asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what action is to be taken on the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes as to increased charges for parcels and money orders.

The N.B.P.I. saw no grounds for denying the increases proposed, but said that the timing was primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of the Post Office. I have accepted that, and the action to be taken is thus a matter for the Board of the new Post Office, which has it currently under consideration.

Does the Minister not recall that last year parcels lost £2 million and postal money orders £3 million? What action is he proposing to arrest these losses? When he talks about timing, does lie mean that he is going to screw up his pre-election courage and announce increases which are operative only after the next General Election?

It would have been possible for me as the Postmaster-General who had to make the decision to increase these charges, but, as the Corporation was due to come into effect from 1st October, it would not have been possible for this House to have prayed against the in- creases put on in this way. I considered it wisest to leave the matter to the Post Office Board so that it could consider it along with all its other responsibilities.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will publish a forecast of income and profitability for the Post Office Corporation for the next five years

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what complaints he has received of damage to publications, photographs, picture postcards and other mail due to the tying-up of post.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will institute an inquiry into the postal services on Tyneside which are unsatisfactory and deteriorating.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what has been the number of private and business telephone subscribers on the Portsmouth Exchange in each of the past five years; what are the estimates for the current year; and whether he will make a statement.

With permission, I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. 1, 7 and 10 together.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is the common denominator between Question No. 1 and Question No. 7? Chigwell is a long way from Tynemouth.

Order. That is not a point of order. The connection will no doubt appear in the Answer.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had a letter from the Minister's Secretary this morning saying that he was to answer Question No. 1 with Question No. 4. Now he is to answer Question No. 1 although it has not been called as the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is not present. May I ask the Minister to honour his pledge and to answer my Question No. 4 with Question No. 1?

That is a long question but the Minister will answer Question No. 4 as well.

These matters are now for the Post Office, which became a public corporation on 1st October, 1969. I shall be answering Question No. 4 separately.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does what my right hon. Friend has just said mean that in future the Table will be debarring us from asking Questions on points of detail about the Post Office?

I think the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has stated the position correctly. Mr. Baker, to ask a supplementary question.

May I put a point of order first? My Question refers to the very important question of forecasts of profits in the Post Office. Under Section 11(8) of the Post Office Act, which has just become law, the Minister has responsibility, not the Corporation, for the capital programme of the Post Office. One cannot determine the capital programme without knowing the forecasts of profit or loss for the next four or five years.

Order. We cannot have long speeches. The point of order has been made.

The financial objectives are set down by the Minister and it is for the Post Office Corporation Board to decide how those financial objectives are met.

In view of the Minister's statement, will he circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT exactly how this will differ from the position over Questions that we were allowed to ask of the Minister of Power when there was one and of the Minister of Transport as there still is one? We are still able to ask them whether they have inquiries into safety and all sorts of things. I find it very difficult unless the Minister will set out in detail what he proposes to do, I want to know whether nationalised corporations, or whatever they like to call themselves, will have different proce- dures. If so, the House of Commons is entitled to be told.

I am doing my best to assist the House. I think the best I can do is to refer to pages 472 to 478 of Volume II of the Select Committee Report, which gave in some detail the measures which hon. Members of this House can take to investigate the actions of authorities which have responsibility to the Ministers sponsoring them. The position will be that the Post Office will be on all fours with those.

Does it not put the House in an awkward position when Members table Questions which appear on the Order Paper and therefore apparently are in order and then the Minister says that he will not answer them?

As I have said before, the Table is governed on this issue by the behaviour of Ministers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put a supplementary question? Previously I raised a point of order.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's point of order was long enough for a supplementary question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe I was present when Question No. 10 was called—

The hon. Gentleman's Question was answered with Question No. 3. He cannot have been here.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is aware that the hon. Member for West Ham, North wrote to him on 10th July concerning delays in first-class postal deliveries and that it took him until 29th July to send a reply which could have been sent within 24 hours; why this delay took place; and when the hon. Member can expect the return of the envelopes as promised in this communication.

The reply took about a fortnight, which is not an undue delay as inquiries were required. The envelopes referred to have now been returned.

But the reply referred to only paraphrased the information which I submitted. I was promised the envelopes back and I had to wait until yesterday. Does it take three months for the Postmaster-General to implement a promise? That is almost the period which elapsed.

