tiles.

The Joint Fire Research Organisation is at present investigating the extent to which polystyrene tiles of both normal and self-extinguishing grades may contribute towards the spread of fire. Their report is expected in the autumn. On present information I do not think that a ban on the sale of polystyrene tiles of normal grade would be justified.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing evidence of the great danger of these tiles, if not causing fires, being a considerable hazard when one breaks out? Does not he think that while this review is going on we should bring to the attention of the public the danger of using these tiles which are becoming increasingly popular?

I think that my hon. Friend is over-stating the case. There is no real evidence that polystyrene tiles have been a significant factor in accelerating the spread of fires in dwellings. I think that we must await the conclusions of the researches being carried out before we start making any announcements to the public.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that his requirement that probation officers who work in prisons shall sign the Official Secrets Acts, restricts such officers' freedom to discuss their work; whether he will give the reasons for this requirement; and if he will make a statement.

Access to confidential information in prison records necessarily involves the restrictions on unauthorised disclosure imposed by the Official Secrets Acts. There is no reason why this should inhibit probation officers from discussing their work with their professional colleagues and I have had no representations that any difficulties have arisen in this respect. My right hon. Friend will, however, consider whether any general guidance is required to remove possible misunderstanding.

I thank my hon. Friend for his assurance about the lack of restrictions on professional discussion. Would not he agree that it is wrong that free discussion within the community of the circumstances of prisons should be any more inhibited than, say, discussion of the conditions in geriatric hospitals?

I should explain to my hon. Friend that the application of the Acts is not restricted to members of the prison service. Anyone working in a prison is subject to them. For example, local education authority teachers and Church Army representatives as well as probation officers are required to complete the declaration under the Official Secrets Acts to ensure that each person involved appreciates this.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Forgery Act, 1913, so that frivolous prosecutions of persons in possession of play money cannot be brought.

No, Sir. I think that consideration of any such amendment must await the outcome of the review of the law of forgery which the Law Commission has included in its recently published Second Programme.

Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the series of recent cases in which persons have been prosecuted and found guilty for having in their possession bits of paper bearing a remote resemblance to dollar bills? Is it not obvious that these were designed as political pamphlets, and could not be mistaken for real money? What steps does the hon. Gentleman propose to take to avoid the waste of time in the courts which is occurring as a result of these frivolous prosecutions?

I am aware of one case, that of Stuart Christie, which is still sub judice. The fact that imitation money may be tendered for innocent purposes does not necessarily make it harmless. We must afford adequate protection against imitation money, whatever the purpose for which it might be intended, being passed off as real.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now, as an experiment, provide name badges for police officers in place of numbers on their uniforms.

No, Sir. The Police Advisory Board recently considered this proposal but did not recommend it.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that while the Police Federation understandably objects to its members being labelled with numbers, it would benefit both the public and the police if the former could be encouraged to regard the latter as individual human beings and not as symbols in uniform?

I think that that is the position now.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whether they have names or numbers, we have a police problem under our noses in the Palace of Westminister, in that the police, having been on duty because of our erratic hours, are now being called on to do duty next Sunday—

Order. That has nothing to do with the original Question.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Is it not in order to say that the Home Secretary should give attention to that rather than to numbers?

The Question is about name badges.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to reintroduce capital punishment for the crime of murder of police or prison officers in view of the long series of attacks on police and prison officers.

No, Sir.

What has the right hon. Gentleman in mind to protect police and prison officers against those who have been put inside for real life, and against whom, at the moment, there is no sanction? What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do to protect these police and prison officers and help recruiting?

An increasing number of prison officers is being recruited, and I hope to recruit 1,000 new ones this year. I am glad to say that security for these officers is increasing substantially in prisons, and I am determined that they shall not have their position endangered by the change in the 1965 Act which Parliament, after a free vote, decided to make.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now relax the stringency of the control over immigration into the United Kingdom of British subjects of Asian origin now resident in East Africa, in view of recent immigration trends.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the control over immigration into the United Kingdom of British subjects of Asian origin from Kenya, in view of recent immigration figures.

No, Sir. There is no indication at present that the control is proving unduly stringent or that it is failing to meet the needs of those concerned.

