asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to collate the university research which he has sponsored into the causes of violence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research projects he has initiated with regard to the causes of violence; and to what extent he takes into account the findings of similar studies carried out in other countries.

There is close contact between my officials and the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, which is carrying out the programme of study of violence which I announced on 16th December last. This includes a survey of research on violence, which will take account of research in other countries; a descriptive and statistical survey of crimes of violence; and a study of aggressive behaviour by boys in their teens.

Will my right hon. Friend publish the results of this research, as it is as important to under- stand the causes and prevention of violence as it is to punish those responsible?

A great deal of the value would be lost unless there was publication when the research was completed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many research workers in this subject recognise what he has done to try to calm down the agitation which has been built up, often by the Opposition? Is it not clear that this is an international social problem? Does he agree that the work done in the E.E.C. is also worth considering?

Yes, Sir. I hope to carry this into international relations. There will be a conference in The Hague later this month of European Ministers of Justice which will afford an opportunity for discussion of this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is being done into the relationship between the consumption of alcohol and the increasing incidence of crimes of violence.

This will be given consideration in the programme of research conducted with Government support at the Cambridge Institute of Criminology.

Will my right hon. Friend say why this research has not been done before, and will he ask the Opposition, in view of their well known influence with the brewers, to ask them to contribute to this research rather than to a losing political party?

I am afraid I cannot answer the first point, but in reply to the second I agree that the brewers are well represented in the top 10 contributors to the Conservative Party. They share that privilege with the merchant banks, I believe. In my other capacity, if I may be allowed a short "commercial", I am very willing to accept contributions from either.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has studied United States practices of fire precautions in the home, details of which were sent to him by the hon. Member for Bolton, East, on 9th April; and if he will incorporate proposals covering homes in his forthcoming legislation to rationalise the law relating to fire precautions.

The legislation which my right hon. Friend proposes to introduce to strengthen and rationalise the law relating to fire precautions will cover certain types of living accommodation, but not dwelling houses in general. I have written to my hon. Friend.

Does not my hon. Friend feel that the answer to the problem is publicity which will convince people of the dangers of fire in the home and the simple precautions they can take? What does he propose to do to step up the publicity?

I believe that both legislation and publicity have a part to play. As my hon. Friend was told on 24th April, publicity about fire prevention in the home is undertaken by the Home Office, the fire authorities, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, fire protection associations and other organisations.

Will the hon. Gentleman apply himself to the cause of umerable fires in the home—the overturning of obsolescent, mobile, outworn and outdated oil burners, particularly involving the death of children, and the use of electrical equipment which is often 30 or 40 years old and ought to have been scrapped many years ago?

For once in my life, I do not dissent substantially from what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate a publicity campaign to draw attention to existing cheap and effective automatic fire alarms suitable for use in the home with a view to reducing the loss of life, particularly among young children, through fires in the home.

My right hon. Friend would not wish to discourage the use of alarms of the type which I under- stand my hon. Friend has in mind; but they have a number of limitations and he would not feel justified in recommending their general use.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are small alarms, many of them costing about 30s. each, which, if they were in wide use, would help prevent many of the tragic deaths so common in the middle of winter? Will he reconsider his answer?

I am aware of this aspect, but the House should appreciate that most of the deaths in fire in the home are due to the effects of smoke and toxic products of combustion. Automatic fire alarms are most effective if activated by smoke, but many of the cheaper automatic alarms are activated not by smoke but by heat.

Arising from a previous reply given by the hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that there is growing concern at the non-appearance yet of the promised legislation? Why the delay?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to await a statement on that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to enable the proposed committee on Privacy under the Chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Younger to investigate the intrusion on privacy by firms advertising their products by means of the telephone.

I will draw the Committee's attention to this matter. If my hon. Friend has any relevant information, I shall be glad if he will make it available to the Committee.

I am much obliged for that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware of this growing practice, particularly in my constituency? Would he not agree that this could cause a good deal of inconvenience and resentment among those at the wrong end of the telephone?