I apologise for delay in returning the envelopes, but the essential query was dealt with within two weeks, which I think was quite good.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now state the result of his discussions on 5th July and since with the British Broadcasting Corporation on the future of the British Broadcasting Corporation's orchestras on the lines of the British Broadcasting Corporation's plan entitled, Broadcasting in the Seventies, including the future of the Scottish Symphony Orchestra.

Subject to certain negotiations with the Musicians Union and the Arts Councils the B.B.C. has undertaken not to reduce the employment in orchestras.

Does the Minister realise that orchestral music, of which the Scottish Symphony Orchestra is a distinguished exponent, is being sadly prejudiced by the present plans of the B.B.C.? Therefore, in the interests of musical culture, will he take steps to avoid this?

I am very glad that, following the discussions between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, myself and the Chairman of the B.B.C., the Corporation undertook to look again at certain aspects of its proposals and made a change in this respect.

As according to the Director-General of the B.B.C. the increase in the licence fee will be sufficient only to pay for the local radio stations, will the right hon. Gentleman say where the money is coming from to pay for the orchestras?

There is another Question down on that point. It might be more satisfactory to deal with it when the Question is reached.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what progress he has made in his talks with the British Broadcasting Corporation on the implications of their plans for broadcasting in the seventies.

I refer the hon. Member to my announcement on 14th August, of which I have placed a copy in the library.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman concerned that a group of people as distinguished and respected, and indeed as well informed, as those behind the campaign for better broadcasting should feel sufficiently strongly that the B.B.C. is abdicating its responsibility for serious music and serious programmes that they feel driven to starting a campaign of this sort?

I am sure, having had very long discussions with the B.B.C. myself about all its proposals and being satisfied with the great degree of care which the B.B.C. takes to ensure that it is doing what is in the public interest, it will take note of the various points made to it in casting its programmes within its financial responsibilities.

On the question of future broadcasting, can my right hon. Friend say whether he is in any way responsible for political broadcasting? If so, will he bring this farce to an end? Is he aware that the public no longer regard it as either entertainment or useful propaganda? Is there any purpose in absorbing television time any longer on this nonsense?

The House is always very interested to hear my right hon. Friend's views, but I must disclaim responsibility for policital broadcasts.

In connection with "Broadcasting in the Seventies", can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will commence the long, cool look at the whole system of broadcasting in this country which the Postmaster-General three Postmaster-Generals ago announced would commence in the spring of 1969?

I have already commenced a long, cool look, and I should be grateful if any hon. Members with ideas about the way in which we should deal with this very important problem, which will affect the structure and quality of broadcasting for at least 20 years from 1976, would write to me about their ideas.

Is the Minister aware that many people are very appreciative of the B.B.C.'s good sense in deciding to bow to public opinion and retain the Music Programme after all?

I think that the B.B.C. also took note of the observations made in the debate in the House on 22nd July.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made by the Chairman of the B.B.C. that he wanted more medium wave reinforcement for local radio? As this is contrary to all the answers which I have received from the Post Office over the past few months, will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter serious consideration?

It is not in any way contrary to the advice that I have given the House on this subject. We have been concerned to ensure that the scarce number of medium wave frequencies available to us are used in the best way.

Dame Irene Ward.

Question No. 6—band I hope that this is in order.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will set out the priorities which have been established with the dates for the introduction of colour television in the regions which are still without it.

As the Answer is rather long, I will, with permission, publish the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

That is a very nice get-out. What I want to know is the position concerning colour television on the North-East Coast—and I want it stated now so that I can say whether I approve or not.

The list will show that certain services from Emley Moor will come into service this year, and in 1970 a further long list of stations will be established. Therefore, by 1971 most of the region will be dealt with.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when the combined radio and television licence fee is to be increased.

On 1st April, 1971.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the Director-General of the B.B.C., the Corporation will be in the red to the tune of £7 million by that date? Will he say why he is postponing the raising of the licence fee until after the next General Election?

The B.B.C.'s finances were discussed in great detail with the Chairman and the Director-General of the B.B.C., and the arrangement which I announced on 14th August was made with their full agreement and will certainly meet their financial obligations, including the obligations which I have placed on the B.B.C. regarding local radio developments and music, which it accepts. It must be borne in mind that the total income of the B.B.C. is expected to be well over £500 million in the next five years. Therefore, the amount to which the Director-General referred in the Press release is very small.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the Is. concessionary television licence fee for old-age pensioners living in hostels to all old-age pensioners who live alone or in houses exclusively occupied by old-age pensioners, thus removing a very undesirable anomaly?