In view of the unfortunate consequences of this Act which has created a category of people with a nationality but no homeland, and which has been internationally condemned by certain important bodies, could we not at least indicate some generosity in the administration of the Act to mitigate its effect?

It might be better if we take notice of the practical consequences of the Act instead of theorising about it. It has restored order into this situation. The number of vouchers issued is well within the quota laid down by Parliament. The number of those taken up is even more within that quota. The number who have arrived amount to no more than a handful. Should we not regard it as something to rejoice in, rather than condemn, that we have restored some order into the situation, and that people have had second thoughts about what had become a wild lemming-like rush?

Are not the figures in which my right hon. Friend takes such pride an indication that the Act was not necessary at all? May I press him on the point I made earlier to his hon. Friend? Will he now make some approach to the Governments of India and Pakistan to see whether some arrangement can be made by which the majority of these people in Kenya who wish to go to those countries are enabled to do so in return for some relaxation of our own restrictions?

I prefer not to comment on the discussions with India and other countries. I neither take pride in, nor am I ashamed of, these figures. It seems that we have achieved what we set out to do, namely, to introduce some order into the flow of immigrants into this country.

As one of those who thought it right to support the right hon. Gentleman in the recent legislation, perhaps I might put a question to him. He set up a legal commission of some kind to go to East Africa. Can he give some indication, as a means of checking the pressure of immigration from that quarter, of how that commission is getting on, and what volume of work it has had to deal with?

I received representations from the two lawyers who kindly went out that there was not sufficient work for them because there were not sufficient appeals. One has returned home, and it seems as though the administration of the Act, as I expected, is being carried out in the fair and sensible way that the House would desire.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will refuse admission to the United Kingdom to those, whether students or others, who come with the declared intention of advocating the overthrow by force of the constitution of this country, or of otherwise disseminating sedition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to prevent known foreign agitators entering Great Britain.

I shall continue to consider cases individually on their merits.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the B.B.C. spent public money to bring "professional students" and agitators from abroad? How does this affect the good relations of Britain with the countries from which they come?

I am not answerable for the B.B.C. What I have to determine is whether somebody who wishes to come to this country is likely to attempt to overthrow the constitution by force. I have not so far reached that conclusion in relation to those invited to come by the B.B.C.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is possible in this country and in this House to make speeches in support of sedition, rebellion, and treason against the Crown, and will he therefore, in the interests of free speech and fair play, resist the pressure of those of my hon. Friends who would wish to silence the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) and his fellow supporters of the Rhode-sian Front?

Yes, Sir, I think I can give that assurance.

On a point of Order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise the matter again

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has given to the Metropolitan Police about the use of C.S. gas; and if he will call for reports from all chief constables about the instructions in the use of C.S. gas that they have issued to forces under their control.

The instructions given to the Metropolitan Police about the use of C.S. gas have not been altered since the statement made to Parliament on 20th May, 1965. The basic requirement is that tear gas equipment shall be used only in circumstances similar to those in which the issue of conventional firearms to police is authorised—that is, to effect the arrest of armed besieged criminals or violently and dangerously insane persons. I am seeking the other information and will write to my hon. Friend when it is available.

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports which show that there is some evidence to suggest that scientific opinion considers that this substance can be lethal in confined quarters? At least until this question is determined, will he ensure that this substance is not used for purposes of restoring order in cases where other means—such as tear gas—may properly be used?

This is known to be a potent substance, and when the Home Office working party originally recommended its use it was with that in mind. But it was also considered to be less toxic and less likely to cause damage than other gases. I have made inquiries into the number of occasions on which this gas has been used and I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that they are very rare, because the consequences are known to be serious.

Do any of our police forces have plans for acquiring the chemical spray called Mace, which has been used with effect by some police forces in America for quieting dangerous criminals?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that subject.

If this gas is rarely used and if there are doubts about its effects, but there is some evidence to suggest that they can be very serious, why has my right hon. Friend authorised its use at all?

Because there may be occasions when it would be extremely dangerous for the police to operate without it.

Is it not misleading to suggest that this gas has been or might be used for maintaining public order? Is it not a fact that it is used, if ever, solely for the purpose of assisting the police in an emergency situation concerning dangerous people?

