asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures exist which permit inmates of Her Majesty's Prisons to contact their Member of Parliament.

This matter is governed by Section 5(c) of Prison Standing Orders, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Broadly speaking, a prisoner may write to an hon. Member about general matters, about his conviction and sentence, and about prison treatment provided that any complaints about treatment have first been raised through official channels.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there are grave allegations abroad that these conditions are not being met and that prisoners are being hindered in trying to contact their Members of Parliament? Is he aware that this applies, in particular to one London prison? Will he consider sending an instruction to all prisons to the effect that there should be no interference, within the rules and regulations, with inmates in their wish to contact Members of Parliament?

I am aware that prisoners from time to time make complaints of this kind. The hon. Gentleman drew one such complaint to my attention which I was satisfied on examination had no justification. Certainly the Home Office will look at any other complaints but, as far as we know, in general the rules are carried out.

Mr. Arthur Lewis, Question No. 3.

On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that, no doubt due to my bad writing, the figure of 25,000 has been included in my Question by the printers instead of the figure of 75,000—although I understand that it should now be 100,000.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on 21st February the Trades Union Congress is to bold a demonstration against the Industrial Relations Bill involving 25,000 workers marching through London; and whether he will ask the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to agree to its request to close Oxford Street and Regent Street for vehicular traffic during this demonstration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department having regard to the proposed demonstration by 30,000 members of trades unions against the Industrial Relations Bill, taking place in London on 21st February, 1971, what special instructions he has given the Metropolitan Police Commissioner concerning security, safety of London residents and pedestrians using the streets on the route of the demonstration, and safeguarding free passage of vehicular traffic.

These are matters for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The police are in close touch with the organisers of the demonstration.

I will not delay the House. I now give notice that I shall raise this under Standing Order No. 9 at the end of Questions.

Is it reasonable that the life of London should be totally disrupted by the incursion of these huge numbers of demonstrators? Would my hon. Friend tell the House, as he seems to disclaim responsibility, what special arrangements are being made to park the demonstrators' cars conveniently for them near the commencement of the route of the march and what special arrangements are being made to transport them back to their motor cars at the end of the march so that they shall not be incommoded in the process?

I understand that a large number is coming by train. I understand that 34 special trains and 230 coaches are due to come into London. As to what my hon. Friend says, I do not think that anyone would wish to under-estimate the burden which a demonstration of this scale puts upon the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken since 18th June, 1970 to strengthen the forces of law and order; and if he will make a statement.

In the six months from the end of June, 1970, 3,127 officers were recruited to police forces in England and Wales and police strength rose from 92,824 to 93,748, a net increase of 924. This compares with increases of 212 and 489 in the corresponding periods in 1968 and 1969. There has been a substantial increase in national recruiting publicity and provision has been made to assist some local campaigns.

Does the Home Secretary recall the disgraceful campaign mounted by his noble Friend, Lord Hail-sham, prior to the General Election, on the subject of law and order? Is he aware that the morale of the police force is at a very low ebb and that the delay in meeting their justifiable pay claim and his failure substantially to increase recruiting have done nothing to implement the policies put forward in that disgraceful election campaign?

I totally disagree with the hon. Member's description of my noble Friend's speech and with his comment on the morale of the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek powers to make regulations governing the establishment and inspection of private zoological gardens and collections of wild animals.

I am not at present in a position to add to the reply given on 5th November to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor.)—{Vol. 805, c. 1250.]

While I am grateful for that reply, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that the answer of 5th November said that he was considering representations? May I ask my hon. Friend to consider the position of constituents of mine who go in fear, of all things, of baboons and a puma kept somewhat insecurely by a neighbour? May I ask him seriously to consider introducing some commonsense control over who can keep wild and dangerous animals and where they can be kept?

I will, of course, consider anything that my hon. Friend wishes to put to me. I point out that, in respect of civil liability, if a wild animal which escapes causes injury or damage, the owner is liable to have damages awarded against him.

Is the Minister aware that any blanket criticism of private zoos is a bit unfair because there are some such establishments, like Blair Drummond in Scotland, which are extremely enlightened and well run?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. It is within our knowledge that, for example, R.S.P.C.A. inspectors keep careful watch on private zoos, and we have very few complaints.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the working of the system of suspended sentences; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of concern about the operation of the suspended sentence system, he will consider amending the law on this subject.