I realise that this is considered to be an anomaly, but if we grant a concession we have to draw the line somewhere. I have looked into this proposal with very great care, but I am satisfied that it would not be reasonable to extend concessions in kind in the way suggested.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that this is a great hardship on old-age pensioners living alone who have only their small pension with which to pay all their expenses? If he has any difficulty in identifying these people, the Ministry of Social Services can help him.

I repeat that I have gone into this matter with great care, together with my colleagues most directly concerned. The television licence payment is taken into account in the supplementary arrangements made for anybody in need, and I think that that is the best way of dealing with it.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will state the progress made under his jurisdiction for improving radio and television reception and postal services in and to North-East Scotland during the last six months to the latest convenient date.

As to radio and television reception, there has been no change in transmission arrangements during the last six months. But the I.T.A. expects to open its new station at Aviemore this winter.

Would my right hon. Friend make further inquiries and openly confess why North-East Scotland, especially Aberdeen, is singled out for this adverse treatment? Is it a Sassenach prejudice against the Scots?

I am sure that that is not the case. The I.T.A. is doing its best to improve reception in this part of Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the total number of stoppages and working days lost this year due to industrial disputes including and excluding mining and quarrying.

It is provisionally estimated that for the period 1st January to 31st August, 1969, 3,594,000 working days were lost in all industries and services as a result of stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom. The number of stoppages beginning in this period and which came to the notice of my Department was 1,868. Excluding mining and quarrying the corresponding figures were 3,552,000 and 1,736.

Does the Minister not agree that these very serious figures show that, excluding mining and quarrying, there are likely to be this year even more strikes than the record figure of last year? Second, do not the figures also show that there has been no reduction in the number of working days lost through the incidence of strikes since the Government four months ago abandoned the Industrial Relations Bill?

I disagree with the hon. Member in the latter part of his supplementary question. There is a later Question on this specific point. In relation to the first part of the supplementary question, in terms of working days lost, last year was far from a record and was surpassed by the figures of working days lost in 1959 and 1962. If one looks at the last ten years, the period referred to in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question compares favourably with the two years to which I have made reference, 1959 and 1962.

To get this matter into perspective, will my hon. Friend give the figures for the number of working days lost due to sickness and industrial accidents?

I cannot give those figures without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the inquiry into the strike of blast furnacemen at Port Talbot; and whether she will cause this inquiry additionally to investigate why Members of Parliament are kept waiting for more than a month for substantive replies when raising matters connected with industrial disputes.

The recommendations of the court of inquiry, which reported on 20th August, were accepted by the British Steel Corporation and the National Union of Blastfurnacemen, and work was resumed on 24th August. I am not aware of any undue delay in replying to questions arising on industrial disputes.

Will the Under-Secretary of State check up with the correspondence which I have had with his Department and with the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation? If Members of Parliament have to wait for one or two months for replies to letters, is it any wonder that workers get fed up trying to get their disputes solved and come out on strike? It is my experience that one has to wait as long as that for replies from Lord Melchett.

My Department is not responsible for correspondence between my hon. Friend and the British Steel Corporation. I have instituted my own investigation into this allegation, and the average interval of time elapsing between the dispatch of letters by hon. Members and the dispatch of replies from my Department is about 17 days.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the report of the inquiry is ample proof that no legislation containing penal clauses could in any way have helped towards the settlement of the dispute? Is not it clear that the way in which we are now proceeding on industrial relations is much more sensible than some proposals we have had in the past and some proposals that we are having from the other side of the House?

I do not think the House will want me to comment on the conclusions of Professor Robertson and his colleagues on the outcome of this dispute.

Will the hon. Gentleman say why, in view of the entirely unsatisfactory state of industrial relations in the steel industry disclosed by the Robertson Report, the whole subject is not being actively referred to the C.I.R.?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Department has under consideration a list of possible references to the C.I.R. about which it is consulting the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will give further consideration to proposals for special training and retraining courses for unemployed young unskilled and older men, as proposed to her Department by the hon. Member for South Shields, in view of the continuing heavy unemployment in the area.

Government training facilities are being greatly expanded in the Northern Region, and direct Government grants are also available to assist employers with the cost of training workers for new jobs. I am always ready, however, to consider proposals for new training facilities which would be likely to reduce unemployment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in South Shields there are more than 400 young people under the age of 24 who are out of work, of whom more than 100 have been out of work for over six months? Is not it necessary to take into account the possibility of using the special facility of the Marine and Technical College for the general training of these young men, most of whom are unskilled?

