asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the rise of 6·7 per cent. in indictable offences in England and Wales during the first nine months of 1968 and of the shortages of manpower in many police forces, if he will now review his instructions to police authorities to limit from 1st April their recruitment to a small percentage of the vacancies at 31st March in their uniformed establishment.

I have authorised an increase of 2,000 police officers in England and Wales for the financial year 1969–70. This is twice the rate of increase authorised for this year.

How can the Home Secretary expect people to swallow that as an adequate Reply, especially in Surrey, where the increase in serious crime last year was 23·5 per cent.? Would he not agree that this limitation itself is an inhibiting factor on recruitment, because it tends to show that the Government do not have a proper priority for their basic responsibility of the fight against crime?

That is a good party speech, but it does not represent the facts. It so happens that this figure will be larger, in terms of actual increase in strength, than for six out of the last eleven years, including some years when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. I can claim to stand comparison with anything that the hon. Gentleman's party did as a Government in this matter. Of course, the overall strength of the service is much larger than it was then. If we get away from that kind of thing, we have to consider what the forces can do in the matter of recruitment, when keeping up their standards to establishment. I had a careful check made on that.

How far does the figure of 2,000 mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's original reply represent an increase on the policy previously announced under the economy measures? Will he not recognise that not only the increase in crime but also the duties in relation to the control of demonstrations and the discouraging effect of limitations on recruitment have to be taken into account in arriving at the proper figure?

These figures do have to be taken into account. This simple figure neglects the fact that there will be 600 additional traffic wardens this year to relieve the police of some of their duties, and 1,000 additional civilians this year who will also relieve the police of some of their internal functions; so the figures can be out even more. These figures must be looked at in addition to the other figures. I have looked at a number of forces and, although it is not universally true, a number of them, if they manage to get the figures they have been allocated for this year, will do better than they have done for many years past, even when recruitment was unrestricted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the numbers of adults and children, respectively, who suffered serious or minor injury as a result of firework accidents in each of the years 1964 to 1968, inclusive; and if he will take steps to make it necessary to obtain a licence in order to purchase fire works.

The figures for 1968 are not yet available, but I hope to publish them shortly. The figures for 1964 to 1967 were given in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Blackley (Mr. Rose) on 7th March, 1968. I am not at present satisfied that there is a case for restricting the sale of fireworks to licensed purchasers.—[Vol. 760, c. 131–2.]

Would my hon. Friend not agree that some attempt must be made to reduce the dreadful number of injuries due to this cause? Would he accept that the simple way to do this would be to confine fireworks to organised displays, so that firms or groups or individuals would have to obtain a licence to buy fireworks?

I realise the problem. Between 1962 and 1967, the total number of casualties fell by nearly 30 per cent. and the total number of severer casualties fell by nearly 65 per cent., so we are making progress.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that a very high proportion of these accidents are caused by home-made fireworks? What action is he taking to ensure that sodium chlorate is sold in a form which will make it less effective as an explosive compound?

I will have a look at that last point. I do not think that a large number of accidents are due to homemade fireworks. A proportion are, but most of them occur at firework parties at home.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the fact that many workers plead guilty to minor offences rather than plead not guilty and thus have to attend court and lose wages, he will introduce legislation to enable minor offenders who do not wish to appear in court to submit a written plea of not guilty together with their reasons for this plea.

No legislation is necessary for this purpose; but if a defendant wishes to dispute the facts the court is unlikely to be able to reach a satisfactory decision without hearing oral evidence.

Would my hon. Friend agree that if courts were encouraged to accept such a plea and if forms were issued enabling people to plead not guilty, it would considerably reduce the pressure in many magistrates' courts? Does he further agree that it would make the system more akin to justice in that there would be a reduction in the tendency for industrial workers to plead guilty to avoid losing a day's pay?

I do not think my hon. Friend can have understood the position. At present it is open to a defendant to do no more than write to the court, giving his reasons for pleading not guilty. It is inevitable that the court will take into account that such evidence has not been given on oath and the defendant has not been subject to cross-examination.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, although an accused man might not lose a day's work, all the prosecution witnesses would have to give up a day's work merely because the accused had decided to put in a written dispute of the charge?