I have made certain inquiries into the matter. As far as I am aware it is not a widespread practice as yet and I certainly hope, for the sake of all of us, that it does not grow.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the terms of reference of the Committee on Privacy have been confined to intrusions on privacy by private persons and organisations, or by companies, thereby debarring the Committee from considering intrusions by servants of the Crown or of public bodies such as the British Broadcasting Corporation; and whether he will amend the terms of reference so as to avoid such discrimination.

Civil servants act under the direction of Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament. There is no similar accountability by private persons and organisations.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the limitation of these terms of reference to intrusions by private, as opposed to public, bodies or their servants is contrary to Magna Carta and constitutes yet another step on the slippery slope to the Socialist State?

That is a very odd way of putting it, considering that the origin of this committee of inquiry lay in the Bill introduced by one of my hon. Friends aimed at extending the right of privacy of individuals. I remember that on the occasion of the debate the right hon. and learned Member gave vent to the sentiment that in his constituency the biggest invasion of privacy was regarded as aircraft noise.

Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point in his original answer? When he said that the television authorities will co-operate with the committee did he mean to indicate that their activities will now be within the terms of reference of the committee?

I do not think that terms of reference were drawn so that those organisations are strictly within the scope of them. As I have reported to the House—if I did not I do it now—1 saw the chairmen of both authorities and both readily agreed that in connection with what I call their news-gathering and dissemination and publication activities they would expect to co-operate with the committee.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I asked the Prime Minister about the work of the Younger Committee he said specifically that it would look into computers and their possible intrusion upon privacy? If Government service computers are exempted from the inquiry will not the work of the Younger Committee be a meaningless travesty?

None of that was said during the course of the Friday debate when the whole accent was on the invasion of privacy by private individuals and firms. It is well known and understood that the entry by Government officials into private premises or by gas and the electricity inspectors, or the interception of communications, is all governed by Statute or well laid-down practice. As to computers, the Prime Minister said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) that he was considering in what way a code of conduct could be worked out.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed increases in charges for the hiring of police for sporting events.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on 12th May.—[Vol. 801, c. 264–51

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I cannot recall that answer readily? Nevertheless, will he give an assurance that the cricketing authorities will bear the full cost of the increased police protection which the cricket grounds are likely to need when the South African team is engaged in games behind barbed wire?

This is a matter between chief constables. the police authorities in the various areas and the cricketing authorities themselves. I have no doubt that they will make appropriate arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations have been made to him regarding demonstrations in connection with the South African cricket tour in Great Britain.

About 250 letters have been received from individuals and organisations on the subject of the South African tour.

Although I realise that we shall be debating this subject later, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would agree that for the M.C.C. to hire so-called vigilantes is both wrong and an incitement to violence? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many of us would like the tour called off as quickly as possible if, nevertheless, the South Africans come over we believe that there should be peaceful demonstrations and that there can be no excuse for violence from either side? As a dedicated antiapartheiddemonstrator and campaigner I would not wish to associate myself in any way with violence.

What the M.C.C. does in this matter is of concern to the police in so far as it might provoke a breach of the peace. That is the responsibility of the police in all these matters. I certainly echo my hon. Friend's sentiments about violence. We will all have to bear in mind that there will be a certain number of hooligans who exist in every city and who will want to take advantage of what is intended to be the peaceful protest.

Despite what the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend has said, has the Home Secretary noted the statement of Mr. Peter Haine about the success he claims to have achieved so far for his movement being due to the introduction of direct action? Will the Home Office take careful note of this gentleman's activities and statements and movements to make sure that he acts within the law?

As long as everyone acts within the law there will be no need for anyone to take note of their active- ties. I hope that will go both for the hooligans on the Left and anyone on the Right who wants to stir up trouble. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the possibility that there may be a tiny, fractional organisation on the Right which would attempt to make disturbances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has now made of the additional cost to public funds of providing police surveillance of the South African touring cricket team this year.

It is too early to make an estimate.