Although industrial training can make an important contribution to helping people find new jobs, I do not think that this is the whole answer to the problem of unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency. The Northern Region now has 1,062 training places in G.T.C.s, compared with 400 in October 1964, and 309 were unoccupied as recently as 8th September 1969.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the London dustmen's strike.

The unofficial strike of London refuse collectors began on 23rd September in support of a claim for an increase in the basic London rate from £15 9s. Od. per week to £20 per week. A settlement in respect of all local authority manual workers in Scotland, England and Wales was reached at a meeting of the National Joint Council on 9th October. This provided, among other things, for an increase of £2 10s. 0d. per week to refuse collectors in the London area. Following this settlement, the trade unions, which are members of the council, recommended a return to work. I understand that in about half of the London boroughs normal working is now in operation. Efforts are being made by officials of the trade unions concerned to get a return to work in the other London boroughs. My right hon. Friend welcomes these efforts and urges those still on strike to follow the advice of their unions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many informed people believe that this great inconvenience to Londoners may have been caused by inter-union rivalry and militancy by one union to try to prove its point? Does the hon. Gentleman feel that this attitude is appropriate in the context of an unofficial, unconstitutional strike?

We have no evidence whatever to support that allegation.

What does my hon. Friend intend to do to improve the ramshackle machinery of local government negotiations in matters of this kind? What is the sense of calling a meeting of local authorities in Edinburgh for the purpose of dealing with the London dustmen's dispute?

It is all part of the central negotiating machine and, as such, it hardly seems of great relevance where it meets. The settlement provides for some restructuring within the wages structure and, whilst I recognise what local authorities have already done, I hope that they will pay greater attention to the recommendations contained in Report No. 29 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any London authority has asked his Department what limits are imposed on the offer which it may make by the prices and incomes policy of his Department and, if so, what answer he has given?

No, advice was not sought.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that he completely dissociates himself from the remark made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page)? It is the sort of re- mark that will exacerbate the situation; it is untrue and is not a helpful contribution.

I have always thought that there was a long-standing tradition in the House that we did nothing to exacerbate industrial relations, particularly in difficult times like this.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many days and vehicles have been lost since 25th June due to unconstitutional strikes in the motor industry; and what action the Trades Union Congress has taken under the new undertaking to reduce such strikes.

Official statistics of stoppages of work due to industrial disputes relate to calendar months and do not differentiate between constitutional and unconstitutional action. For the period 1st July to 30th September, 1969, it is provisionally estimated that stoppages in the motor vehicle industry resulted in the loss of 131,000 working days at the establishments where the disputes occurred. Official figures are not available for the loss of production involved. In major disputes which have occurred during this period, in the motor industry and elsewhere, the T.U.C. has maintained close contact with the unions concerned and has often made a valuable contribution to a settlement.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since the dropping of the Industrial Relations Bill, Standard Triumph has been on strike and almost stopped for eight weeks, Vauxhalls for five weeks, Rovers for six weeks, and Girlings started a new strike yesterday? Is he aware that in the motor industry strikes are running at twice last year's record rate for days lost, and will he not accept the appeal that Lord Stokes made the day before yesterday for the Government to do something positive about unofficial strikes

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures, but they do not tally with those provided by my Department. As a matter of fact, the number of days lost in the motor industry in the period to which the Question refers was lower this year than in the corresponding periods of last year or the preceding year. [Interruption.] I am giving the facts: I will give the exact figures. The number of disputes in the period covered by the Question was 66 this year, 65 last year and 60 in 1967, so there is only a marginal difference.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, despite these stoppages, we are now seeing the opening of one of the most successful motor shows for many years, that exports are higher than they have been for many years and that this is due to the people who are making the motor cars?

We are all prepared to pay tribute to the results being shown in the motor industry, which reflect great credit on those on both sides of the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he now has for increasing provision of nursery schools and other educational facilities for children under the ages of five years; and what further advice he has given to local education authorities on these matters.

The total number of children under 5 in maintained schools rose from 167,000 in 1957 to 210,000 in 1968. 10,000 additional nursery places in deprived areas have been included in the urban programme this year and some local authorities helping pre-school play groups in these areas are receiving grants of £150,000 towards their expenditure. Further progress will be made as fast as resources allow.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that we greatly appreciate the increased provision which has been made over the last two or three years? However, what increased provision will be made over, say, the next five years? Will there be an increased allocation of funds to this part of education?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are making a start in the deprived areas where young children are more in need of nursery school provision. As he will also realise, the Government have set aside £25 million for the urban programme over four years, and some of it will be devoted to nursery education. We have not yet decided how much of next year's allocation will be devoted to nursery classes and nursery schools, but certainly a good proportion will.