I would not dispute that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to designate a large open space such as part of Wimbledon Common or Richmond Park to be equipped with full Press and television facilities, and to be used for demonstrations, so that both police and property can be less subject to frequent disorderly attacks.

No, Sir.

No one wants to stop demonstrations, but why should police, visitors to London and property-owners be subject to hustling and violence every Sunday? Is not the time coming when these demonstrations must be put in places where people are not put to inconvenience but where they can have full publicity?

I always associate Wimbledon and Richmond with tennis and polo, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to have demonstrations up in the Lake District no doubt he will put in a bid. However, I feel that we cannot very easily order people where they are to demonstrate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now cause an inquiry to be made into methods for the better personal protection of police engaged in the maintenance of law and order during political protests, marches, demonstrations, or civil commotions or disorders.

I keep these matters under review in consultation with chief officers of police and do not think any special inquiry is necessary.

But would not my right hon. Friend agree that the standard police helmets help to identify rather than protect, and that the police officer who was injured in the Grosvenor Square demonstration would have been less severely injured if he had been wearing a standard crash helmet rather than his rather stupid police helmet? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that crash-type helmets are available to police in such circumstances?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but there is a serious matter for consideration in relation to distinguishing the particular type of police who are dealing with these demonstrations. The Commissioner's view, which I share at the moment, is that this should be regarded as the duty of the ordinary policeman and the public are expected to respond in the corresponding manner. If they do not, as I have said on many occasions, I trust that the courts will take due note of what has happened.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to receive the reports of the Parliamentary Boundaries Commissions.

The Commissions for England, Wales and Northern Ireland will submit their reports before November, 1969.

Did the right hon. Gentleman see the article in the Sunday Times saying that he had decided firmly and irrevocably not to implement the Commissions' reports? As this would be grossly improper, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to deny it and say that he has every intention of implementing them as soon as possible?

No doubt the hon. Gentleman knows that if he had attempted to put that question on the Order Paper he would not have been allowed to do so because neither he nor I is expected to comment on Press reports.

Surely the Secretary of State is now in a position to give an assurance that he will implement his statutory duty to put into effect the Boundaries Commissions' reports as soon as may be and, in any event, before the next General Election?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be well aware that I am aware of my statutory obligations.

It is six years since various county boundary changes were made affecting the counties of Huntingdon, Peterborough, Cambridge, the Isle of Ely, Bedford and Northampton. There are certain non-controversial Parliamentary boundary changes which should follow as a matter of course. How long will those Parliamentary boundary changes be held up?

I shall consider the matter when I receive the Commissions' reports.

Since there may well be wide changes made in local government boundaries in the very near future, would it not be foolish to base Parliamentary boundaries on present local government boundaries?

I note that there seem to be opposing views on both sides of the House.

In view of the delay in the reorganisation of Welsh local government boundaries, may I have an assurance that the same delay will not happen when the right hon. Gentleman has the report of the Welsh Commission on Parliamentary Boundaries?

The Act clearly lays down my obligations, and until I am relieved of those obligations they will have to be carried out. If I have any proposals to be relieved of them, I will bring them to the House.

Might not my right hon. Friend have some difficulty in carrying out the Opposition's wishes, because I understand that they are preparing for an election this October?

Election considerations would never enter my mind.

In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's last reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the action of his Department which caused the delay in the hearing of an application for leave to appeal about which the hon. Member for Cleveland first wrote to him on 11th September, 1968.

The Home Office was not responsible for this regrettable delay, which, as has been explained to my hon. Friend, occurred because the trial papers were not sent promptly to the Registrar of Criminal Appeals by the clerk of the peace. I am informed that the clerk has taken steps to prevent similar delays in future. My right hon. Friend has recently reminded all clerks of assize and clerks of the peace that every effort should be made to expedite the supply of trial papers to the Registrar.