I have not heard that suggested this afternoon, and it would be misleading so to suggest. I repeat what I said in my original Answer, namely, that it is to effect the arrest of armed besieged criminals, or violently and dangerously insane persons. I repeat that the number of occasions on which it has been used are insignificant.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is taken after conviction in a court following a breathalyser test in respect of those serving in the police forces and fire brigades.

Under the Police and the Fire Service Discipline Regulations, this is a matter within the discretion of the respective chief officers.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no second punishment for the one crime committed, and will he give instructions to see that that is so?

Perhaps I should explain that criminal conduct—that is to say, where an officer has been found guilty by a court of law of a criminal offence—is a specific offence under the Police (Discipline) Regulations, 1965. A disciplinary charge would not, however, follow automatically as a result of a court conviction. It is for chief constables, who have discretion in the matter, to decide whether a disciplinary charge should be brought. The situation with regard to the Fire Service closely approximates that with regard to the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to introducing regulations to reduce the number of burning accidents to children as a result of wearing inflammable night-wear, following the deliberations on this matter by the Working Party on Flammable Clothing; and if he will make a statement.

Recommendations relating to children's dressing-gowns are now being prepared. In respect of nightwear material sold by the yard, a voluntary scheme has been evolved under which retailers will be invited to display appropriate warning notices for the guidance of their customers.

Is the Minister aware that a number of these tragic burning accidents have happened to school girls wearing night attire manufactured in dressmaking classes? Will he prevail upon the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland to prohibit the use of such inflammable materials in dressmaking classes at schools?

All children's nightdresses offered for sale are required to be made of flame-resistant material. I will look into the question with my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he complied with the request of the United States service authorities that Private Tupper should be arrested by the Metropolitan Police under the terms of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952.

The Act provides that, at the request of any country to which it applies, the police may arrest a deserter from the forces of that country, with a view to his return to the jurisdiction of the appropriate service authorities. The United States is a country to which the Act applies, and I found no reason to advise the Commissioner of Police that the procedure under the Act should not be complied with.

But was not Mr. Tupper really a political refugee who should have been granted political asylum in accordance with the traditions of our country? Have not other N.A.T.O. countries, notably Sweden, Holland and France, granted such asylum and not handed men over to the American Forces?

Sweden is not a N.A.T.O. country. There is no evidence at all of political or conscience connections in this case. Private Tupper was enlisted in the United States Army for two years on 25th October, 1966. He went absent without leave from his unit in Fort Irwin, California, on 31st August, 1967.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take the initiative in proposing to President Johnson and Premier Kosygin that there should be an international conference to consider the revision and updating of the Geneva Protocol covering chemical and microbiological warfare.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to a Question by him on 1st July by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. —[Vol. 767, c. 167.]

When the Geneva Conference reconvenes on 16th July shall we be raising these complex problems of inspection and verification?

It is certainly our intention when the Committee reconvenes on 16th July—we are now examining all the issues that we think it should consider and we have been devoting particular attention to the question of chemical and biological weapons.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing interest in the question of microbiological and chemical warfare? Does not he think that there should be a departure from the Conservative Administration's policy, and a transfer of the Porton establishment to the Ministry of Health?

I have considered whether it should be transferred to the Ministry of Health but I am satisfied that in present circumstances it should not be. I agree that there is great interest in the subject and that this interest has increased recently, but I do not feel that it would be right to transfer responsibility from the Secretary of State for Defence.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister whether in the light of the unemployment figures, he is satisfied with the co-ordination between Ministers dealing with the redeployment of labour and the needs of the export drive.

Yes, Sir.

Since the number of wholly unemployed has been above the half million mark for the last 14 months, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that he is satisfied? Can he say what level of unemployment he regards as full employment, and when he hopes that that position will be achieved?

As the hon. Member knows, the position is that with all the efforts which have been made, and the new situation, there are abundant opportunities for our manufacturers to get export orders. Many are showing great success in doing so. This will involve taking on more labour in order to fulfil those export orders.

Whilst recognising that redeployment is working successfully to some extent, does not my right hon. Friend accept that the general level of unemployment is disturbingly high for this time of the year? Will not he now consider taking further measures to reduce unemployment by encouraging an increase in consumption?

It is too high, but I believe that the right way to get it down is by deployment in the export field, for which there are abundant opportunities. I would not support any proposals—nor would hon. Members opposite—for increasing home consumption and going in for an import boom when it is an export-led expansion that we need.