I am not in all respects satisfied with the operation of the suspended sentence system, and it is among the matters which I have in mind for possible future criminal justice legislation.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that one of the results of the system, which is exactly opposite to that which was intended, has been that many people are going to prison who would not previously have done so but might have been put on probation? Will he consider, while keeping the system, allowing more flexibility to magistrates in the way in which they operate it

There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says—that people who might have been fined or put on probation are now given suspended sentences. This is one of the reasons why I want to review the system if we have a chance to introduce a new Criminal Justice Bill.

As suspended sentences have helped to fill the prisons rather than to empty them, and as there are already a number of alternatives to prison in existence, will my right hon. Friend consider the case for abolishing suspended sentences rather than simply reforming them?

In the course of the review of another Criminal Justice Bill I will consider what is to be done about suspended sentences. My information is that they have not added as much as is thought to the prison population, if they have added anything. But the system is not working as the House intended it to work.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the workings of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment if he will give early consideration to reviewing the procedures of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is in general working satisfactorily, but my right hon. Friend has well in mind the need for a comprehensive review of this experiment in due course.

When the comprehensive review begins to operate, will the hon. Gentleman consider holding the hearings of the Board in public so that members of the public who are victims of criminals and are unaware of their rights become aware of them because of the publicity given to the hearings?

I agree that wide publicity should be given to the existence of the scheme. I am not sure whether I agree that that need would be met by having public hearings in connection with a scheme under which the form of hearing has the advantage of being reasonably informal.

When my hon. Friend reviews the procedure, will he see whether it is possible to give a right of appeal to the Committee on Tribunals or to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so that we may have an assurance that appeals are properly conducted?

We will consider that point. At the moment the Board's decisions are not subject to Ministerial review but anyone whose claim to one member of the Board is unsuccessful is entitled to appeal to a meeting, of the full Board.

First, will the hon. Gentleman consider extending the powers of the Board to include a case in which a man is injured seeking to apprehend a criminal—for example, when he is pursuing a bank robber in his car which crashes and he is injured? At the moment such a person can receive no compensation. Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman consider enabling the Board to pay compensation to victims of mistaken identity who have been wrongly committed, charged or convicted of criminal offences and the true culprit is subsequently found and convicted?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on the first part of his supplementary question. The scheme compensates direct victims of crimes of violence and people hurt in trying to prevent crimes of violence or to arrest those who have committed them. The example which the hon. Gentleman gave is covered. He knows that the second part of his supplementary question is nothing to do with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and does not arise out of this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will amend the terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme so that persons who suffer injury as a direct result of going to the aid of a victim of a crime of violence can receive compensation.

The existing Scheme includes persons who sustain personal injury directly attributable to the prevention of an offence. My right hon. Friend has no present plans for an extension of the Scheme to other situations where injury is sustained as a result of going to the aid of a victim of a crime of violence.

Will my hon. Friend not accept that there is grave injustice, and may I draw his attention to the plight of my constituent, Mr. Knaggs, who is in such a position? Will my hon. Friend undertake to investigate the matter?

I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. However, the Board's decisions are not open to Ministerial review, and clearly it acted in accordance with the scheme on that occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to establish an organisation of emergency service volunteers; and when he expects to announce details of a complete scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be able to make a statement on the future of the emergency voluntary services.

My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement.

Will my hon. Friend say just how enthusiastic the Government are about this subject as a matter of defence and social policy?

It is important that there should be a comprehensive review of the home defence system, and that we should get it right before making a statement.

I accept that this matter requires careful planning, but does my hon. Friend agree that it will help the members of the voluntary civil aid services to continue their membership and to retain the buildings which they have managed to obtain if they know that an early announcement will be made?

I appreciate the feeling among people interested in the voluntary organisations, in particular, that an early statement should be made. I can give an assurance that a statement will be made as soon as possible, but it must follow the comprehensive review.

Before he makes a statement, will the hon. Gentleman note that if any attempt is made by emergency service volunteers to act as blacklegs during an official dispute it is likely to cause a great deal of upset in society and may do a lot more harm than good?

I do not think that that point arises from the Question.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the possible use of voluntary emergency services in the event of air crashes in the vicinity of airports?

The police have overall responsibility for matters of that kind. Where volunteers can be used they will be used.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the conduct of a referendum on a major matter on which the nation's opinion is required; and whether he is satisfied that they can be put speedily into operation.