I welcome that reply and the action which has been taken. Which Minister is responsible for the actions of clerks of the peace? Apparently the Lord Chancellor is not. My constituent might well have been detained unnecessarily for four months had his appeal been upheld purely as a result of mistakes in the office of the clerk of the peace.

The Home Secretary does not appoint clerks of the peace and they are not answerable to him for the conduct of their business. However, he has a concern in the efficient administration of justice and, for this reason, he has sent the circular referred to in the Answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce regulations governing the provision of warning notices in connection with escalators installed in stores and other public places.

My right hon. Friend has no power to make such regulations, but the associations concerned have agreed to recommend to their members that suitable warning notices should be displayed on all escalators in departmental stores and multiple shops. I understand that the London Transport Board intends to take similar action where appropriate in Underground stations.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of children have had to have legs or feet amputated as a result of soft-soled shoes getting caught in the side of escalators? The situation is aggravated by the fact that invariably they are advised to hold on to the rail, which means that they have their feet in the most dangerous position. Has the hon. Gentleman drawn attention to this?

We are aware of this matter and are discussing it with various bodies. The existing statutory powers relating to escalators come under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, which was passed for a different purpose. We are doing all that we can to help.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce regulations governing the safety of escalators in stores and other public places.

My right hon. Friend has no power to make such regulations. But a British Standard dealing with lifts and escalators is expected at the end of April, and if this introduces any new safeguards for members of the public my Department will do all it can to see that these are adopted.

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of seeking powers to make these accidents notifiable so that the size of the problem may be assessed? Also, has he considered requiring micro-switches to be installed so that the machinery cuts out the moment that there is an obstacle in the way?

I do not think that there is need for action on the first part of the supplementary question, but I will look at the matter. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said in the last part, which I will pass on to our scientific advisers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he allowed a foreign visitor to enter this country on the sole condition that he undertook not to study Scientology during part of his stay.

Mr. Fahrner was refused leave to land in accordance with the statement made to the House on 25th July, 1968. Subsequently he said that he had reasons for coming here other than the study of Scientology, and he was granted leave to land for two weeks. This took a considerable time and accounted for the delay Mr. Fahrner experienced at the airport. He left the country the following day.

Is it not absurd to prohibit adults visiting this country to study Scientology or any other philosophy or religion? More importantly, as the whole matter is sub judice and the subject of investigation by a committee, should not my hon. Friend be impartial and lift all bans on Scientologists visiting this country meanwhile?

No, Sir.

Can it seriously be said that Scientology is a religion, and are there not hundreds of parents who have been very upset that their children have been sucked into Scientology, have wasted money and been mentally upset?

An inquiry is taking place to answer these philosophical questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has sent to the representations made to him regarding the operation of the 1968 Amendment Order to the Firemen's Pension Scheme Order, 1966, following the death of Fireman Liptrott of Bolton in April, 1968, while trying to rescue three children from a gas-filled cavity at Brackley Colliery.

Discussions have taken place with the representatives of the local authority associations and of the fire service associations at a meeting of the Joint Pensions Committee of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils. The matter is now being considered.

Will my hon. Friend say if the municipal corporations and the Fire Brigades Union gave approval to the 1968 Amendment Order? If so, does not the approval of such a restricted range of qualifications show remarkable lack of foresight?

Agreement was reached, but I would rather offer no comment on it. It is being discussed at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to police forces on riot control.

There is standing machinery for discussion of operational matters of this kind between the Home Office and chief officers of police; but the general answer to my hon. Friend's Question is that, with my approval, the police have no intention of departing from their traditional methods when dealing with crowds and demonstrations.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is widespread admiration throughout the world, as well as in this country, for the record of the British police in crowd control, and will he continue to assure the police that the House will support them if they resist all temptation to take short cuts which are likely to become counter-productive.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. He has expressed a general view which is held not only in this country but outside. There are at the Police College courses for senior officers, which cover public order and the control of demonstrations. All officers in the Metropolitan Police district are given special training, and my hon. Friend may assume that they are well aware of the manner in which it is our general conclusion that they can best control the unruly minority who try their patience so sorely.