Would my right hon. Friend say what justification there is in paying anything at all from public funds to enable this tour to take place since it is offensive to our laws and to millions of people in this country?

I would not want—nor I am sure would my hon. Friend—individuals who come to this country to be personally harassed and embarrassed if a little police protection could prevent physical intimidation of that sort. I would not want to suggest that they should be left without the normal protection and courtesy afforded to all visitors to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, following his circular to returning officers on the matter, he will ascertain how many returning officers of cities, county boroughs and boroughs, who have previously had their count following a General Election on the same night, propose to follow this practice in the next General Election.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to a Question by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) on 7th May.—[Vol. 801, c. 170.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because in some boroughs and county boroughs returning officers will have an extra hour's checking of counterfoils, several are thinking of not starting until the following day? Will he call their attention to the effect that this will have on the trade and industry of the country, on the hotel industry and also on television programmes?

As regards television, some of the scenes that I have seen when television invades the returning officer's sanctum would lead to many people feeling glad if the cameras stayed outside. As to the other institutions, I do not think it will have a catastrophic effect.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that by extending polling hours till 10 o'clock he has greatly widened democracy, by making it possible, or much easier, for shift workers and those on overtime to vote? As some of them are not aware of this, could he make it widely known so that no one misses the chance to vote?

With respect, it was not my decision; it was a decision of the House but I am very ready to take credit for it. The changing of practice in relation to hours of work, the shift system and night work means that the new hours are much more convenient to a number of people.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to protect people in this country from the consequences of nuclear retaliation following the implementation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation policy of nuclear response to conventional attack.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to a Question by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) on 12th February.—[Vol. 795, c. 379–80.]

While that answer is completely clear in my mind, in every particular and word, may I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not the case that, having abandoned any attempt to protect the civil population against nuclear war by virtually standing down civil defence, the logical consequence of that step is for ourselves to abandon the use of nuclear weapons on the ground that to use a weapon against which we are unable to defend ourselves is sheer irresponsibility?

I do not want to get involved in discussions on defence strategy. In the care and maintenance policy announced in January, 1968, the main requirements for the protection of the public have been retained.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to fresh evidence on the effects of CS gas used in Belfast, details of which have been sent to him, he will ban the use of this weapon until the Himsworth Committee has reported.

No.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that answer? Is not the proper course to ensure that no human being should be subject to any noxious process until its effects are fully known and medically examined? In these circumstances, will he at least not suspend the use of this gas until the Himsworth Committee has reported?

No, Sir. Being concerned with the welfare of every human being, I include in that the British Army and those soldiers who are having to withstand a great deal of attack and abuse.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that all possible steps are taken to avoid the use of CS gas except in the most extreme circumstances, in view of the serious effect on quite innocent people living in the area where it is used? Will he instead endeavour to arrest as many of the rioters as possible and bring them before the courts as quickly as possible?

This question has been answered before and the G.O.C. needs no reminder from me or the hon. Gentleman that he should use this weapon only in extreme circumstances where the alternative is something that the House would generally regard as worse. He must be supported in his decision to use it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will obtain a report from the chief constable on the proposals he has for improving the number of vehicles and other mechanical aids to crime detection in use by the West Midlands Police Force and how present levels compare with those in use in 1963–64.

At present 289 vehicles and 510 personal radios are available; the comparable figures in 1964 were 158 and 8. The chief constable intends to maintain this improved standard.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, but is he aware that there is concern in the West Midlands force about undermanning? Nevertheless, the figures show that this Government have shown much more concern for the detection and tracking down of crime and criminals than the Opposition when they were in power, and this makes their recent conversion to law and order look pretty thin.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present strength of the drug squad in London; and what proposals he has to aid recruitment of more officers in the immediate future.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 12th February to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler).—[Vol. 795, c. 375–6.]

As my right hon. Friend is concerned with a Bill to deal with the tracking down and punishment of pushers of drugs, does not he think that the drug squad needs augmentation? Does not he also agree that, to establish the right relationship with those who are treating drug addicts, drug squad officers shoud stay in post much longer, and that there should be less moving around and more opportunities for promotion within the drug squad?