Does not the Prime Minister recall that, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor said that the Government had no intention of creating unemployment in advance of the demand of export industry? He referred to not digging a hole before they could fill it in. Is not that precisely what is happening?

In fact, my right hon. Friend's reference to digging the hole was originally made last November. As to the position since the Budget, there has been very little change in the level of unemployment, but the number of export opportunities has greatly increased. I thought that, if right hon. Gentlemen opposite had any criticism, it was that we had allowed too much home market consumption.

asked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate the activities of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity and the President of the Board of Trade in their efforts to improve industrial efficiency.

My right hon. Friends already work closely together on this, as on other matters, Sir.

But does not my right hon. Friend think that it is rather odd that one Minister should employ a gentleman from Rootes to set up a department to advise on productivity, while the President of the Board of Trade is able to find half a million pounds for grants to small firms in Bristol and Glasgow to enable them to get advice from private firms about industrial efficiency? Why cannot Mr. Cattell's department advise firms in Bristol and Glasgow?

Both these proposals are extremely important and are right. In the case of the gentleman previously employed by Rootes, my hon. Friend will know of the highly successful productivity agreement worked out at Rootes. We want to see more of them since this is the best way of dealing with prices, incomes and productivity. But there are small firms which could benefit from industrial consultants' advice, and we are trying this pilot scheme in the Glasgow and Bristol areas.

What is the point of improving industrial efficiency when both employment and exports can so easily be affected when gratuitous insults are offered to friendly Governments?

I thought that that matter was fully and satisfactorily dealt with by my right hon. Friend yester- day. Obviously, it was not to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman, but that is a compliment to some of us.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to reshape the Cabinet Office and reduce the number of Ministries and governmental bodies.

These matters are kept under continuous review, but I have no statement to make today.

Besides achieving some necessary streamlining, would not this proposal also help the Prime Minister by sparing him the tedium of having to replace senior Ministers as they resign on deciding that they no longer wish to serve?

Such matters are not unprecedented. I remember a whole Treasury team resigning when the Conservative Government were in power— all three Ministers. I remember the then Prime Minister sacking half his Cabinet —the wrong half, as it turned out. So far as the machinery of Government is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that the already announced decisions involve the merger of four Departments into two. This is in addition to other changes which have been made.

Is it not already the case that hon. Members having financial interests in any matter under discussion declare their interest?

Yes, Sir, I think that that is the practice of the House. It is more relevant, I think, to a later Question.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that present methods of Cabinet Government command the support of all his colleagues?

Yes, Sir.

Without wishing to add to the Prime Minister's difficulties, may I ask whether he will make it clear that the team which resigned then was of quite a different calibre from the one which has resigned now?

I did not say that they resigned; I said that they were sacked.

Can my right hon. Friend give the House an estimate of the number of new Ministries which the party opposite has proposed over the last 12 months?

No, Sir, I do not follow all their successive policy statements. Since this Government were formed, however, two Departments have been abolished and three new ones created—[An HON. MEMBER: "Three?"] They are the Welsh Office—I do not know whether it is Conservative policy to abolish the Welsh Office—the Ministry of Technology and the D.E.A. Aviation has gone, quite unlamented, and the Colonial Office has gone. As a result of further action to be taken this year, the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office will be merged, as, of course, will the Ministries of Health and Social Security.

May I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that a way of reducing the number of Ministries which would greatly benefit the people of Wales and Scotland would be to establish Welsh and Scottish government?

That would certainly be of no benefit to the people of Wales or Scotland.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that Members of either House who have financial interests in a matter under debate, shall be henceforth in the same position in terms of voting rights as those elected members of local authorities who are barred from voting on council rents because of their residence in local authority dwellings.

No, Sir, any change in the present arrangements would be a matter for the House as a whole and not for me.

But would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is wholly anomalous that we fully trust Members of this House to behave at all times honourably and sometimes even right honourably, while we apparently believe that only the elected members of local authorities are capable of sinister skulduggery?

My hon. Friend will be aware that, under legislation introduced by this Government, since January, 1967, any member of a local authority who is a council house tenant has been able to vote on a matter of general housing policy, but not on a specific question affecting his own tenancy. As to this House, I have heard no suggestion in any votes or speeches, even recent ones, of dishonourable motivation. Some of the votes have not been very sensible, but they have been honourable.