Is the Home Secretary fully satisfied that the police have all the legal powers they need to deal with riots and disturbances on private property, in particular within the precincts of universities and other educational establishments?

That is another question. There are difficult matters concerning the law of trespass, but I am not persuaded that the police need any more powers to enter upon universities, nor am I satisfied that this is the best manner of handling that situation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to control the increase of United States investment in gambling in Great Britain.

The Gaming Act, 1968, provides that no one may apply for a licence to promote commercial gaming except with the consent of the Gaming Board, which must first be satisfied of his trustworthiness, taking into account his financial backing. One of the objects is to exclude investment from undesirable sources, whether here or overseas.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask if he will specifically refute the allegations in the Wall Street Journal last November that American gangsters were planning big investments in British gambling and assure the House that, whatever may be the pressures in terms of the balance of payments and so on, we shall continue to exercise the strictest possible control?

The Exchange Control Regulations provide us with an appropriate way of ensuring liaison between the Treasury and myself on questions of foreign investment and gambling. On the allegations about the Mafia, I obviously have no idea what they are planning, but if they were to try to establish a foothold here, there are many weapons in our armoury for repelling that undesirable organisation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread anxiety that he should bring in the Regulations and use his powers under the recent Act, as there is widespread uncertainty as to the future, which uncertainty can only be dispelled by the exercise of those powers in a clear manner.

Yes, Sir, but I do not think that that has any relationship to the original question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the total number of aliens admitted to the United Kingdom with or without work permits in 1967 and 1968 compare with the figures of 48,878 in 1965 and 48,637 in 1966.

The figures quoted by the hon. Member refer to aliens admitted with work permits. Comparable figures for 1967 and 1968 are 45,867 and 45,142, respectively.

Does the right hon. Gentleman relate the number of permits granted to the capacity of this country to assimilate aliens or to the number of applications which he receives?

The permits are issued in accordance with a request either from those who wish to come here or from employers in this country who wish to employ them. Apart from that, there is no limitation, except the limitation of time that has been put on them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in cases where immigrants holding vouchers have been accompanied or been followed by dependants, what is the maximum number of dependants which have been admitted for one such voucher holder in each of the last three years; and what is the average number of dependants admitted for voucher holders with dependants in these years.

It is not possible to answer the first part of the hon. Member's Question. But the figures suggest that about three dependants have entered for each voucher holder, their entry being spread over eight to 10 years.

What does the Home Office consider to be a dependant in relation to the directness or remoteness of relationship?

This comes in the Regulations and in the Act. The main dependants are the wife and children under the age of 16. In certain cases on compassionate grounds children between 16 and 18 may be included, but principally children under 16 and the wife are the main dependants.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many would-be immigrants were refused entry into the United Kingdom in 1968 and returned to the country of their origin; what was the cost to public funds of their return fares; and what estimates he has made for 1969.

In 1968, 4,060 aliens and 2,570 Commonwealth citizens were refused admission to the United Kingdom. The cost of repatriation is met from public funds in only a small number of cases. In 1968 the cost was £16,500, and I expect expenditure in 1969 to be of the same order.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Home Office is now making progress with the examination of the admissibility of these people at the point of departure instead of at the point of arrival and how soon we may expect some progress in that important reversal of procedure?

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that this refers to aliens as well as to Commonwealth citizens. We are looking very closely into this concerning Commonwealth citizens. But concerning aliens, visas would be involved if the hon. Gentleman's plan were taken up. Visas have been abolished in Europe by most countries for the last 20 years, and it would be regarded as a retrograde steps to reintroduce visas in a Europe which has become freer.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much has been paid out from public funds in the last year, say, to help immigrants already here who wish to go home?

That is not my responsibility. The hon. Gentleman should put down that Question to the Department of Health and Social Security.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to arrange for trained teams of officials to test the applications of immigrants in their countries of origin instead of when they arrive at ports and airports in Great Britain.