None, Sir. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Is it not time that my right hon. Friend got on with the arrangements, having regard to the fact that it is clear that a referendum is constitutionally appropriate if it is a guide to parliamentary action and not a substitution for it and the fact that there is no other obvious way in which the test can be applied which the Prime Minister stated in May last year to see whether entry into the E.E.C. has the wholehearted support of the British people?

I cannot agree. Our constitution provides for all matters, be they matters as serious as war and peace or the death penalty, to be decided by Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement of Government policy concerning Northern Ireland, in the light of recent developments in Ulster.

I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said in the debate on Monday, 15th February.

Will my right hon. Friend make it plain to the House and to the country that the violence practised by the I.R.A. in Northern Ireland in no way discredits the reform programme there and that it is still Her Majesty's Government's intention to give all moral and material support to the Northern Ireland Prime Minister in his efforts to reconcile the two communities?

I should be very happy to give that assurance.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, whatever necessary action is taken by British troops in this very serious situation, there will be no infringement of the rule of law and the rights and liberties of the subject, as took place during the weekend of 3rd to 5th July last year?

I do not necessarily accept the premise on which that supplementary question was based. But let us be clear: the rule of law is threatened by the gunmen.

Is the intention to uphold the rule of law helped by the appalling irresponsibility of the British Broadcasting Corporation? On the very day on which it was announced that a soldier lost his life, two gunmen were interviewed, with their backs to the camera, protected by anonymity. Can my right hon. Friend imagine anything more inflammatory or more damaging to the task which our troops have to do?

I do not want to comment on a programme which I did not see, but it is fair to say that in general it is not possible to be impartial between those who die in protecting the law and those who kill to destroy it.

While the Home Secretary may not want to comment on a programme, is he inquiring of the Commissioner whether he has asked the B.B.C. for information about these men so that, if the allegations are correct, they can be brought to justice?

I have myself instituted those inquiries, as I have done on previous occasions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek powers to compel all holders of public house licences to maintain a part of their premises with public bar facilities and public bar prices.

Licensing justices already have power to secure this. It will be for the Committee on Liquor Licensing, now in course of appointment, to consider whether more is required.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer, but does he not accept that there is the germ of a serious problem here? As public bars are increasingly squeezed out of existence, there will be nowhere for the ordinary working man, coming home in his working clothes and probably with mud on his boots, to have a quiet drink. Secondly, it is important for the old-age pensioner to be able to get his beer at the cheapest possible price consistent with hygiene.

I am sure that we all agree that there is a place for the public bar in the English public house, but this must in the end be a matter of commercial judgment. The licensing justices have power to decide whether premises are suitable, and they also have to agree to any later adaptation of the premises that may be made.

Should not we be trying to get rid of the out-moded restrictions on licensees rather than adding to those restrictions? Has not the time come for a speedy review of the whole of our licensing laws?

That is why my right hon. Friend has set up a Committee on Liquor Licensing, the Chairman of which will be the right hon. Lord Eroll of Hale. We hope that that review will take place as speedily as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to give effect to the provisions of the hon. Member for South Worcestershire's proposed Motion, Obscenity, Pornography and the Permissive Society.

The Misuse of Drugs Bill is designed to strengthen my right hon. Friend's powers to prevent the distribution of drugs for socially harmful purposes. For the rest, he has no present proposals for legislation on those aspects of my hon. Friend's Motion which are susceptible to implementation by changes in the law.

Has not the time arrived for this whole subject to be surveyed by an impartial committee, with a view to making recommendations for legislation to strengthen society against the insidious inroads of all the evil influences named in the Motion? Has not my hon. Friend observed that 102 members of his party, representing a substantial body of parliamentary opinion, have now signed the Motion?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal of proper public concern about the matters to which that Motion draws attention, but I would point out to him that the Motion asks the Government not to legislate but to resist all legislative proposals, and that the Government propose to do.

Is not the Motion ridiculous in other ways, too, in that it associates drug taking with the permissive society? Will the Government give an assurance that it will in no way curtail the beneficial effects of recent civilising permissive legislation, in particular the Theatres Act, 1968, which abolished play censorship?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should say that there is no connection between drug taking and permissiveness. I thought that the words "permissive society" included that matter. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments on a civilised society and I hope that all of us on both sides of the House wish to see a civilised society with civilised social legislation.

