asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the current methods of granting permission to the police for the use of CS gas in cases of civil disorder; and if he will make a statement.

Chief officers of police in England and Wales do not contemplate the use of CS smoke to control civil disorder.

Granted that the Government have done a good job in training the R.U.C., may we have an assurance that there has been a directive to police forces that never again will there be a repetition of the original events in Londonderry when CS gas was used by an untrained police force?

That does not arise out of the Question. I am responsible for police in England and Wales.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the same rules about the use of CS gas apply to the Army as to the police. so that there will be no repetition of what occurred when CS gas was used at a peaceful church parade at which there was no fear of either rioting or looting?

The Question and my answer dealt with police in England and Wales.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking as a result of the Himsworth Committee Report on the use of gas in Northern Ireland.

The report recommended the enlargement of Sir Harold Himsworth's committee and the extension of its terms of reference to assess the evidence about CS in the widest possible way. This has been done, as indicated in the report itself.

If part two of the Report is expected in March, may we be told something about the question that is left open by part one as 10 the effect of CS gas on the old, the sick, the pregnant and the very young? Will part two deal with those matters?

I would expect the committee to take that fact into account as it was raised in the original report.

In view of the fact that all forces, except the Metropolitan Police, hold devices which are inaccurate for discharging CS gas, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that these devices are replaced by more accurate ones?

The stocks held by the police are for use only in limited cases, and I have no reason to believe that they are inadequate for that purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the working relationships between the headquarters of the Community Relations Commission and the community relations councils throughout the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

I believe that these working relationships are satisfactory, and I am aware of the great importance which the commission attaches to the support it can provide for the work of these councils.

In view of the public evidence of widespread dissatisfaction, will the Home Secretary inquire further into the relationship between the commission and the community relations councils, especially those of Birmingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Wandsworth, and make a report to the House?

The hon. Gentleman has referred to three councils out of 80. I am aware that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction among a small number of councils. I constantly keep myself abreast of the relationship between the commission and the councils, and there is no evidence of widespread unrest.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Community Relations Commission.

The commission has been in existence for less than a year. It is operating in a difficult area, but its annual report, which has been laid before Parliament, shows that a good deal of positive work has been done.

In view of the evidence of dissatisfaction among many senior members of staff, two of whom have resigned and others are contemplating employment elsewhere, will the Home Secretary now publish the Civil Service report, or will he institute an inquiry of his own and report to the House?

The hon. Gentleman seems intent on making these assertions based on very little evidence. I am sorry that he is doing it when the commission is operating. It is a new body, which has teething troubles, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support it.

I will consider publication of the report, but the hon. Gentleman should not draw the conclusion that that means I will publish it.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to draw to the attention of the commission and its chairman the need to get maximum local authority co-operation in community relations, as many Tory-controlled authorities, particularly Powellites and neo-Powellites, are dragging their feet on this question?

I hope that local authorities will co-operate. My hon. Friend spotlights one of the difficulties in the relationship between the commission and local committees, which are voluntary bodies partially financed by other institutions, and it is likely that they will have their own views about the way that the matter should be conducted. It is for the commission to try to harmonise

these views into a common programme of education in the matter.

Accepting what the right hon. Gentleman says about it being early days, will he accept that several things are wrong: first, the lack of a full-time chairman; second, a good deal of internal dissension; and, third, a lack of resolution by the Home Office in following up the results of its own inquiry early in the summer?

On the first point, there need by no difficulty, if it were thought right, in considering whether the appointment should be full-time. That is not a point of principle.

Second, I am not aware of any widespread dissatisfaction. 'The hon. Gentleman should not speak for the Commission or its staff. I am aware that a small number of people are dissatisfied and are certainly doing their best to ensure that the hon. Gentleman makes the most of their dissatisfaction. However, I have no evidence that it is widespread.

On the third point, if we are at fault, I will follow it up; but I was not aware that we were at fault.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing legislation to reintroduce capital punishment for the murder of law enforcement officers.

No, Sir.

Would the Home Secretary not agree that for vicious men who are already in prison for the rest of their lives a further prison sentence cannot possibly be a deterrent, and that capital punishment may be a deterrent?

That raises a wider question, but I am happy to say, and long may it continue, that no prison officer has been killed by a prisoner in one of Her Majesty's prisons for many years.

Would my right hon. Friend not accept that there is a curious anomaly in that there are a number of offences in Acts dating from 1772 to 1957 for which the death penalty is still retained? Would he indicate in what circumstances such penalties might be applied.

:No, Sir, not without notice. I seem to remember something of the kind in the Naval Discipline Act, but it is a long time since Admiral Byng.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he proposes to take to curb violence at football matches.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to deal with vandalism and violence before and after football matches.

The arrangements for the quick exchange of information between police forces about hooliganism among football supporters on trains have been strengthened; a code of practice designed to encourage good behaviour by supporters has been circulated by the Football Association to all League clubs; and clubs are being encouraged to provide stewards to travel on football trains.

May I tell the Home Secretary, as one who frequently watches football matches from behind the goal, that there are serious riots on the way and that the effect on football will be disastrous? Will he do two things: first, ask clubs to keep rival supporters apart in the ground, and, second, tell magistrates that some of the punishments being imposed are totally inadequate?