Posts overseas in the main Commonwealth centres of immigration to the United Kingdom are already staffed to assess applications for entry certificates. Every effort has been made to publicise the desirability of immigrants applying for certificates. If the hon. Member has it in mind that certificates should be made compulsory, I would refer him to what I said in the Expiring Laws Continuance debate on 13th November.

Surely it would be more efficient and more humane to test these applications at source than to keep a lot of people hanging about the ports and airports of this country and perhaps having to repatriate them at more expense, and disappointment to themselves, if their applications are not successful?

On the surface that seems an attractive argument until one penetrates it further. There are many difficulties. I am not sure that it would be either to our advantage or to the advantage of those coming here. I repeat my previous suggestion that, as this is a detailed administrative matter, I should like a body, like the Select Committee which has been set up with the agreement of the House, to go into the question. I am not yet satisfied that administratively this would be an improvement. There is no issue of principle here, and if it could be proved to work I should certainly consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's present policy towards granting permission for the South Vietnamese National Liberation Front representatives to attend the Easter meeting of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

A United Kingdom visa will on application be granted for this purpose to Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, a member of the South Vietnamese National Liberation Front Delegation in Paris.

Is the Home Secretary aware that many people will be extremely pleased by the statement which he has made, as many of us have felt that the exclusion of N.L.F. representatives from entering Britain was totally unjustifiable?

Yes, Sir, I am aware that these views will be widely held. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House some time ago that anyone who is prepared to come here to make a positive contribution to peace in Vietnam would be encouraged, and I trust that this lady is coming for that purpose.

Does the Home Secretary recall that when previous applications for visas have been made by members of the N.L.F. or people from North Vietnam these have been refused by the Home Office? How has he arrived at this decision which, although very welcome, conflicts with those made on previous occasions?

Because there has been a change of circumstances which may have escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the profits of the State-owned licensed premises in Carlisle and Scotland have declined from £284,281 in 1963–64 to £186,896 in 1967–68; and what steps he is asking to reverse the trend.

Since 1963 there has been a progressive increase in costs, which, in pursuance of Government policy, have not been fully passed on to the consumer. There is constant search for improvement in the efficiency and profitability of State management.

Does not the Minister agree that State-owned pubs are a very bad investment for the British taxpayer, since their profits go down while the profits of private brewers and pubs go up? From his answer, do I take it that the lucky citizens of Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty are enjoying subsidised beer prices?

What it means is that they get cheaper beer because they drink beer from State concerns.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the profits would have been much greater had not so much money been ploughed back in improving the State management schemes for hotels and pubs?

Yes, a great deal of investment is taking place.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will sell the licensed premises owned by the State in Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty.

This suggestion does not commend itself either to my right hon. Friend or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Does the Minister not recognise that State pubs are the last sacred red cows of Socialism, and would it not be better to sell them and spend the proceeds on better schools, hospitals and roads?

Mr. David Lloyd George of the day would be very surprised to find himself cast as the progenitor of a Socialist red cow, but we think that they are a good investment and provide a good service.

Will not my lion. Friend confirm that all previous Tory Home Secretaries have refused to denationalise the State pubs, and is not this good evidence that they should continue as they are?

One other factor to take into account is that there is little doubt that private enterprise would shut down the brewery at Carlisle, which would add to the unemployment problem.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the main reason why the Conservative Party did not denationalise these pubs was that the local Conservative hon. Members represented to the Ministers involved that the likely increase in the cost of beer might lose them their seats?

It is true that some politicians are two faced.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

If the hon. Gentleman raises what I think is his point of order now, he will prevent his right hon. and learned Friend intervening from the Front Bench.

While accepting from the Under-Secretary of State that the true progenitor of this scheme was Mr. David Lloyd George, will he not recognise that, quite apart from the question of private enterprise against public enterprise, the central Government are not necessarily the best controllers of a few localised pubs in a given district and that there are alternative ways in which they could be organised without prejudice to employment in Carlisle?

I agree that public ownership has many forms.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the thoroughly Socialist doctrinaire Answers that those supplementary questions have received—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must give notice in the conventional way.