Will the right hon. Lady encourage or empower other local authorities to appoint play group advisers? Has her right hon. Friend yet decided to extend the grant, modest but invaluable, towards the salary of the National Play Group Adviser due to end. I think, next year?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the responsibility for play groups is not that of my Department; it comes under the Secretary of State for Social Services. We are empowering local authorities to give grants to voluntary play groups, and they will receive 75 per cent. reimbursement. It is up to the local authorities to decide what help in these areas shall be given.

I for one would raise no objection to the development of nursery school education in the way my right hon. Friend has mentioned, but is she aware that in many parts of the country, and particularly in my part of Lancashire, the backlog for building primary schools for children between 5 and 9 is so serious that it should have the major priority in the allocation of Government funds? Will she continue to give increasing attention to the need to catch up with the backlog of primary school building?

The amount spent on school building this year is exactly twice what was spent in 1964. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that it is possible to open a nursery class in an existing school without a great expenditure of resources, and this is what is being done.

Is it not the case that, because of the great need for other kinds of schooling, nursery education is often the Cinderella? While we are glad to hear that there is an increase, is the right hon. Lady aware that a place in a nursery school, at least in my constituency, depends on ability to pay for it or on the child's mother being a working mother or a deserted wife? Cannot something be done to bring the provision of nursery education back to the top of the queue, as it is fundamental to the development of many young children?

As the hon. Lady knows, I am not responsible for education in Scotland; that is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This is the first major break-through in the provision of nursery schools and classes since the war and the Government are concentrating the available resources where they are most needed, and that is on the children in the poorest and the deprived areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the probation services and police forces that have merged since the publication of the Redcliffe-Maud Report or are at present proposed for merger.

I will, with permission, circulate the list relating to England in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In view of the Home Secretary's remarks earlier this week about proposed local government reorganisation, is it not rather odd that these mergers should be going through when they may have to be unscrambled in two or three years' time?

Unlike the statutory requirements relating to parliamentary boundary changes, in the law relating to these matters there is no specific mention of coincidence with local government boundaries.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made in Ulster on implementing the proposals agreed on after his visit there in August.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on his most recent visit to Northern Ireland.

I would refer my hon. Friends to the communiqué issued on 10th October, following my latest discussions with the Northern Ireland Government, and to the account that I gave to the House on 13th October.

Can my right hon. Friend make any worth-while comment on the progress being made in getting rid of the B specials and reorganising the police force? Has he in mind visiting Northern Ireland again in the not too distant future?

The reorganisation of the police force is proceeding together with the resumption of policing in some areas which have remained unpoliced for a number of months, and I understand that on Friday the R.U.C. will resume joint patrols with the Army both in the Bogside and the Falls Road areas of Belfast. It has been announced that the Joint Security Committee is already considering the reorganisation of the B specials and that a representative of the District Commandant of the Ulster Special Constabulary is being co-opted to the working party. That work will proceed as speedily as possible and legislation will be laid before the House. At the moment, I have no plans for returning to Ireland.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best atmosphere in which the implementation of the general programme of reform can take place is an atmosphere of normality and that the news that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is to return to duty in the areas mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman is welcome and that any influence which he himself has exercised to that end is also welcome?

I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. These things must march in step and it is important that policing should be resumed in the Bogside just as it is important that the B specials should find their new rôle acceptable to them as well as to the whole of the people of Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend Schedule I of Statutory Instrument No. 1110 to include the Isle of Wight.

After consulting the Gaming Board, my right hon. Friend does not propose to amend the Schedule to permit clubs for gaming other than bingo, bridge or whist to be licensed in the Isle of Wight.

In this unreasonable discrimination, does not the hon. Gentleman feel that his right hon. Friend has given a most unfair competitive advantage to those few resorts which are now allowed to permit casinos? Why has he chosen Portsmouth and not the Isle of Wight, why Southampton and not South-sea? Why did he choose to lay the Order before Parliament on 11th August to be effective from 1st October when none of us had the opportunity to challenge it?

The hon. Gentleman will not be unduly surprised to find that I do not agree with him. The Isle of Wight as a whole does not measure up to the criteria applied in the rest of the country.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the normal practice to house entrants into Great Britain in prison during the period when the question of their right to enter is being examined; how many have been treated in this way; how many have been allowed to go to an hotel pending the authorities' decision; and if he will make a statement.

Passengers detained under examination or pending departure must be removed to prison, a remand centre or a remand home after five days, and may be removed before this at the discretion of the immigration officer. I am circulating figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is causing considerable concern among international committees like that in my constituency concerned with integration? Is he aware, too, that there seems to be discrimination between white Rhodesians, who are given one sort of treatment, and coloured immigrants from the Commonwealth? Will he look at this aspect?

I will certainly look at that last point if I am given evidence of it, but I am not aware of it. I would like to make it clear that there is no power under the law at present to release immigrants on bail. Under the new appeal system next year, the situation will be different.

Does it not seem wrong to the hon. Gentleman that people who are accused of no offence in this country, such as Mr. Ashaq Hussein and Mr. Williams a few weeks ago, should be detained in prison and treated like criminals? Could not the Home Office arrange for facilities to be provided so that in an increasing number of these cases people can at least exist in comfort during their stay in the United Kingdom?

Under the new legislation, we hope to deal with this situation next year. All I can say to the hon. Member is that in the one case which he has mentioned, when the matter went to the courts it was ruled that the Home Office had acted perfectly properly. In the context of the law that is the case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has taken no action on the recommendations of the Littlewood Committee, presented to his predecessor in April, 1965, on experiments on living animals.

The Committee acknowledged that the present law has been generally effective and laid no emphasis on the urgency of the reforms it proposed; and while my right hon. Friend recognises the need to replace the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, by legislation more suited to present-day requirements, the Government cannot justify according it priority over the many other pressing demands on its legislative programme.

Is it not four and a half years since the report was presented and is not the number of experiments increasing every year, now reaching over 5 million a year? Does not this matter need urgently to be looked into? Will the hon. Gentleman give it some attention?

We have discussed this many times before. I accept that there is an increase in the number of experiments, but this of itself is not the only criterion to take into account. There are many other pressing demands on the programme, and I stick by what I have said.

Bearing in mind that there has already been a delay of four years in implementing the report, will the hon. Gentleman say what is inhibiting its being implemented now? Is it cost? If so, how much is the cost?

It certainly is not cost, but it would be an enormously long Bill. There is a great deal of work to do before it could be brought to the House and there are other pressing demands on the legislative programme. It is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened, under all Governments.

Without entering into the very controversial question of vivisection, which is dealt with in the Littlewood Report, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that those paragraphs which deal with the use of toxic chemicals in experiments on animals are appalling and disgust all decent people who are familiar with them? Could not his Department take emergency action to deal with that aspect of the report, on which there has been strong support by some of the most responsible biologists in this country, who are not wildcats by any means and do not make wild statements? Will my hon. Friend do something about that aspect of it?

If my hon. Friend can give me details, I will certainly look at that precise point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meetings he held recently with the Football Association, the railway police and the regular police about hooliganism on football special trains.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the continuing acts of hooliganism before, at and after football matches, he will make a further statement on the steps he is taking to deal with this position.

The standing arrangements for the exchange of information between police forces about football hooligans on trains have been strengthened; a code of practice designed to encourage good behaviour by supporters is to be circulated by the Football Association to all League clubs; and there is under consideration a scheme to enable stewards, nominated by the League clubs concerned, to travel on football trains as part of the plan to prevent disorder. Details are being worked out.

While those who have suffered from this menace will be glad of those measures as far as they go, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to answer three specific questions? First, has he discussed with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport the adequacy of railway police guards on these trains? Second, what progress has been made in improving the radio links between the railway police on the trains and the regular police along the route? Finally, how many clubs have so far agreed to contract with British Railways for complete trains for which they will be liable? Has the hon. Gentleman made any progress on these points?

Concerning the radio links, there is a technical problem between the trains and the normal police, but from the discussions which have taken place I am satisfied about the contact between the two. We have had discussions with British Railways concerning the number of railway police but I hope that the hon. Member will take into account that with the number of trains on a Saturday it is not easy to cope with every possibility that might arise. The question of clubs undertaking liability for trains is one of the points about the code of behaviour to which I referred in my original Answer.

What special precautions has my hon. Friend advised at the football fields?

There is a particular problem at the football fields as opposed w outside them; there is a distinction between the two. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it plain to chief constables in different parts of the country that he is very concerned with the problem of hooliganism and I assure the House that chief constables in all parts of the country are taking steps to liaise with the football clubs to stamp out these happenings which are taking place every Saturday.