The short answer is that this matter should always be kept under review, but not only the drug squad is concerned with this social problem. All the 20,000 officers in Greater London have the same powers of arrest in connection with drug offenders as the drug squad. The drug squad is a small specialised group which is particularly concerned with tracking down pushers, and at present the Commissioner is satisfied that the squad is organised in the way which is likely to get the best results.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the suicide rates in prisons.

Over the past five years the annual number of suicides in prison service establishments in England and Wales has varied between 11 and 21. A careful examination is made of the circumstances behind each suicide or attempted suicide and additional precautions are taken wherever experience shows that they are necessary or likely to be effective.

Is the Minister aware that the Annual Report of the Prisons Department expressed deep concern about the number of suicides and attempted suicides in prison, and what is his Department doing to provide psychiatric help to people who need it?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that, first, the highest priority is given to identifying the potential suicide. If there is any risk he is removed to the prison hospital. Secondly regulations provide for the removal of any clothing which might be of use in a suicide attempt. Thirdly, careful study is given to each case with a view to reviewing the whole system in the light of the facts which emerge from such inquiry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the incidence of suicide attempts is higher in remand homes where people are in a more disturbed state? I mention particularly the Risley remand home, near Warrington. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that every precaution is taken, particularly with people who have previously attempted to commit suicide?

I accept what my hon. Friend says about the danger in remand homes, and I give him the assurance which he seeks. I understand that my right hon. Friend has already visited the remand home which he mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to set up a national police force following the Government's proposals for local government reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to establish a national police force.

I have no plans to establish a national police force. The reasons for not doing so were set out in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police in 1962.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be general satisfaction with that reply? Is he also aware that the Police Federation recently opposed the setting up of such a force, with all the dangers of remote leadership? Will he confirm that it is his intention to maintain an element of local democracy in our citizens' affairs, particularly in areas such as Lancashire and Cheshire where some element of reorganisation will be required by the Redcliffe-Maud proposals?

I saw a recent revival of this proposal, but I do not believe that it has much support although it came from a very distinguished quarter. The present composition of the police authorities ensures a great deal of local representation, and I do not see that under any proposed reorganisation it should be any less.

I agree with my right hon. Friend in not wanting to establish a national police force, but will he look at the possibility of setting up a national fraud squad in view of the complex and lengthy nature of inquiries into frauds?

I have not bent my mind to that problem, but I will certainly look into it if my hon. Friend tells me that there is a need for some review.

For the uniformed police force would not it be best to let the new amalgamations settle down fully before embarking on new and radical courses?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, not for the first time, has expressed my own view on this matter.

Is there not already a national police service, in the sense that the police wear the same uniform, are subject to the same conditions and are always available for mutual aid? Will the Home Secretary give an assurance that he will consult police opinion before he puts forward precise suggestions for implementing the Redcliffe-Maud Report?

Yes, there would naturally need to be substantial consultations before any consequential changes arising out of the Redcliffe-Maud Report were made. It is important that the forces should be allowed to settle down under the existing amalgamations for as long as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to permit the imposition of financial penalties upon the parents of children who have committed persistent acts of vandalism involving damage to public and private property.

Where proceedings are taken in respect of children under 17, the courts can already bind over their parents in a sum of money, and order the parents to pay any fine or compensation imposed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us have the greatest admiration for the constructive work being done, notably by his Department, in tackling the problem of children in trouble? Does he not agree that further ways must be found to establish parental responsibility and to tell parents bluntly that if they continue to pass the buck to the State they may find themselves passing more than a buck to the courts?

My hon. Friend expresses a generally-held opinion on this matter, and that is why I am ready to draw attention to the existing court powers. Whether the courts use them is a matter for the courts rather than for me.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the existing powers to which he has referred were both carried as a result of Amendments pressed from this side of the House and were not in the Government's original proposals?