While I do not wish to avoid responsibility, neither of those matters happens to be my responsibility. The police are concerned with what happens outside the ground and not with what happens behind the goal. As for magistrates, there is a lot to be said for a general expression of opinion from the House if that is desired, but it is not for me to instruct them—indeed it would be resented if I were to try to do so—in the kind of sentences they should impose.

Would the Home Secretary, nevertheless, encourage the courts to strengthen the penalties and to suspend some of the young attenders at football matches who create disturbances for the same number of weeks as some players are suspended so that they cannot attend matches but have to turn up at police stations?

The new liaison arrangements undertaken by the police have the effect, in certain appropriate circumstances, of requiring young people to report at police stations and at other places for work and other beneficial duties on a Saturday afternoon.

Would the Home Secretary accept that everybody in Wales shares the perturbation expressed in the House about incidents at the Swansea-Springbok game? Will his inquiry embrace methods of recruitment of stewards by clubs and the instructions issued to them? Will he also read carefully the depositions which I have sent to him today concerning detailed circumstantial evidence of violence at that particular game?

If allegations are made against the police in relation to that particular game, I think I should hold myself free to consider the matter at a later time when I might have to come in in my capacity as an appellate authority. I would not want now to prejudge that issue. If complaints are made against stewards, then the complainants have their remedies in the courts if they can identify the persons who assaulted them. If they cannot identify them, I do not think that I can.

Why is it that when demonstrators attack the police it is described as crowd violence, but when the police use necessary force in the enforcement of law and order it is described as police brutality? Will the right hon. Gentleman rectify an omission the other day, when great concern was expressed in the House about the damage done to demonstrators but no one drew attention to the fact that we have every reason to regret the attack on a police sergeant which injured him severely?

Vandalism is vandalism, whoever indulges in it. Violence is violence, by whoever it is practised. I hope that the House condemns both vandalism and violence, whoever is responsible. My experience shows that the police are extremely self-controlled in the manner in which they respond to a great deal of provocation. That is not to say that the occasional policeman does not lose his temper. He would be less than human if he did not. But, in his quieter moments, that is frowned upon by him and by his colleagues. That is a standard that we want to maintain.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of the danger of increased Arab terrorist activities throughout the world, what precautions he has taken to safeguard persons and property in this country.

Chief officers of police keep a close watch on activities of this kind, but I do not think it would help to give details of precautions.

Has my hon. Friend given thought to the safety of this place? Is she aware that it is reported that one hon. Member of this House is associated with the terrorist El Fatah organisation, and that there are certain other hon. Members who hold funds, as far as we know for no specific purpose, subscribed by a foreign Government who are sympathetic towards the terrorist organisations?

Order. It is customary, if an hon. Member proposes to refer to another hon. Member, to inform the hon. Member concerned.

On the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, my right hon. Friend will do everything in his power to protect the House. I think that past experience has shown that that has worked. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I think that he should substantiate his allegations, following which, of course, they will be taken up in the proper quarters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach decisions following the results of his Department's inquiry into accidents caused by fireworks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action he plans to take to limit the dangers to the public of fireworks.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to raise the age of persons to whom fireworks may be sold.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement of departmental policy in relation to the sale of dangerous fireworks which may cause accidents.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the present provisions for the sale of fireworks to children since 5th November. 1969 and what reply he has sent.

My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations that the sale of fireworks to the public should be restricted further, or banned. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is considering whether the age of persons to whom fireworks may be sold should be raised, and proposes to arrange a meeting of all the organisations concerned with the problem of injuries caused by fireworks when the 1969 figures have been analysed.

While the much lower rate of accidents this year is welcome, will the hon. Lady keep in mind the fact that there would be great public support for a proposal to raise the minimum age for buying fireworks to 16, not only from the point of view of the risk to children but, equally important, from that of the possible annoyance to older people?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is encouraging that accidents have been well below the 1962 figures for some years now. Nevertheless, it is disturbing that, of those involved in accidents, a large proportion are young children under 13. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in the Adjournment debate on 29th October that he would look very seriously at the possibility of raising the age at which children can be sold fireworks.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, since the meetings four or five years ago between the Home Office and the manufacturers of fireworks, the manufacturers have been dragging their feet? May I suggest that fireworks manufacturers be invited to visit the burns unit of the Booth Hall Hospital in my constituency in order to see the results of some of these terrible accidents?

The manufacturers will certainly be invited to the meeting to be held by my right hon. Friend, and all these questions will be raised with them. As for my hon. Friend's invitation, I would suggest that he sends that direct to the fireworks manufacturers.

Leaving aside the question of the unsuitability of rejoicing at the death of one who, were he alive today, might be regarded more as a benefactor than as a malefactor, would it not be a new and ludicrous extension of paternalism to ban altogether the sale of fireworks? Is not the solution the more stringent enforcement of existing regulations?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that some motor car drivers share his view about that historical figure in the past of the House of Commons. However, one has always to make a division between trying to forbid things and trying to treat people as responsible. Our view is that the distinction should be drawn between children who cannot be regarded as wholly responsible and parents who should take responsibility for what they do.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are two very important points at issue? They are the health and safety of children versus vested interests. Will my hon. Friend look at that issue when examining this problem, and take some action?