While I do not go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), whose Motion I have not signed, is there not a case for a Select Committee to investigate the whole question, so that we can have some guidance on how to preserve legitimate freedom and at the same time turn back the tide of filth which is becoming a major public nuisance?

I repeat that I believe that there is genuine public concern about these matters. My hon. Friend asks for a Select Committee, but I would point out that the Act at present in force, which he is criticising as inadequate, was itself the result of a recommendation of a House of Commons Select Committee.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while he has the support of the whole House in defence of a civilised society, he does not have the support of the whole House in defence of pimps, ponces and purveyors of pornography? Is he not aware that large sections of the community are outraged at the flood of filth coming into the country, and is it not time that his Department did something about it?

The hon. Gentleman will know from previous Question Times that the Home Office is fully aware of public concern about the purveyance of filth, as he describes it, and of pornography. The fact remains that this comes under the Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964, which make it an offence to publish anything which tends to deprave and corrupt. It is difficult to find suitable words to put in the place of those words. That was the result of a recommendation of a House of Commons Select Committee. Although we are always willing to listen to suggestions for the alteration of the law, we must be sure that any alteration we make is to the advantage of a civilised society rather than the reverse.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special provision is included in the plans for the new Holloway Prison for mothers with young children serving sentences.

There will be accommodation in special units for up to 42 mothers and their children. It is hoped that mothers serving sentences of imprisonment will then be able in appropriate cases to keep their children with them up to the age of about five years.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a woman may have more than one child with her in Holloway? Is it not a serious situation that we should allow women with young children first to be sent to prison and then to have their children in that environment? Will he look at the proposals for the rebuilding of Holloway while there is yet time for the plans to be altered to see what can be done to make sure that women with young children are not sent to prison unless they require the most secure conditions, which is necessary only in a small minority of cases?

I know the hon. Lady's interest in this matter, but it is a question of striking a balance between the undesirability of sending mothers with young children to prison where it can be avoided, with which I agree, and the necessity from time to time when the safety of the public requires it of imposing a prison sentence on a person who happens to be a mother with a young child. That is why the provision is made. I agree with the hon. Lady that where possible mothers with very young children and women who are pregnant should be dealt with in ways other than by imprisonment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is being carried out in his Department into ways of controlling major fires in modern shopping precincts, and into the identification of the special hazards involved.

A working party of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils has almost completed a study of the fire hazards associated with shopping precincts and similar town centre redevelopments, with a view to circulating recommendations on how to deal with them to fire authorities and other interested organisations.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that the recent serious fire in the new shopping precinct at Wolverhampton brought to light difficulties about access for fire engines and the provision of automatic alarm and sprinkler systems? Is the committee considering the need to make these obligatory?

I understand that a full report on the fire to which the hon. Lady refers is being prepared, but my information is that the fire involved no special features which have not already been taken into account by the working party.

Despite what the hon. Gentleman told the House about the central fire organisation, is not fire research split between the Home Office and another Department, and would it not be a good idea if the recommendations of Holroyd in this respect were implemented as soon as possible?

That raises a wider question involving the whole recommendations of the report which are at present under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to ban fox hunting.

No, Sir.

In view of the Government's claim to be acting in accordance with public wishes on other matters, is it not time that they extended that policy to blood sports to which there is clear and overwhelming opposition? How long are Governments, both Labour and Conservative, to hide behind the miserable excuse that this is a matter for private Members?

I am happy to say that I do not have to speak for the Labour Government, particularly for the behaviour of the previous Administration. So far as this Government are concerned, we do not intend to legislate in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the police are not interfering against illegal evictions of tenants because they are often uncertain of the legal position; and if he will therefore make regulations requiring that the landlord is required to show the police the court eviction order, or other documents giving him legal authority.

Difficult legal problems may arise over an eviction, whether or not documents are produced. I do not think it would be right to seek powers to require the police to alter their rôle.

Is the Minister aware that many of these illegal evictions take place late at night or at weekends, when no local government officials are available and when only the police could stop them? Would not my suggestion invalidate the reason given for the present inactivity by the police in this matter?

The function of the police in cases of eviction is clear. It is to prevent breaches of the peace; to make investigations on the spot into possible criminal offences; to warn those concerned of possible offences under the provisions of the Rent Act, 1965; and to report any such offences to the local authority. I believe that the police carry out their duties in this respect.