Yes, that is absolutely true. The hon. Gentleman needs some consolation on a day like this.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Miss Ira Brant of Kidderminster, who was committed to a Bristol approved school in order to discourage a harmful association with a married man although she herself had committed no offence, is being permitted to correspond with him and to receive a visit from him with the assistance of the responsible authorities.

This is a matter for the managers of the school. I understand that it is their view that to forbid correspondence would not help Miss Brant towards a resolution of her problems. One visit was allowed at Christmas, and this took place in the presence of her foster-mother and a representative of the managers.

Is the Minister aware that, at the time this girl who had committed no offence was sent to approved school, there was widespread national concern that the reason for sending her there was to prevent a most undesirable association with a married man, and that the authorities have now permitted that association to continue and even, as the Minister has said, encouraged it? Does he think this is a just way to deal with the matter, and will he ensure that in future people are not sent to approved schools for this reason unless it will do some good in solving the problem?

Miss Ira Brant was sent to that school by a court. The House will appreciate that it would not be appropriate to attempt to generalise about how far letters and/or visits in such cases as this can help a girl to get over a damaging relationship. This must be for the managers to decide in each case in the light of individual circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement on his plans to improve the position of the police service.

Strengthening of police performance is a continuing process and I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 16th April.—[Vol. 799, c. 265.]

Does the Home Secretary recall that the Police Federation has declared that the morale in the police force is lower today than it has been for many years? What does he intend to do about it? Does he agree with the statement by the federation that the right hon. Gentleman has been metamorphosed by his office from a pioneering trail-blazer into a bland and cooing Whitehall dove?

I am flattered by any public reference whether favourable or unfavourable. I thought it would be as well to look at what was happening in the hon. Gentleman's area because I should like to help him to correct any misapprehension. I am glad to say that the number of crimes known to the police in 1969 was rather fewer than in 1964; that the crimes detected by the police were much greater in 1969 than in 1964; that the number of motor vehicles has pretty well trebled; that the amount of scientific and wireless equipment in terms of expenditure is about eight times as much; and that the number of personal radios has increased from three to 425. Therefore, I should like to return to my original statement that the strengthening of police performance is a continuing process.

Would my right hon. Friend accept that on this side of the House there would be strong support for a highly paid and well-qualified police force? Would he accept my congratulations on the improved rate of recruitment to the police force and the improved methods of detection, and would he assure the police force that the interim payment which they have received is only a foretaste of something even better to come?

The whole question of recruitment to the police is a joint responsibility. It is shared jointly between police authorities, which have substantial responsibility and therefore should take credit, and the Home Office which always gets the discredit in these matters. That is how it should be. On the matter of pay, I have never wavered in my view that the appropriate standard for the police service should be that laid down by the Willink Commission. But I dare say there will be argument in detail as to what Willink means translated into 1970 terms. That is where the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) will come into his own.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given further consideration to the position of small bridge clubs; and if he will now take steps to mitigate the effect upon them of the recent legislation.

I have nothing at present to add to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) on 5th February.—[Vol. 795, c. 181–2.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these clubs are in no way anti-social or gambling establishments, that they have great difficulty in complying with the law as at present enforced, and that the delay is causing many elderly and not very wealthy people great anxiety and hardship?

My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider the matter sympathetically, but before legislation can be considered it is necessary to ascertain the exact extent of the problem. The English Bridge Union has collated information from its members and expects to be able to submit a report to the Home Office in about two weeks' time.

Is it not possible that a mistake has been made? When I play bridge it is a game of chance, but when other people play bridge may it not be a game of skill?

I will not comment on the subjective point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was intended that bridge should fall within the scope of the Act. There is no doubt that bridge generally is a game of chance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am advised that different conditions obtain in regard to duplicate bridge.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now take steps to strengthen the powers of the criminal courts in respect of sentence.

This matter is kept under review, particularly in the light of any recommendations made by the various advisory bodies considering different aspects of the powers of the courts. Recent Statutes have increased the maximum penalty which the courts may impose for a number of offences.