I can only repeat that, with regard to children, obviously the situation must be treated very seriously. Every time that Guy Fawkes day approaches my right hon. Friend endeavours to give the best possible advice to parents about the use of fireworks. It must be said clearly that parents have the major responsibility for protecting young children from the effects of dangerous accidents at this time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in his discussions with police representatives about the safeguarding of police pension rights which may be affected by the Government's new national superannuation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

The Police Council for Great Britain, which f consult before making police pensions regulations, has set up a working party representative of all police interests to examine police pensions arrangements in the light of the Government's proposals for earnings-related pensions.

While we are grateful for such reassurances as the Home Secretary and his colleagues have been able to give, will he bear in mind that the rate of resignations from police forces is already alarmingly high owing mainly to dissatisfaction with pay, and that uncertainty about pensions may for many be the last straw. Will he continue to give the matter the highest priority in the next few months?

Assurances have been given to the police about pensions. I do not know where the rumours started, but the pension scheme is absolutely safe. They can retire now, and will be able to retire in future, at the normal age that they have in the past, without alteration.

From this House, we have set up detailed machinery for working out rates of pay and provided negotiating machinery to do the job. When the time comes to review the arrangements, it will be for that machinery to do it.

There is no evidence that wastage is any larger now than it has been. I would not like the hon. Gentleman's assertion to gain currency. I notice that he indicates disagreement. In his own force in Mid-Anglia, for example, it is running at about the normal rate.

As we have not had details of the assurances given to the police, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that: police officers' rights under the police pensions scheme will not in any way be diminished by the proposed new national. superannuation scheme?

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares to put down a Question, I will give a full and detailed answer. I am sure that he is not complaining that assurances have been given to the police.

The Home Secretary, who knows so much about this, will wonder whether he has gone far enough. Can he not tell the House now that the Government will ensure that there is a non-worsenment arrangement for the police in any changes that are made?

I ask the House to keep to this, because, although it may think it advantageous to raise these questions now, there will be occasions when it will not. The best way to handle these matters is to allow the appropriate body, set up at the request of the police organisations, to enter into negotiations and discussion. A working party is considering this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he expects that the Maxwell Stamp Committee on the London cab trade will include in its report a consideration of all the problems which affect the trade at London Airport, Heathrow.

Yes, Sir.

While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask her to go a little further? Will she agree that a disproportionate number of difficulties which seem to affect the London taxis originate at Heathrow? If she does agree, will she put that point to the committee?

The committee is aware, as indeed is the Home Office, that while the majority of London cab drivers endeavour to maintain the by-laws at Heathrow, there is a minority which is prepared both to break the rules about moving from the feeding car park to the taxi ranks and also occasionally to exploit the ignorance of foreigners trying to get to London. We take the most serious view of this, and the committee will look into it very closely.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this irritation is not confined to foreigners, but extends to English people as well, including provincial people travelling through London Heathrow? What is so different about the conditions at Heathrow compared with Orly and Le Bourget, where the schedule for, the run-in to Paris is shown and any variations in the schedule are clearly marked and notified to the public?

I think that the answer to the next Question on the Order Paper will go some way to calming my hon. Friend's fears.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the excessive fares still being charged by London taxis to and from London Airport; whether he will consult the British Airports Authority on this matter; and what other steps he proposes to take.

Fares between London Airport and destinations in Greater London are now controlled by the London Cab Order, 1968. My right hon. Friend has received only three complaints of overcharging since that order was made.

Will the hon. Lady take steps to inquire what overchargings are made, because charges of £3 to £3 10s. are being asked for cabs for which 36s. to 38s. is the correct fare? The Minister has a real responsibility—it is not just for the British Airports Authority, which admittedly has done virtually nothing—because a large part of the journey is in the Metropolitan area.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly implies, the proper fare from Heathrow to London is about 33s. to 36s., plus tip. In any case where there is overcharging the person concerned should report this within seven days.

Recently an allegation of overcharging was made on a widely seen television programme. But I must emphasise that where such allegations are made and not followed up with evidence being supplied to the Metropolitan police or to the British Airports Authority, it is hardly surprising that the Home Office is unable to take action.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether she has received any complaints about the operation at London Heathrow airport of so-called mini-cabs in flagrant breach of the London Cabs Act, 1968, with apparent impunity?

Yes, indeed. Some cheap rate mini-cab drivers and hire car drivers who should not be there do appear at London Airport. The British Airports Authority has power to say who may or may not be there. I fully understand the feeling of cab drivers, that if they are asked to keep to the rules everybody else should do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many gun licences have been granted, of all sorts, in the past 12 months to the nearest convenient date; and how this compares with those issued five, three and seven years ago, respectively.

As has been explained to the hon. Member by letter, gun licences have not been required since 13th December, 1966, although, of course, shotgun certificates have been required since May of last year. Statistics for earlier years are to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 21st October, 1968.—[Vol. 770, cc. 221–2.]

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the Home Department for its co-operation in this matter.

Second, in view of the number of firearms which appear to be used in violent crime now, does not the hon. Lady think that we should look at the legislation that was put on the Statute Book recently to see whether it is having the effect for which we all hoped?

As the hon. Lady will know, the intention of the Firearms Act was to control more closely the possibility of possession of firearms. Since the Act came into force on 1st May, 1968, 600,000 certificates have been issued by chief officers of police in England and Wales. We will review the situation, but I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates it is a little early to do so now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special studies his Department has made into the source or origin of supplies of illicit hard and soft drugs.