Is it not as important for police officers to attend illegal evictions as to attend legal evictions, otherwise it will not be seen that the police are impartial in their rôle.

If a complaint of an illegal eviction were made to the police, the police would attend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ask the Police Council to give special payment for overtime and shift allowances in the police force which are matters causing concern to the police.

Overtime already attracts either additional time off or payment at special rates. Shift work has been taken into account in the basic rates of police pay since 1960.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that his answer will be very unsatisfactory to the vast majority of the police force who feel in the same position as the postmen since their legitimate pay claim is being held up to satisfy the ideology of the Government? Does he not realise that, unless there is a better shift allowance and better overtime payments, more resignations are likely to take place and there will be less recruitment.

I find it difficult to understand the right hon. Gentleman's question, because if on this matter there were concern in the service the Staff Side would have expressed that concern in the Police Council. In fact, the Staff Side has not done so.

Has my hon. Friend considered the desirability of consolidating rent allowance in the pay since the rent allowance in London amounts to as much as £8 a week? That would be a true picture of the policemen's pay and might act an an inducement to recruitment?

This is a matter for general consideration by the Police Council, which they might take into account in the present negotiations.

Would the Minister accept that when one talks to individual policemen one factor they raise is that their collective wage includes emoluments, and so forth, and that the average sum amounts to a completely unsatisfactory figure? Would he agree that although the recruitment figures announced a little earlier by his right hon. Friend appear to be satisfactory, the number of resignation from the force by experienced officers is a very serious factor?

If the police feel that this is a matter which they wish to discuss, the right course is for the representatives of the police to bring it forward in the Police Council. That is the right place for such details to be discussed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the need for clarifying and simplifying the law relating to public order; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing at present to add to the reply given to a Question by my right hon. and learned Friend on 5th November.—[Vol. 805, c. 411–12.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Society of Conservative Lawyers, after exhaustive analysis and the cataloguing of statutory provisions on this subject, concluded that these provisions were scattered, diverse, and in many cases archaic and lacking in clarity, and urged simplification and clarification? Would he reconsider the matter in the light of that recommendation?

I am well aware of the report, and that is why we are considering these points.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made to enable residents in the Channel Islands to give oral evidence to the Royal Commission on the constitution; and to what address written evidence should be sent.

I understand that, after inviting written evidence through notices in the local Press, the Commission took oral evidence in the Islands in April last year. The Commission's address is G.K.N. House, 22 Kingsway, London W.C.2.

Is the Royal Commission on the constitution taking note of the fact that in the matter of housing land in Guernsey and other islands, the authorities operate a ruthless discrimination against British subjects, unless they are willing to buy houses each costing £15,000 or more? Will he arrange for this matter to be looked into, or find out whether any investigation of this practice has already taken place?

I find it difficult to see how this is within the ambit of the Royal Commission on the constitution, but I am sure that the Royal Commission is taking note of any evidence which it heard in the Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now completed his consideration of the problems raised by the abuse of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952; and if he will now introduce amending legislation.

This problem raises some difficult issues and the examination of these has not yet been completed.

Does my hon. Friend realise that Section 5 is being used for purposes which were never intended by Parliament? In his further consideration of these matters will he turn a deaf ear to the raucous clamour of the permissive society and, instead, pay heed to the expressed wish of the silent majority of our people?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend in that I believe that it is clear that Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is not in practice being carried out in the way intended by Parliament, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that there are difficulties when one is dealing with private clubs and the question whether censorship should exist.

Is the Gentleman aware of a notable phrase coined by one of my hon. Friends that "one man's porn is another man's corn"? Is he also aware that there is no satisfactory legal definition of "pornographic", that these are largely matters of taste, and that individuals should be left to decide such matters for themselves?

I am aware that it is a matter of taste and of the fact that people are not required to go to these clubs if they do not wish to do so. Nevertheless, I should be failing in my duty if I did not repeat again what I said on an earlier Question—that I appreciate that there is public concern about certain things which are happening.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make revised arrangements for the religious welfare of prisoners in security wings.

I am not aware of any need to change the present arrangements but should be glad to consider any suggestions which my hon. Friend may have in mind.