Is not the Home Secretary disturbed by the recent comments by the Lord Chief Justice, vividly corroborated as they have been in one respect by the observations of the convicted double murderer in the Adamson case? If he is not disturbed about this matter, is he aware that he is the only person in the country who is not?

What the right hon. Gentleman is putting in his supplementary question has nothing to do with the original Question, because the powers of the courts in all these matters have been amply demonstrated as they were in the recent decision taken by the judge who tried the case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. As for the other comments of the Lord Chief Justice, I do not see that it is seemly for him and me to have a disagreement. On the other hand, in relation to a national police force, his observations clearly did not meet with any support at all. As for his other proposals, I was able to demonstrate that he and I were in agreement as on almost every occasion.

But would not the Home Secretary agree that, if longer sentences are to be imposed, it will be necessary to spend much more money on new prisons than we are spending at present?

Yes, Sir, it will. There is a big modernisation programme going on at present. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already told us that one of his election slogans will be, "Build more prisons". I am not sure that will mean that he will get more of them.

Surely the Home Secretary takes seriously the comments of the Lord Chief Justice about the iniquity of any form of mandatory sentencing. Will he consider reviewing the matter of mandatory powers so far as they affect the suspending of sentences in magistrates' courts?

The hon. Gentleman well knows that the matter of mandatory sentences has already been referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. This problem will be considered by that committee and I have no doubt its report will be presented in due course. As for the general observations of the Lord Chief Justice, I have no desire to disagree with him when I think he is right.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the powers of magistrates are already very great if they wish to use them, but, as the majority of magistrates and judges are Conservatives, why should they complain to this Government for not using the powers which the Government have given them?

I ought not to comment on the last part of the question. It is true that the Theft Act, 1968, substantially modernises the law on theft and increases some penalties. The Firearms Act, 1968, created new offences and heavy penalties for unlawful carrying of firearms, and increased the maximum penalties for many existing firearms offences. There are many other examples I could give. If the hon. Gentleman is in earnest on this matter, he should direct his mind not to the inadequacy of the powers which exist, but to the use that is made of them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate even more categorically the statement which came from the back benches behind him about the political character of the judiciary, both the lay judiciary, which is very carefully selected so as not to exhibit this characteristic, and the professional judiciary, of which I can say from my own knowledge that it is wholly false?

The House is aware of the basis of selection of the magistracy and of the higher judiciary. There is nothing that I can say which will add to or detract from the qualifications of those who serve on the bench.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce legislation to regulate the conditions of employment for au pair girls.

The welfare of au pair girls is the subject of the Council of Europe's Agreement on Au Pair Placement and I cannot at present add to my hon. Friend's reply on 16th April to a Question by my hon. Friend, the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett).—[Vol. 799, c. 271.]

Is it not high time that the Home Office recognised au pair work as legitimate employment, and that agencies providing au pairs, which at the moment escape regulation, deserve to come under regulation, just as the au pair and her employer also deserve a legally binding contract?

It is not the same question as employment. If it were, it would be a matter for the Department of Employment and Productivity. The European agreement specifies the conditions which apply to an au pair arrangement as regards board and lodging, time for cultural improvement, days off and pocket money, and the services that the person placed au pair shall render in return. Whether or not the United Kingdom becomes a signatory to the European Agreement on Au Pair Placement, it is intended to introduce in this country a standard form of agreement between the au pair girl and the family which receives her.

Why do not the Government confirm this agreement? Cannot we go ahead in this important project?

The question of confirmation is now under study. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be prepared to await the result of that study.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into the death of Francis McGuigan, aged two years, in Belfast on 7th August, 1969, in view of the fact that he was affected by CS gas used by British troops on the night of 3rd April, 1969.

This little boy died on 7th April, 1970.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that responsible medical opinion and many other people in this country are very disturbed about the use of this weapon? Will he do something to speed up the definitive report of the Himsworth Committee on this matter?