Knowledge of the source of origin of illicit drugs is con stantly being assembled, in particular through information obtained from the enforcement agencies both here and overseas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that magistrates and others concerned with the drug addiction that is spreading in this country are perturbed at the large amounts of drugs that apparently are available? Surely, it would be much wiser to try to stop the influx of drugs at the sources at which they enter the country than to chase them around when they are in the country.

This will be true of cannabis, and the Customs and Excise does its best about it. As regards manufactured drugs, it is the view of my experts in the Home Office that most of those which are illicitly circulated were licitly manufactured in the United Kingdom. Although it is sometimes easy to identify the actual manufacturer, the point of diversion into the illicit market is much more difficult to identify, but we are using all the resources of the police that we can to keep track of this.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of deaths which have occurred in the Portland Borstal Centre during the past six months; when these occurred; what was the cause of death in each instance; and what action he has taken or intends taking to prevent such occurrences in the future.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given to his Question on 22nd October. The measures taken to prevent attacks on inmates are kept under constant review.[Vol. 788, c. 255.]

I thank my hon. Friend for her kindness in interviewing me yesterday and for the discussions which ensued. Having said that, may I say that the information which she gave yesterday, and which she has given again today, is quite unsatisfactory, and that when the matter is no longer sub judice I shall take the opportunity of raising it on the Adjournment?

Does not the Question also show the delicacy and difficulty inherent in the tasks of a Portland borstal prison officer or housemaster? In the light of the risks that they run and the anxiety suffered by their wives—and one of the officers, too, was murdered in recent years —will the hon. Lady pay tribute to the quality of the work they do and the courage they show?

I think that borstal officers do a great deal of good in difficult circumstances. The answer to the point made by my hon. Friend is that in any case where an inmate in borstal loses his life there is an immediate departmental inquiry into the circumstances in an endeavour to establish all the facts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the number of category A prisoners at Parkhurst Prison to be reduced by sending a proportion of them to other prisons; and if he will introduce regulations to enable prison governors regularly to transfer category A prisoners from one prison to another.

The category A population of Parkhurst, excluding the special security wing, is being reduced from 46 to about 30 during the next few weeks. Allocations of category A prisoners must be controlled centrally, but they are reviewed frequently, and governors are free to propose transfers.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the first part of that reply, which is very welcome. As regards the second part, he will know that rumours get round prisons when trouble is brewing, and that the best way to deal with it is to take immediate action to remove the ringleaders to other prisons. The right hon. Gentleman would be wise to give governors the power to do that.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says in the first part of his question, but this is a matter that must be controlled centrally. There are relatively few of these prisoners. I am often consulted about the proposed allocations. I am certain that we must have regard to the whole policy for the country as a whole and the limited number of prisoners concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that from now on his policy will be to reduce the number of category A prisoners in various prisons where they at present form a kind of inverted aristocracy in the prison, which has a very bad effect on the other prisoners?

We have a limited number of prisons and prisoners. I have from time to time thought it a good thing to have a general post when trouble seemed to be brewing, but one must have regard to a number of factors, including the need to have people settled in one place for a period, and I think that the policy is working out as reasonably as one can get it to do, recognising that we are dealing with a particularly violent group of men.

How many prisons are there which can take category A prisoners?

I think seven, but may I check that?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many parking tickets were issued by police authorities in the last year; what percentage of the fines went to defray cost of wages and administration; and what rules govern the disposal of the remainder of the fund.

During 1968 the police in England and Wales issued 1,046,358 fixed penalty notices. The number of those that related to parking offences is not known. Fixed penalty payments are transferred to the Ministry of Transport without deduction for costs of administration.

Are we to assume that this is the only form of central control—the transfer of these funds to the Ministry of Transport? Is there any information about how much of this money is being devoted to improve parking spaces for motorists?

Yes, Sir. Local authority profits from parking meters, which include excess charges, are used to finance the provision of off-street car parking. The other penalties which arise are transferred to the Ministry of Transport because the police are financed under. a separate Vote.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates are available of the quantities of cyanide and other dangerous chemicals which are stored in London and other major towns and cities; if he will take steps to increase the safety precautions necessary for the storage of these dangerous chemicals, in order to minimise the possibility of a major accident; and if he will make a statement.

Information on which worthwhile estimates could be made is not available. I believe that, in general, dangerous chemicals are properly safeguarded; but if my hon. Friend thinks that there are some particular problems which require attention and will let me have details, I shall be glad to study them.

I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but is she aware that many experts feel that there are enough dangerous chemicals stored in London alone to wipe out half the population of Great Britain? Can my hon. Friend say when we can expect some developments from the Home Office committee which is looking into the question of the control and transportation of dangerous chemicals?

I hate to have my hon. friend disagree with me, but the powers of my right hon. Friend in this respect do not extend to custody or to precautions against theft. My right hon. Friend's powers in respect of transportation and labelling are considerable, and there is no evidence that these powers are not adequate at the present time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to make the day of a general election a public holiday; if he will examine means of arranging for similar holidays on the days of some major local elections; and if he will make a statement.

So far as concerns Parliamentary elections, this matter was considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law, which recommended no change in the law. I see no reason for dealing differently with local government elections.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the present system has a built-in advantage for the Tory Party, many of whose election workers, as they are the idle rich, are available earlier in the day, whereas many of our election workers, who have to earn their living, are available only much later? Will my hon. Friend look at this again?

I deplore a number of built-in advantages whic the Opposition have, but I do not think that we ought to add to them. It is the case that elections held on Saturdays, particularly, invariably have a lower poll than those held on another day of the week. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the greater the number of people who vote, the greater the number who will indicate their support for my party.