I would beg leave to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter after the Conservatives have won the next General Election.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must take note of what the Chair says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the difficulties arising out of Christmas being celebrated in mid-week, as occurred last year, whether he will consult with the churches and other interested bodies on the possibility of Christmas being celebrated on the last Sunday in December.

I have no reason to believe that there is any widespread opinion in favour of a change in the traditional date.

Is the Home Secretary aware that, since I made the suggestion in the New Year that Christmas might be celebrated on a Sunday, there has been considerable support for the idea? Is he further aware that the Churches have no theological objection, since it is agreed that Christ was not born on 25th December? Is he further aware that a lot of people consider that it would be more orderly to make Christmas Day a Sunday and so avoid the muddle which arises when it occurs in the middle of the week?

This is not a matter of orderliness and, whatever support the hon. Gentleman may have secured from outside, he has only 13 signatures to his Motion, which does not suggest that there is much demand in this House for a change. As for the Churches, I have had no initiatives coming from them and, in view of the length of time that it has taken to try to make a fixed Easter, I do not think that I want to embark on this one until we have settled that one.

Nevertheless, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not close his mind entirely to this suggestion because, if the idea were properly canvassed, there might be a good deal of support for it, not least amongst housewives.

If I am to judge from what happens in my own household, a housewife counts the number of days for which she has to prepare without the shops being open. I do not know whether deciding on a fixed day would make much difference to that. I would not like to encourage any thought that we could embark upon this suggestion. Our experience in attempting to get a fixed Easter must make anyone chary of attempting to get this one through, too.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will advise that the terms of reference of the Commission on the Constitution should include consideration of the possible reduction in the numbers of Members of Parliament.

The terms of reference would not rule out a recommendation on this point as a consequence of other recommendations the Commission might make.

In view of the developments which might take place in both regional and local government, does not the Home Secretary think that there is some merit in the proposition, particularly if regional governments could take some of the work load off Whitehall?

As I said in my original Answer, if these recommendations were considered by the Commission, this point might arise when it was discussing any consequential alterations. As regard the hon. Gentleman's general point, I dare say that we could all think of hon. Members whom we would be better without.

Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that one of the terms of reference of the Constitutional Commission will be to consider whether, as a great percentage of our legislation does not apply to Northern Ireland, it is desirable to have 12 hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies voting on matters which do not concern them?

Having set up the Commission, I think that we should now allow it to get to work on the problems themselves, without expressing our views on the question, at any rate officially as a Government. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Captain O'Neill, has agreed to the establishment of a panel to consider the constitutional relationships between Northern Ireland and this country, and I have no doubt that the Commission will want to examine what he has to say on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making to issue to police forces fragmentation grenades, containing CS gas, designed to break into separate jet-propelled elements, which will slide along the ground at speed towards a crowd.

None, Sir.

Good.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study his forensic department are making of the effect of CS gas on the old, the weak, the young, and the pregnant; and if he will make a statement.

I would look to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for scientific advice about the effect of CS smoke.

In fact, might not this be counter-productive if used?

I am afraid that the subtlety of my hon. Friend's supplementary question escapes me. I should explain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence arranged some time ago for further laboratory tests to be carried out. The results have not yet been fully analysed, but I understand that their trend so far has not disclosed any grounds for disquiet about the use of CS smoke in the strictly limited circumstances contemplated by the police, to deal with armed beseiged criminals and violently insane persons.

Rather than considering gas or grenades for the police, would the hon. Gentleman consider bringing in regulations to implement their pay settlement which was fixed on 12th September and for which they have been waiting for three months?

Order. Supplementary questions must arise out of Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the precautionary measures taken by his Department in investigating and frustrating a plan by students from a northern university or universities to interfere with the wreck of the s.s. "Richard Montgomery", off Sheerness; if he will call for reports from the relevant police authorities on the cost to public funds of the steps they took in the same matter; and if he will make a statement.

The Home Office was not involved. The Chief Contable of Kent has informed me that the cost to public funds of the measures taken by his force will be about £125 it the overtime performed is all compensated by overtime pay rather than time off.