Does not my hon. Friend realise for Catholics it is the mass that matters and that communion given to prisoners in their cells is not the same as allowing them to take part in a public act of worship?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but the difficulty, as he knows, is that those who are within the security wings are kept segregated from the rest of the prison population. I can tell my hon. Friend that chaplains and ministers regularly visit these wings and positively offer services to those in them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to restrict shop window displays of pornographic books and magazines.

Legislation already in force prohibits the publication of obscene articles and the public exhibition of indecent material.

My hon. Friend goes on concentrating on this act of obscenity, whereas we are discussing matters which disgust and shock thousands of people who have to walk past these shops. The Swedes, who seem to take a much more enlightened view than our Home Office, have a law which prevents these displays and insists on the one word "Porno" being shown over these shops. Could not we do something similar?

From the various other Questions and answers that we have had today, clearly this is a serious matter, and it is difficult to decide what is best to be done. We have the Obscene Publications Act. We have also the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1899, which is still in force. As for cinema advertisements, which is one of the matters worrying my hon. Friend, as I told him on another occasion, the licensing authorities have power to impose conditions, including those to prohibit the display of advertisements likely to offend good taste or decency, to lead to crime or disorder, or to offend public feeling.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to introduce legislation restricting the sale of hypodermic syringes to persons of 18 years of age or over.

No, Sir.

My hon. Friend will be aware, since I have sent him a hypodermic syringe bought in my constituency by a child of eight, that they are freely available to anyone. When the drug figures are going up by leaps and bounds, are we wise to allow this vital instrument of the drug trade to go on being freely available to children?

The Pharmaceutical Society has advised its members to deal personally with requests to purchase syringes, to ensure that they are required for genuine medical purposes. The solution posed by my hon. Friend might have worse effects than the system operated at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will appoint a committee to investigate the prison service and make recommendations as to recruitment, remuneration and career structure, with particular reference to custodial and sociological functions and the nature of the staff best qualified to exercise them.

These are all aspects of staffing which are kept under constant review, and my right hon. Friend does not think that there is any occasion for an inquiry by an outside committee.

Does not the community owe a great debt to members of the prison service who act on its behalf sometimes in difficult and painful circumstances? Is my hon. Friend aware that they do not want to be regarded only as turnkeys, but want to play a more constructive rôle? Is he further aware that this is all linked with a career structure and better prospects for promotion?

I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated work of members of the prison service in difficult conditions. As for a career structure, my hon. Friend may know that a working party appointed by the previous Home Secretary is examining the prospects of promotion to the Governor grade.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will introduce legislation to amend the Official Secrets Act, 1911.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the workings of the Official Secrets Acts, with particular reference to the recent tendency of governments to extend the scope of the Acts beyond their original purpose of combating espionage and other serious threats to national security.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to review the operation of the Official Secrets Act.

I have decided to appoint a committee to carry out a full review of the operation of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, 1911. I am glad to inform the House that Lord Franks has agreed to serve as chairman of the committee. The names of the other members will be announced shortly.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Official Secrets Act, 1911, is inequitable, inefficient and out of date? Is he aware that we do not want a long-drawn-out review because, in the meantime, this Act gravely affects the freedom of the Press, and speedy action is required?

It is because of the seriousness of the issues involved that a thorough review by a committee under such a distinguished person as Lord Franks is to start work.

While warmly welcoming that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the committee will include, besides representatives of the security services and lawyers, who are no doubt necessary, any ordinary lay people such as those who have been or some day might be victims of the wider application of this Act?

I will bear that suggestion in mind.

Has my right hon. Friend and have the Law Officers studied the editorial in the New Statesman by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) describing his search of Cabinet papers? Is this in conformity with the Official Secrets Act?

I always read the right hon. Gentleman's articles with great interest. However, I do not think that the article to which my hon. Friend refers arises on this Question.

As the Official Secrets Act is to be reviewed, why limit the review to Section 2? Why should not the committee be free to consider the impact of other Sections?

Because it is Section 2 which has been criticised.

Is not it the case that there has been continuing criticism of other Sections of the Act, and that there were earlier preliminary discussions with a view to making a much wider review than that now proposed? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter again and at least give a committee in which he has so much confidence, under the chairmanship of such a distinguished figure, the right to look at the whole Act?

I will look at any suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman makes. However, there is a big distinction between Sections 1 and 2. The distinction is pointed out in Question No. 77. My impression is that there is a great difference between the two, and the criticism in recent cases has been of Section 2.