Even assuming that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) is right, does not the hon. Lady agree that to offset that there is a distinct advantage to the Government by fiddling the Boundary Commission's Report?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now recommend a revision in the prison sentence being served by Ethel Gee, sentenced at the same time as Lonsdale and the Krogers.

No, Sir.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but was not the principal criminal in this spy trial, Lonsdale, sentenced to 25 years and released after serving one-eighth of his sentence, and thereafter the Krogers were sentenced to 20 years and released after serving less than half their sentence. Could it be equitable for this ageing typist, dominated as she was by her lover, to be almost alone in bearing the penalty for a crime which she did not instigate, and into which she was misled?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, this case has given me, personally, some concern. The hon. Gentleman also knows, because I wrote to him about it, that I did not have a favourable recommendation from the Parole Board in this case, and, therefore, I do not feel that I should act at the present time.

Is it not inevitably going to cause resentment that the ringleaders should be allowed to go free because of their powerful friends, whereas this rather pathetic woman must remain in prison? Do not we have a maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done?

Justice was done, but the question is when, and how much, mercy should come into the application of the justice. The people who have been referred to were foreign subjects and spies. Miss Gee is a citizen of this country, and the calculation is not exactly the same. But I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Is not there a considerable difference between people like Lonsdale and the Krogers—who were loyal people serving their own country, as our own spies serve us—and those contemptible people who betray their own country for money?

I repeat that I believe that justice was done. But the question arises as to the stage at which those who have been sentenced can be regarded as having fulfilled the appropriate sentence that public opinion would expect—and that is a matter that I shall keep under review, and I know that the Parole Board will also do so.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to ensure that immigration officers comply with the instruction in Command Paper No. 3465 of 1967 relating to the admission of those in possession of valid entry certificates, following the refusal of admission to Mr. Moussa Balgobin, of Mauritius. at Gatwick Airport on 14th August, 1969.

I have no reason to think that immigration officers do not comply with the instruction.

Is not there a very important principle at stake here, in that Mr. Balgobin had a quite valid entry certificate and that there were clearly no grounds in law for us to have refused him admission to this country as a visitor? In view of that fact, is it not time that the instructions to immigration officers at Gatwick were made clearer? Did not those officers act quite wrongly in this respect?

One of the provisions of the instructions to immigration officers is that if an entry certificate is obtained by misrepresentation or the knowing concealment of material facts they have a right to refuse admission. In this case inquiry was made of the High Commission in Mauritius, which sustained the view that the entry certificate had been obtained by misrepresentation. As a result, Mr. Balgobin was refused admission. He then appealed to the High Court, and leave to appeal was given. He was offered bail until 21st September, but he returned home before his bail was up or the case could be heard, so it is difficult for the hon. Member or for me—with the best wishes of justice in mind—to reach a final conclusion in this case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to arrange for the responsibility for school crossing patrols to be transferred from the Metropolitan Police to the local authorities.

My right hon. Friend has asked the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the possible transfer of responsibility with the education authorities in the Metropolitan Police District. Any such change would require legislation.

I warmly welcome that answer, as far as it goes, but is my hon. Friend aware that I have two separate examples in my constituency, in Mead Way and Hayes Lane, where applications for school crossing patrols have been supported by parents, teachers, governors and managers of the schools concerned and have yet been turned down? How can a police commissioner sitting in New Scotland Yard know all the local factors involved? Will that point be borne in mind in the discussions that will now take place?

As the hon. Member implies, the situation is otherwise outside London. Talks are to be held to see whether we cannot bring the situation within London into line with what happens outside it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some aspects of that answer were given to me nearly 12 months ago, since when nothing has happened? Is she further aware that many police forces and local authorities would prefer local authorities to be responsible for the provision of this service? Will she do all that she can to hasten this wish into a reality?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide suitable and convenient alternative remand accommodation to the Brockhill Remand Centre for women in the West Midlands.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of the resolution passed unanimously by the Magistrates' Association at its annual general meeting on 10th October, 1969, concerning the need for remand accommodation for women in the Midlands, a copy of which is in his possession, if he will consider the possibility of re-opening Brockhill Remand Centre to women.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department have yet received various documents from the honourable Member for Bromsgrove relating to the Brock hill Remand Centre and whether he will make a statement.

I am reviewing this matter in the light of the representations received, the many other demands on an overstrained prison system and the need to ensure that where-ever women and girls are remanded in custody adequate nursing care is available.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that the Magistrates' Association has expressed great concern about the closure of this remand centre, and that it means that women now have to travel to Manchester or London, and that their relatives and legal advisers have to make the same journey? Will she therefore consider reopening the Brockhill Remand Centre—which would be the easiest way to deal with the problem?

All that my hon. Friend says is true, but I should add that a high proportion of women in custody and on remand are in need of psychiatric attention. We have had to balance the difficulties of getting nursing staff to go to Brockhill because of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred. I have already promised to do my best and to look into the matter, but I cannot promise that Brockhill will necessarily be the place at which we try to meet the needs of the Midlands.

Will the Minister bear in mind—thinking of the remarks that the Minister made a moment or two ago—that although the magistrates are well aware of the problems that she outlined, their recommendation in this matter was quite unanimous?