My hon. Friend is discussing the question of the use of CS gas in Northern Ireland, and it is not a subject which any of us would wish to dismiss lightly. I do not think that any deductions can be made from the death of this little boy as yet. As regards the Himsworth Committee's Report, I cannot expect that before the end of the year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very large number of complaints arising from the use of CS gas, particularly as it effects people with bronchial and chest troubles? Will he take all the steps that he can to see that the powers of arrest of the Army in conjunction with the police are used, as they are a less inflammatory alternative to the use of the gas?

The hon. Gentleman constantly makes false allegations that the Army uses CS gas in a manner which is less than discriminatory. That is not so. It is used only when there are no alternatives.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made in Oban to the Scottish Trades Union Congress on Wednesday, 22nd April on industrial relations.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 22nd April on the subject of industrial relations.

As I said in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) on 24th April, I did so, Sir, on 23rd April.—[Vol. 800, c. 165.]

Is it not clear that the recent newspaper dispute would not have been solved by the Opposition's plan for industrial relations? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Tory plan, reaffirmed yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, amounts to legal restrictions and shackles on the trade unions which would bring Britain near to industrial civil war?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, certainly what is put forward by the Conservative Party would not have averted a newspaper strike. So far from that, the action taken by Mr. Feather and the T.U.C. would not have been possible except under the Downing Street agreement of last year. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I have not yet had an opportunity to read the right hon. Gentleman's speech, though I hope to do so.

If my right hon. Friend feels disposed to read that speech at some stage, is he aware that he will detect in it a shifting of emphasis on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and that, if he felt disposed to read it again, he would possibly also detect in it a recognition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that the legal enforcement of collective agreements is not and never has been a panacea for the improvement of industrial relations?

Not having read it, it is difficult for me to say what I would detect in it if I read it. But on what was trumpeted in the headlines on the front page of every newspaper a few weeks ago and last year—namely, the enforceability of agreements—it is now clear that the Conservative position seems to be that these are enforceable, provided—[Interruption.] I will satisfy hon. Gentlemen completely in a moment.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many strikes there were in the first three months of this year compared with last year and compared with 1968?

The House has already been given the figures, and I have also given the figures for the past five years, compared with the higher figures in the last five years of the period of office of the party opposite. Even when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Ministry of Labour, they were higher than they have been in the last five years. The answer is, as confirmed by a Conservative newspaper, that they are two million man days less than they would have been but for Mr. Feather.

If the Prime Minister has the information, will he now answer my question?

Yes, Sir. The figure is 2·126 million, if that is the figure that the right hon. Gentleman needs, man days lost through strikes. The number of strikes was 1,134—Unterruptionl-1,134—[Interruption.]—1,134—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us get on with Questions quietly.

The right hon. Gentleman must not be so hysterical. I have just given the figure for which I was asked.

No.

The number of strikes, I have just said three times, was 1,134.

And the year before?

I should be glad to give the figures for the year before. I will also be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman the figures which show higher figures in the Tories' last five years than under us—[Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can afford the irresponsibility of opposition, and they will have many more years to get used to it. But if we are concerned with what I said at Oban, I said then that the right hon. Gentleman's policy, by claiming to solve the strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have just answered the question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. Gentlemen's policy is a specific for more strikes.

May I offer to help the right hon. Gentleman? There were 1,134 strikes in the first three months of this year, 718 last year, and 512 the year before. The Government have abdicated all power of responsibility in the face of those figures.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the figures that he has so diligently dug out. I am sure that the House, as he would wish, will ponder them.

would not have been there for any of us to read today in the newspapers if it had not been for the intervention of Mr. Feather. Conservative policies could not have stopped that strike. Mr. Feather could not have intervened against the background of Conservative policies. He would not have had power to intervene except for what was conceded in the Downing Street talks last year. The right hon. Gentleman can ask Mr. Feather if he wishes. After all, he settled that strike, where the right hon. Gentleman's system would not have done.

On a point of order. Surely this is Question Time, not speech time?

Order. That is a question, not a point of order.

Further to that point of order. Is there nothing that you can do, Mr. Speaker, to restrain the graceless reiteration of the Leader of the Opposition and also to comfort the poor miserable berks on the other side of the House?