While suggesting no dishonourable motivation on the part of any hon. Members, may I ask whether the Prime Minister would agree that there is, on the face of it, a marked discrepancy between the rules governing this matter in Parliament and those under Section 76 of the Local Government Act of 1933, which are far more stringent? Would it not be in the interests both of the House of Commons and of local government that these matters should be objectively and dispassionately considered?

It was because we felt that it was an anomaly that we amended the appropriate Section of the Local Government Act. There is this difference. This House is a legislature, whereas the members of a local authority are an executive as well as, in certain cases, a legislature. There is that difference. As far as the House is concerned, any changes thought desirable —I am not aware of any in this respect —would be a matter for the whole House.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a national television broadcast giving a progress report on the state of the economy at the end of the first six-month period since devaluation of the £ sterling and its effect upon the living standards of the population.

asked the Prime Minister when he intends to make his next Ministerial television broadcast; and if he will give an assurance that he will do so before the end of the present Session.

I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on 2nd July, Sir.—[Vol. 767, c. 1299–1301.]

When the right hon. Gentleman does steel himself to make another broadcast, could he, as the most incredible leader of the most incredible Government which we have ever had, aim to restore public confidence in Parliament by dropping his very convincing act of being a man totally devoid of integrity and, at the same time, in relation to his devaluation broadcast, admit quite openly—[Interruption.]

Order. Questions must be brief.

In relation to his devaluation broadcast—[Interruption.]— would he openly admit that he either made a gross miscalculation, misled the people or at best had been over-economical with the truth?—[Interruption.]

I could not hear the noble Lord's last few words, but if they were no better than the earlier ones, they are not worth answering. Perhaps he would let me hear his last few words about my devaluation broadcast.

On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not hear the last few words spoken by my noble Friend. May I tell him what my hon. Friend said—

On a point of order. My last few words were: would the right hon. Gentleman honestly and openly admit that he had either made a gross miscalculation in his devaluation broadcast or had deliberately misled the people or, at best, had been over-economical with the truth?

No, Sir. I would first suggest that, if the noble Lord wants lessons in selective misrepresentation, his hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who is sitting next to him, would be very good at giving them, to judge from his selection of figures in his article last week. The noble Lord, however, needs no lessons from anyone. The position is that, in my devaluation broadcast, I said that prices will rise—[Interruption.]—I said that prices will rise. On Tuesday I informed the House that, on the Financial Times index, in their view, they had increased less than most of us expected.

We realise that the Chancellor has placed a ban on personal appearances by the Prime Minister on television, and, in view of the state of the foreign exchange markets, this is no doubt just as well, but, in the light of the ex-Minister of Power's television appearance earlier—[Interruption.]

Order. The House wants to hear these exchanges.

I was about to ask whether, in the light of the ex-Minister of Power's television broadcast earlier this week, the Prime Minister would not, just for this occasion, ask for the right of reply on behalf of the intellectuals.

The hon. Member's Question was preceded by an assertion which is quite false. There has been no ban whatsoever placed on my going on television.

Order. The other half of the House wants to hear the reply.

The hon. Member preceded his question with inaccurate statements. He should withdraw the statements before he expects his rather stupid question to be answered.

May I ask the Prime Minister a serious supplementary question. Does he not agree that the considerable increase in exports since devaluation has, unfortunately, been offset by two basic weaknesses—namely, the heavy increase in the volume of imported manufactured goods and the substantial private outflow of capital to advanced countries in the sterling area, most notably to Australia to buy gold mining shares and other shares? Does not the Prime Minister feel that we should bring in selective short-term import controls and put a ban on the private capital outflow at least until the balance of payments is again in surplus?

My hon. Friend is aware that I answered that question when it was put by one of my hon. Friends last week, and I then gave my reasons against accepting either of those remedies. I agree that the very great increase in exports and the even larger increase in export orders has been matched in the last few months by rising imports about which, as I said, no one is complacent. We have to see how far the measures which we have taken will deal wi:h the situation. I certainly do not agree that the use of import controls as proposed by my hon. Friend is the right way to deal with the situation.