I would hate to suggest that the recommendation was valueless, but the hon. Lady will realise that we cannot quickly bring about changes in matters which are causing great difficulty and are very complex. We are looking into this matter. Owing to the extreme legality and conformity of the female sex, we have so few female prisoners that we cannot have prisons situated within close reach of all their homes.

Does the hon. Lady agree that Brockhill is a good place and that other alternative proposals have been put forward which could work, with the provision of a nursing staff? Will not she agree that someone in her Department has made a grave error in coming to the decision? Will not someone have the courage to say so, so that the decision can be reversed?

The hon. Member will recognise that I am most unlikely to follow him in his tempting remarks. It is not clear that Brockhill will be the answer, because there have been extreme difficulties in recruiting nursing staff. Nevertheless, I recognise the difficulties that now face the Midlands in this respect.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Heads of the Governments of the Common Market countries to a conference in London.

asked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from the Heads of the European Economic Community Governments regarding Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community following the summit meeting at The Hague.

:I would refer to what I said in reply to Questions from several hon. Members last Tuesday.—[Vol. 791, c. 1106–12.]

If the Prime Minister does have a meeting with the leaders of the Common Market will he take the opportunity of explaining to them—and will he explain to the House today—how far the Labour Government accept the safeguards in respect of negotiations on the Common Market so clearly set out in the Labour Party resolution passed at its conference in September of this year?

I have heard this a number of times. The opening part of the hon. Member's supplementary question suggests that the rest must be hypothetical.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that although the terms of British entry will be of great importance there is much more to our application than that? Is he fully satisfied that the Heads of Government are aware that des pite previous disappointments there is still a widespread desire in this country that we should now play a full part in the future political and economic development of Europe?

I feel that there is full appreciation among the Heads of Government about the position of the British Government and this House on this matter, as regards the economic and technological aspects of joining the Community, and as regards the political value.

Would it not be better if my right hon. Friend took no notice of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) but concentrated on hammering out a suitable alternative when he visits President Nixon next year?

I dealt with the question of alternatives, including N.A.F.T.A., worldwide free trade areas, and a reprise of the Kennedy Round, but none of these activities so far as there is a short-term hope of their leading to anything is incompatible with our application to join the European Economic Community.

asked the Prime Minister if he will recommend setting up a Royal Commission to investigate the problem of injuries sustained by children from fireworks and to propose the changes in legislation consequential upon its findings.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on 6th November. —[Vol. 790, c. 166.]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that pretty imprecise answer. Does he not recognise that there is mounting concern throughout the country at the annual toll of fireworks casualities as evidenced by Members' postbags? Will he reconsider his answer and the other answer?

If my hon. Friend does not find enough precision there he may have found precision in the answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Office to Questions earlier this afternoon. The concern to which my hon. Friend has referred is shared by my hon. Friend at the Home Office. It is for that reason, as stated in my answer, that my hon. Friend's Department is calling a meeting of all those concerned with manufacturing and other aspects of the safety question as soon as it is possible to analyse the 1969 casualty figures.

Is not a criticism of this House that so many people can still quietly set fire to their children and grandmothers on 5th November? Since Royal Commissions take time, and it is clear that the recommendations of commissioners, both royal and otherwise, are not invariably implemented, would it not be wiser to allow the House to come to its own conclusions?

My experience of participating in family fireworks parties suggests that the hon. Member has missed out a generation. I do not think that a Royal Commission is the answer. I believe that all the facts that can be found will be found when the 1969 figures are analysed and added to the analysis for previous years, and that the right answer —in the first instance, at any rate—is for my right hon. Friend's proposal to be followed up and for us to have meetings of all the manufacturing and other interests concerned.

asked the Prime Minister if he will give details of the communications he has received from Mr. Pat Bashford about the Government's Rhodesia policy; and what reply he has sent.

I have not received any such communication, Sir.

Has the Prime Minister studied what this leading liberal opponent of Mr. Smith—

Oh, really!

—wrote in The Times: that sanctions are having precisely the opposite of the intended effect? This being so, could he not now make a reappraisal, however agonising, restore normal trade and allow British ideas to compete again in Rhodesia with those of South Africa?

I saw the statement reported in The Times, of Mr. Bash-ford and also the replies to it by certain other people, including the Bishop of Matabeleland, whose attitude I would rather follow on Rhodesian questions. So far as British ideas are concerned, I have never noticed the hon. Member very active in seeing that British ideas of human rights are pushed in Rhodesia.

How many other nations have identified themselves with and recognised the illegal regime in Rhodesia, which is so often eulogised by some hon. Members opposite?

Not one, Sir.

In view of the premise of the question of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), will the Prime Minister bear in mind that Mr. Bashford, whom he described as a liberal, is not so, and that most of the leading liberals in South Africa with any political experience are either in detention in their houses without trial or are in prison camps?

It is certainly the case that some of those who have expressed liberal ideas there have shown singularly little effectiveness in pushing them in political terms—

It is your fault.

It is the fault of the fact that they are living under a semi-Fascist regime. So far as the others are concerned, it is a fact that large numbers have been imprisoned without trial—that is true both of Europeans and of Africans who are opposed to the oppressive and repressive nature of the regime which the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has supported.

Leaving aside the question of Mr. Bashford's liberality, does my right hon. Friend feel that the continuation of sanctions has the smallest prospect of toppling Mr. Smith or restoring legality in Rhodesia? If the answer be "No", what is the continuing point?