Would my hon. Friend accept that this was a thoroughly irresponsible exploit which, including yesterday's Answers, has cost a total of over £750 as well as causing considerable inconvenience to the police and other bodies? Would he further accept that the police, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Defence and other bodies acted with commendable speed in dealing with this, and would he confirm that, so long as the extensive safety measures are observed and the wreck is not interfered with, there is no cause for anxiety?

I agree with those remarks. Since there may be anxiety on this question, I should explain that, from the time that the activities of this group of students became known, the wreck was under constant observation by radar, a patrol boat of the Medway Conservancy Board and a police launch. On 3rd January a team of naval divers from H.M. Dockyard, Portsmouth, examined the wreck and reported that it had not been interferred with in any way.

Is the hon Gentleman aware that, with over 1,400 tons of T.N.T. in its holds, this wreck constitutes a serious hazard not merely to Sheerness but to the community on the Essex side of the Thames? Is he further aware that over a year ago local authorities were told that the Government were examining the possibility of a scheme for putting down a protective barrier by means of block ships? Can we have an undertaking from the hon. Gentleman that he will co-ordinate the various Government Departments concerned to get some decision on this?

I will give that undertaking.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prevent recurrence of the disorders which occurred at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul's on Wednesday, 22nd January, 1969.

This is a matter for the Commissioner of Police for the City of London and the Cathedral authorities.

Has the Home Office had conversations with these bodies about the disturbance which took place, which were manifestly against the public in- terest, and have steps been taken to prevent them occurring in the future?

No, Sir. This is not a matter for the Home Office. But a request was made by the Cathedral authorities to the City of London Police. If such a request were made again in the future, I am certain that it would be considered.

Is there not something very wrong with a law which makes it illegal for one citizen to call another "Nigger" but quite in order to call him "Roman scum", which was, I think, the expression?

That is very much wider than the scope of the Question. Proceedings in this case were taken under Section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act, 1860, which is appropriate to cover the case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he is taking in view of the attack on South Africa House on 12th January to protect embassies and high commissions from violence.

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is well aware of the duty under the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964, to protect foreign missions in this country and will take any action necessary for this purpose.

Does it follow from that Answer that the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that episodes similar to that mentioned in the Question will not be permitted in future?

Yes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the previous Questions and Answers that have been given on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an assurance arising out of the Report of the Committee on Cannabis under Lady Wootton of Abinger that he will not circularise magistrates advising on sentencing policy on drugs offences.

Yes, Sir.

Does it follow from that highly satisfactory Answer that Press statements to the effect that the courts would be expected to be guided by this Report are wholly unfounded?

I am not fully cognisant of what the courts will take account, but I have no doubt that they will maintain their well-known independence on this as on other subjects.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of usherettes is required by regulation to be present in cinemas; and when were the regulations last revised.

The Cinematograph (Safety) Regulations require at least one attendant in the auditorium for every 250 people (or part of that number) present. In addition there must be at least one attendant on any floor or tier where up to 100 persons are present and two attendants on any floor or tier where more than 100 persons are present. The regulations relating to these matters were last revised in 1955.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the changes taking place in the growth of multiple cinemas on the same site and as films are no longer inflammable, the time has come to review these regulations?

We will certainly look into it, but safety comes before economy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he intends to take to warn young people of the dangers of drug dependence, particularly on soft drugs and cannabis.

The Home Office has begun talks about this question with the Health Education Council which has been set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Serivces.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that, besides young people, parents, too, need guidance about the recognition of symptoms in young people who are on drugs, and will he take urgent steps to deal with the problem?

I will certainly bear that in mind. I should, however, say that publicity about drug dependence must be very carefully handled if it is not to be counter-productive.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing is to make sure that information is based on facts, not on pure romance?

Yes, I accept that.

As one who has seen young people recovering from the effects of cannabis and other soft drugs in remand homes, will the Under-Secretary make it clear to both parents and children that the effects flowing from these soft drugs are much longer-lasting than the effects, say, from alcohol.

The view put forward by the hon. Gentleman endorses what was said in the debate on cannabis in this House a fortnight ago.