Order. There is very little that I can do at the moment.

As the right hon. Gentleman's question was not a question but an assertion, I conclude briefly that, in addition to the fact that his speech and mine could not have been reported, the Conservative Press, which has so faithfully supported him on strikes and now knows where the facts really lie, would not have been in production today, and some would not have survived.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, while strikes and absence from work are desperately serious matters, what people do when they are at work is also relevant to the economy? In this connection, when he is next giving advice to the Conservative Front Bench on this topic, would he care to remind them that there are at present no strikes in Czechoslovakia, but that Czechoslovakian productivity is the lowest in Europe?

Referring to the settlement of the newspaper strike, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is true that, since publication of the public opinion polls in the newspapers, the Tory Opposition no longer believe what they read in the newspapers?

Has the Prime Minister heard the rumour—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—then I shall inform him—that the country wishes to return to yesterday's men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yesterday's prices, yesterday's taxes and yesterday's unemploment situation? Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday's men never devalued and never fiddled by boundary rigging?

Order. The original Question is about Oban and the Trades Union Congress.

On a point of order. I apologise, Mr. Speaker. But the expression "yesterday's men" was used by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. It was the first time that that expression was used.

Order. That does not bring the hon. Gentleman's question into this Question.

Since the question was put, I must say that I have not heard any such rumour, or any rumour that the people of this country want to return to yesterday's deficit either. For myself, I just feel saddened that a once great party has nothing left to feed on but rumours.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister for road safety with sole responsibility for co-ordinating the measures for cutting down the numbers of road accidents.

No, Sir. Under my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, one of his Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown), already has special responsibility for road safety.

While congratulating the Government on the road safety legislation which has saved many lives, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will remember and bear in mind that for every person murdered in this country, 40 people are killed on the roads? Will he bear in mind also that the World Health Organisation has said that in advanced countries one in 50 children born today will be killed on the roads? Will he therefore give urgent priority to the idea of appointing a Minister whose only responsibility will be to save lives in this respect?

I am sure that no one will be complacent about the present toll of lives on the roads, but it is a fact, as my hon. Friend says, that there has been a big improvement. If the rate of growth of road casualties in the period 1960–64 had continued, we could have expected an increase of about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. between 1964 and 1969.

The Prime Minister need not bring that into politics.

Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have brought a lot of people's deaths into their propaganda. At the expected rate, there would have been 30,000 more casualties. In fact, in 1969, instead of 30,000 more, there were 30,000 fewer casualties, that is, 60,000 casualties less against the trend[Interruption.]—I have a right to quote these figures to the right hon. Gentleman, because a great part of this was due to the courage of my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Transport for introducing the breathalyser. That has saved thousands of lives, and it is right that it should be said.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members on this side of the House distinctly heard the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) call the Prime Minister a swine. I submit that that is unparliamentary language, and that you should ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark.

Name him.

Order. Noise does not help a point of order at all. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman use that word, but, if he did call the Prime Minister a swine, he will withdraw it.

I always say frankly what I did say. I used that word. I thought it unforgivable to bring children's deaths into a political argument and to make capital out of it. If the word be out of order, Mr. Speaker, you know my deference to you and to the Chair and of course I withdraw it.

rose—

The right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn it.

rose—

Mr. Bessell.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I asked the Question originally, would you accept that the saving of children's lives is an issue, and a very important one, for many young mothers in this country, and should not bring anger to those who supported the alcoholic lobby against my right hon. Friend?

That is not a point of order at all.

While recognising the great improvement in the number of road casualties, for which the Prime Minister is quite correct in taking credit on behalf of his right hon. Friend, may I ask whether, in view of this continuing slaughter on the roads, he agrees that the kind of propaganda policy adopted during holiday periods might be extended throughout the year to impress on people the need for care?

I began my reply by saying that there was no ground for complacency by anyone in this matter, and all the time we must be vigilant in seeing whether some of these restrictions which have helped to reduce road casualties should be tightened up, and in what fair way they can be tightened up.