The answer is "Yes". Although I have a great respect for my hon. and learned Friend on many issues, I have never agreed with his continued pressure in this House for four years that we should have a sell-out to racialist policies in Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister what responsibilities regarding materials have recently been transferred from the Ministry of Transport to the Ministry of Public Building and Works.

Since May 1969, the Ministry of Public Building and Works has been the sponsoring Department for all building materials and aggregates: this includes certain materials (i.e. building stone, stone used as aggregate, and slag) for which responsibility was transferred from the Ministry of Transport; no change in statutory responsibilities was involved.

What has led to this decision, and what is the right hon. Gentleman hoping to achieve by it?

This was explained at the time that the transfer was made. It was felt that, because of the common usage both between the building industry and also the constructional industry's responsibilities for roads, it would be better for the responsibility for all these building materials, which raise many other wider questions—planning permission and so on—to be under one Department.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his action following the presentation to him of the petition, asking him to save the Tyne River from decline, to preserve its ferries and to abolish selective employment tax, on 15th October by the Mayor and Councillors of Tyne-mouth on behalf of the county boroughs of Tynemouth and South Shields.

I arranged for a deputation consisting of the hon. Lady, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and local authority representatives, to be seen by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning later that day.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having made that arrangement. Is he aware, however, that the petition was sent over from No. 10 to his right hon. Friend and that therefore the responsibility still rests with the right hon. Gentleman? What we on this North-East coast want to know is the answer to the questions contained in the Question which I have addressed to him today. May we have an answer please, because we will be dying if they do not get on with it?

The hon. Lady will be aware that these matters are best dealt with by the Ministers who have departmental responsibility. She was, I think, pleased with the courteous way in which my right hon. Friend received the deputation. He is visiting the North-East tomorrow—Tees-side, I think—and will be on Tyneside next month. I think that it is better to let him deal with these matters, some of which are important. On some of them, I do not think the hon. Lady will find that a proper study by my right hon. Friend will show the same validity in the petition as she thinks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are very grateful for the great activity in our shipbuilding yards on the Tyne, but that, nevertheless, there is strong feeling on both sides of the Tyne about the danger of the disappearance of our major ferry and other activities in that area, and that people are very annoyed that nothing is being done to prevent that?

I am aware of the position of the Market Place Ferry, referred to in the petition. This must be a matter for discussion with the Minister of Transport. Of course, it is somewhat unusual for a ferry to be part of a port authority's operation. Nevertheless, if a case can be made, loans and grants can be made available for harbour developments and it is possible to give capital expenditure, for example, for a new boat for the ferry.

On the first part of my hon. Friend's qustion, in which he referred to shipbuilding, I would only say that both he and the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) will be delighted to know, and will probably already know, that in 1968 net new orders for shipbuilding in the country as a whole were nearly three times as great as in 1964 and that new orders for export were 13 times as great as in 1964—and that the Tyne has had a very full share of these new orders.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit the United States of America for discussions with the President.

It was announced simultaneously from 10 Downing Street and the White House last night that I have accepted President Nixon's invitation to visit Washington on 27th and 28th January for a further personal exchange of views on the international situation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for letting me know that it was announced last night, as I heard, and for his courtesy in dropping me a note to that effect. Has my right hon. Friend seen the Press reports that one of the subjects which will be discussed is, putting it in the Press report language, a "sellout" of Israel? May I be assured that my right hon. Friend will not in any way take part in any discussions which might have as their basis a sell-out of Israel?

No agenda has yet been settled. I should be very surprised if the Middle East was not one of the questions discussed, but a sell-out of Israel is the policy neither of the United States Government nor of Her Majesty's Government.

In his discussions in January, would the Prime Minister tell the President that we should welcome a second visit from him to this country, perhaps next year?

If the President felt able to get away for such a visit, it would he his third since he took office.

When my right hon. Friend meets the President, will he point out to him the very strong and deep feeling in this country about the wholesale assassination of ordinary village people in South Vietnam by members of the United States forces, which has been revealed, in the first place, to their great credit, in the American Press, which has upheld the tradition of the American Press in this matter? Would my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate in this House on Vietnam so that he may be fortified with the opinion of this House before he meets the President and discusses Vietnam with him?

I have another Question to answer on Vietnam—the next one, indeed—and I am to answer Questions about Vietnam next week. The House has read the Press report of a number of very grave alleged incidents in Vietnam. Even if they proved to be only a quarter true, they would be regarded as very grave atrocities. In fact, there have been atrocities on both sides in this horrible and tragic war—

Not on this scale.

Even on this scale. I remember verified reports of 1,000 people being massacred by the Communists during their short period of occupation. But that does not excuse either of these kinds of atrocities. So far as the American alleged atrocities are concerned, these are a matter for very thorough investigation by the American Service authorities, and it would be for them to take any action. It is for us to express our horror, if these stories prove to be true. In America, free Senate, Congressional and Press discussion on these matters can lead to them being unearthed and brought into the light of day, which is not always the case in Communist countries.

When the right hon. Gentleman goes to see the President, will he have time to meet Mr. Dean Acheson to discuss his recently-expressed views on Rhodesia?

I have read Press reports of Mr. Dean Acheson's statements, with which I totally disagree. Indeed, I would be surprised to think that many hon. Members here agreed with them. I recall, when on the benches opposite, expressing disagreement with other statements made by Mr. Acheson, and I also recall certain right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when speaking from this Dispatch Box, expressing their continued disagreement with some of his statements —statements of a distinguished figure who has lost a State Department and has not yet found himself a role.

Since President Nixon intends to keep his air force in Vietnam and since he intends to withdraw only ground troops as Marshal Theu's troops can take over, does my right hon. Friend agree that it appears to be his policy to keep a corrupt military dictatorship indefinitely in power; and will my right hon. Friend explain to President Nixon that that policy is not acceptable to the British people?

Before answering my right hon. Friend's supplementary question, I hope that I will not be out of order in mentioning that the whole House will have read with regret his statement that he will not be seeking re-election to this House at the next General Election.

To answer his basic question, my right hon. Friend will, of course, be aware of the clear proposals put forward by President Nixon about a solution in Vietnam, including the withdrawal—the phased and then total withdrawal—of all ground troops, if, of course, there is a settlement—and a settlement requires two sides to agree.

We have had several statements and assertions by the American Government that they are prepared to withdraw totally from any commitment inside Vietnam. I know that my right hon. Friend will continue to urge on both sides the need for a permanent and democratic settlement.

When he meets President Nixon, will the right hon. Gentleman explain that very large numbers of people in this country appreciate the efforts which the United States are making to prevent the spread of Communism throughout South-East Asia?

I have already answered questions about the American role in Asia. What I believe all of us appreciate above all is the fact that President Nixon has made a very clear offer to withdraw his ground combat troops from Vietnam and to play his full part in ending the fighting there, if there can be a settlement. No hon. Member, whatever views he may hold about the present South Vietnamese Government, would wish to have a political solution imposed on Vietnam from anywhere which was contrary to the wishes of the people of that area.

Would the Leader of the House please state the business of the House for next week?

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 24TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Bill and of the Industrial Development (Ships) Bill.

TUESDAY, 25TH NOVEMBER Remaining stages of the Police Bill and the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Customs (Import Deposits) Bill and the Rent (Control of Increases) Bill.

THURSDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Supply [2nd Allotted Day]: Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on the £50 Travel Allowance, which will arise on an Opposition Motion, and afterwards on Rural Bus Services, also on an Opposition Motion.

FRIDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Private Members' Motions.

MONDAY, 1ST DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.

Afterwards, Motions on the Milk Marketing Amendment 1933 Scheme, the West Riding County Council Order, the Cumberland County Council Order, the Defence Powers (Continuance) Order and the British Overseas Airways Corporation (Borrowing Powers) Order.

Can the right hon. Gentleman now say when the promised debate on the Government's White Paper on pensions is to take place?

No, Sir, I cannot say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am hopeful that there will be a White Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will look into the matter.

Another White Paper?

I was answering the right hon. Gentleman's question and was thinking of a separate matter, the social services, and so on. I will look into it. I cannot make a further statement on the subject today.

Do I understand that we are to have yet another White Paper on the Government's pension plans?

I understand that there have been discussions about the possibility of this. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am trying to be helpful. I will look into the matter carefully. In any event, there is always an opportunity of using a Supply day.

I must again question the right hon. Gentleman in view of the alarming prospect which he has held out. The first White Paper was barely comprehensible. The second was incomprehensible. What will the third one be like?

I am anxious that information should be given to hon. Members. I will have discussions about the matter. [Interruption.]

The whole House is bewildered by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. We are prepared to accept that there may be a third White Paper. Could we at least debate the second White Paper before getting the third?

I was thinking about the Bill and was trying to be helpful. This is an important matter, but I cannot promise a specific debate at this stage.

For three weeks in succession I have raised with my right hon. Friend the need for a debate at the earliest possible opportunity on the proposals to reorganise the broadcasting services, but he has not yet made a firm announcement. Instead of taking some of the odds and ends which he has announced for debate next week, would he consider substituting an urgently needed debate on this subject? Is he aware of the concern that is now spreading through the B.B.C. staff, particularly in the regions, and the urgent need for this House to have a say about what is to happen to the broadcasting services in the future?

I am aware of the importance of this matter. I replied last week and the week before to questions about it from my hon. Friend. I have conveyed her views to my right hon. Friend and it may be that we will have a statement shortly. However, I cannot promise anything for next week.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a fortnight ago my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, and the Prime Minister agreed, that a debate on the second White Paper on pensions would be desirable in view of the widespread concern that is felt about the Government's proposals? Is it not desirable that: we debate the matter at an early date?

I said that I would look into the matter sympathetically. I repeat that I am trying to be helpful. I realise the importance of the subject—[Interruption.]—which, for some strange reason, hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to reject. I assure the noble Lord that I will convey all these views to my right hon. Friend.

In view of the serious allegations of mass murder in Vietnamese villages, would my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to having a debate on the Vietnam war, particularly in view of these allegations of mass murder? Is he aware that a Motion on the subject is now being tabled?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a number of questions on this specific matter earlier. I was pressed the other week by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) to have a general debate on Vietnam. I said that I would make representations to my right hon. Friend, and that has been done. However, on the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), I suggest that the Prime Minister gave satisfactory answers at Question Time.

Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to squeeze time out of next week's business as a matter of urgency for at least a half-day's debate on the present position of teachers and their salary claim?

I appreciate that this is an important matter. Indeed, the teachers are at present involved in a dispute. However, I cannot find time for a debate next week.

Would my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the possibility of initiating a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland?