asked the Minister of State for Defence from what aircraft types a selection will be made of the trainer to succeed the Varsity for pilot training in the multi-engined stream in Training Command, Royal Air Force; when will the choice be made; and when is the new twin-engined trainer expected to enter service.

We are considering possible replacements for the Varsity for pilot training but I have no statement to make at present.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the first tasks to which his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will have to address himself—and I welcome him on the Front Bench in his new position—is that of finding a replacement for the venerable Varsity, the "Super Pig" as it was affectionately known to whole generations of post-war aviators in the Royal Air Force? Is the type of aircraft he is envisaging something of the King Air type?

As my hon. Friend says, the Varsity has been in R.A.F. service for 20 years, and it is, therefore, obviously necessary that it should be replaced. As to the type of replacement, the number of aircraft required is too small to justify special development, and we are, therefore, thinking in terms of adapting existing civil aircraft.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the re-juggling of aircraft that has taken place in the Royal Air Force there will be no increase in the total money available for R.A.F. equipment?

The costing has been considered.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will now compare the sum total precentage of the defence budget devoted to pay, allowances and pensions for regular servicemen, reservists and civilians, together, in the financial years 1961–62 and 1966–67 with that percentage projected for 1971–72.

I have nothing to add to the information which I gave to my hon. Friend in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 25th March.— [Vol. 814, c. 993–1000.]

While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I say that I seem to recall that the sum in question was 54 per cent. Does this not mean that we shall have to examine more thoroughly the value for money that can be derived from a citizen force or reservist concept and move towards a system of having a fixed target in terms of percentage of G.N.P. for defence spending over the years ahead?

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend taking half an hour the other day.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the rôle of the Royal Navy in the British Civil Marine Science Programme.

The British civil marine science programme is co-ordinated by the Natural Environment Research Council and falls, therefore, within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Hydrographer of the Navy and the Royal Naval Scientific Service co-operate with the Council at every level of its activities.

Those of us concerned about the legitimate career aspirations of naval personnel are aware of the considerable expertise that resides in a naval establishment such as Alverstoke. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that the Admiralty, with the experience of the Hydrographer behind it, is not the best agency to run a co-ordinated programme?

I do not think it would be appropriate for the Naval Department to run the civil side of this programme but we do co-operate very fully in hydro-graphic surveys, oil pollution investigations and that sort of thing. I think that this is the best way of doing it.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what is the average length of time on the waiting list for married quarters for naval ratings in the United Kingdom, Army other ranks in the United Kingdom, Royal Air Force other ranks in the United Kingdom, and naval ratings in Portsmouth, respectively.

The length of time spent on a waiting list depends on a wide variety of factors and it would be both difficult and misleading to give an average waiting time for each Service in the United Kingdom as a whole. At Portsmouth the waiting time for naval ratings at the moment varies from three to eight months.

As the problems of family separation are obviously of especial difficulty in the Royal Navy, could the Minister say what steps are being taken to reduce waiting time in Portsmouth and for naval ratings as a whole?

In the town of Portsmouth 700 quarters are under construction and due to be completed between now and early 1972. There are plans to acquire a further 500 by 1975. In so far as the Royal Navy as a whole is concerned, there are plans to provide approximately 3,000 additional married quarters by 1975.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many British warships in 1970 called at Mombasa and South African ports, respectively.

The number of British warships which called at Mombasa and South African ports in 1970 was 16 and 46, respectively.

Do not these figures show the dependence of the Royal Navy on South African ports? Will the use of Mombasa be discontinued once the Beira patrol is allowed to face the other way and watch the Russian fleet in the Indian Ocean?

We need both these facilities, and I doubt whether we shall want to give up either in the near future.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm the statement of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) that the Beira patrol is to cease very shortly?

I think that policy is made by Her Majesty's Government.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to the hospitality of South African ports and of Mombasa to Royal Navy ships throughout the periods of office of successive Governments in recent years?

Certainly. They are very hospitable in both cases.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he intends to issue a White Paper on the findings to date of the Committee on Headquarters under the Chairmanship of the Permanent Under-Secretary of State of the Ministry of Defence; and what subject the Committee is now examining.

The main recommendations so far made by the Committee have already been set out in the Statements on the Defence Estimates 1970 and 1971. The Committee is continuing its activities over a wide range of areas, including, in particular, the management methods and techniques used at Headquarters and the relationships between the Ministry of Defence and the Command Headquarters.

Will the recommendations of the Committee effect a saving of civilian manpower in the command structure? Was the Committee consulted over the new procurement plans for the Ministry of Defence, and particularly the advice of the staff divisions, who are apt to change their views about the requirements for a particular weapon?

My hon. Friend will know that major changes have already been made in the command structure of the Navy and the Royal Air Force, and next year Army Strategic Command—Southern, Western and Northern Command—will be replaced by a single command at Wilton. This will result in improved efficiency and a saving of about 250 military personnel and 1,000 civilian personnel.

While, obviously, we shall want to debate yesterday's White Paper later, may I ask how far the finding announced yesterday by the Government is in accordance with any finding of the P.U.S. Committee?

There will be a debate on the transfer of functions Order in Council in due course, when the matter can be debated at length. It was not the purpose of the previous Administration to wind up the Ministry of Aviation Supply. This was declared policy of Her Majesty's Government, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is welcomed by the Ministry of Defence as being a major reform in the procurement of all weapons systems.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the armament of British non-Polaris submarines.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. and noble Friend on 14th January, 1971.—[Vol. 809, c. 233–4.]

Can my hon. Friend say what is being done to replace the present semi-obsolete anti-ship torpedoes in these vessels, and what progress is being made in the development of a submarine-mounted missile.

We hope that the Mark 24 torpedo will be in service in the early 1970s. We are studying a submarine-launched missile. If it proves to be a worthy concept, its introduction into service will come somewhat later.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the special training given to Royal Air Force pilots who are to operate aircraft from Her Majesty's ships; and on how many operational tours they will perform.

These pilots receive familiarisation training appropriate to the embarked rôle. The number of operational tours is decided in the light of circumstances but would normally be one.

Does that reply mean that senior officers of Royal Air Force aircraft in an aircraft carrier will only have done one tour? Can he say who will provide the maintenance of these aircraft when they are afloat and which service will provide the deck crews?

My hon. Friend has asked some technical questions, and I would perhaps find it easier to answer him in writing. There will, however, be a significant proportion of Royal Air Force personnel in the "Ark Royal" who have had previous experience of operating from land bases. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to write to him in answer to his specific question.

But the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has asked the Minister a basically very simple question. He wants to know the future for fixed wing aircraft in the Royal Navy. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that and say that there is no future for fixed wing flying in the Royal Navy because the Royal Air Force will be undertaking this task.

That is not what my hon. Friend asked. As has been frequently announced in the House, there are no plans to reopen recruiting for fixed wing flying in the Fleet Air Arm. As we have explained, we have not yet taken a decision about flying vertical take-off aircraft from cruisers. Therefore, the question of providing pilots for that kind of flying does not yet arise.

What I want to know is how the Royal Air Force will perform its new rôle, which most informed opinion thinks it is impossible for it to perform.

The future rôle of the Fleet Air Arm lies overwhelmingly in helicopter flying. This is the expanding rôle for the Fleet Air Arm.

Will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to report on the very considerable technical difficulties, particularly turbulence, of vertical take-off and landing on carriers? When is the report to which he referred expected?

The "Ark Royal" is to conduct vertical take-off trials in May, and I shall be attending some of them.

asked the Minister of State for Defence approximately how many members of the Armed Forces are at present absent without obtaining leave; how many of these joined the forces between the ages of 15 and 18 years; and if he will consider granting discharge for the latter category if they request it.

Service statistics are not such as to enable me to give all the information asked for, and I will write to the hon. Member. All requests for discharge are very carefully considered.

But surely the figures should be known. Is the noble Lord aware that many of these young men get into petty crime and trouble when they are on the run in order to keep themselves? As many of them would give themselves up and suffer, say, a month's punishment if they knew that they could then be discharged, will the noble Lord consider this matter with a view to making a public announcement?

I appreciate the deep concern which the hon. Gentleman has always shown in this matter, but I am sure that he will understand that service in the Armed Forces involves acceptance of military law, which is part of the law of the country. To allow men to escape the consequences of their absence simply because of their success in evading capture would be unfair to those who perform the service which they undertake when they enter the military forces and would have a harmful effect on the morale and discipline of the Armed Forces.

Does the noble Lord accept that there are many people in the pre-Donaldson Report category and that people who, if they had been born later, would have had the option to withdraw from the forces at 21 should now be placed in a special category?

I do not accept that. By accepting the Donaldson Committee's Report we have made a major advance in liberalisation. I do not think it would be reasonable for us to undertake a retrospective act of the kind put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will give an assurance that joining the European Economic Community will not involve reintroducing military conscription in Great Britain.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) yesterday.—[Vol. 815, c. 211.]

As only Luxembourg does not have conscription, is not considerable pressure likely to be put on Britain by the other Governments to have it, particularly if we are part of a European defence force?

Irrespective of pressure on Her Majesty's Government, the decision on defence policy rests with the Government in this country. The Treaty of Rome does not refer to military matters, and, therefore, joining the European Economic Community has no relevance to the question of the reintroduction of military conscription.

Far from Britain having to change to conscription in the event of her joining the European Economic Community, is it not a fact that our regular system of recruiting is the envy of our allies on the Continent?

There are few countries which can claim such high standards of professional military competence as those shown by the Services of this country.

Will my hon. Friend reject the pleas for conscription coming from the Opposition and ensure that he pays the rate for the job?

One of the mercies of Parliamentary life is that I am not answerable for the views of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). The question of Service pay is kept constantly under review. My hon. Friend will know that we have appointed an independent review body to keep Service pay constantly under review.

Surely my hon. Friend's position on the matter of conscription is very well known, and, contrary to what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) is suggesting, my hon. Friend was pleading against conscription, not for it.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what proportion of Service recruits are, after recruitment at a careers information office, sent on unpaid leave; what is the average duration of such leave; and what proposals there are for converting such leave to paid leave.

In the case of the Navy and R.A.F., none. In the case of the Army some recruits spend a brief time on unpaid leave, but statistics of the numbers doing so are not maintained. For adults and young soldiers this period has been reduced to an average of four days, and we plan to reduce it further. For juniors it is 14 days. I have no plans to convert such leave to paid leave.

While welcoming the hon. Gentleman's assurance that this period is being reduced, may I ask him whether he would not think again about it, because if recruits have to wait for the Army's convenience—and after they have been received upon their recruitment, they are waiting for the Army's convenience—they ought to receive pay during that period?

No. I would not accept the views which the hon. Gentleman has put forward, but I will consider them in the light of what he has said. I am satisfied that the number of recruits who decline to be enlisted because they will not receive pay during this very short period is really totally insignificant.

Would the Minister not agree that when a recruit who wants to join the Army enlists certain inquiries have to be made as to his credentials and his character, and that for that reason there is a delay before he is finally recruited?

My hon. and gallant Friend has pointed to a very significant factor which leads to this short delay.

But, if that is the case, why is it necessary for the Army but not, apparently, for the other two Services?

For exactly the same reasons which operated when hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for these affairs.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what discussions are currently taking place regarding the Exocet Weapon System; and what consideration is being given to the procurement of an alternative system.

Negotiations with the French for the purchase of Exocet are still proceeding.

Would the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of denying the report of the defence correspondent of The Guardian on 20th March that this missile is to be delivered later and will cost more and that the Government are now considering the whole of this weapon system?

The hon. Gentleman really must not believe everything he reads in the newspapers.

What is the delay?

There is not one. We are negotiating.

asked the Minister of State for Defence (1) why, after more than 23 years of live-firing use of the Merrivale area in the Dartmoor National Park, it has been found necessary to dig a large pit for a concrete base and erect an additional flagpole structure on White Tor; why such work has been carried out without observing agreed consultation procedure with the Park Planning Authority and in direct contravention of Ministry of Planning Circular No. 100; and why the convenant in the Duchy of Cornwall licence granted in 1956, which forbids damage to natural tors, has been ignored;

It had become necessary to improve the public warning system by the erection of a flagpole near White Tor as a result of increasing public access to the Merrivale Range area. The Dartmoor National Park Committee was informed, and Circular 100 was not contravened. The flagpole has been sited some 100 yards from the natural tor at the summit. It would not be in the interests of public safety to remove the flagpole.

is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most unsatisfactory reply and that both the siting and the usefulness of the flagpole are certainly in dispute, and that it is doubtful whether it will add further to the warnings which exist? Over and above that, does not this undermine completely the arrangements built up for prior consultation with the Park Planning Authority? The Clerk to Devon County Council specifically asked for a decision to be held up pending the Park Planning Authority's consideration of the matter. In view of the appointment of the Nugent Committee to review the matter of the holding of land by the military, is it not a very awkward moment at which to undermine the whole attitude to the military use of Dartmoor?

No. I cannot accept any of the contentions of the hon. Member. He ignores the factor of public safety, which is surely a very important one. He ignores the fact that this is one flagpole added to eight which are already there. It has been carefully sited as a result of the advice of Lady Fox, who is the head lecturer in archaelogy at Exeter University. On the planning point, paragraph 5(b) lays down that minor operations of this sort are not subject to prior consultation with the planning authority, although, as I said, the planning authority was informed.

In view of that reply, can the hon. Gentleman explain why Lady Fox should be invited for her opinion but the Park Planning Authority, which is directly responsible, should be ignored?

Well, Lady Fox is the head lecturer in archæology at Exeter University. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] She is the author of Her Majesty's Stationery Office's booklet on Dartmoor and a former adviser on archæological matters to the Parks Committee and the Ancient Monuments Division of the Department of the Environment. Therefore, she was plainly a suitable person.

I am very glad to hear the credentials of this distinguished lady, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would seek to answer my hon. Friend's question. Why should she be invited, as opposed to the appropriate authority?

As I say, under paragraph 5(b) this was a minor operation which is not subject to Circular 100. The county council was informed. It is true that the clerk asked for a postponement, but after being told of the reason he did not insist that there should be delay. I must emphasise that public safety is involved. This is caused by increased public access, which I am sure the House will welcome, though, perhaps, not those for whom the hon. Gentleman is speaking.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall take an opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what percentage of the defence budget is taken by units which will develop, deploy, or in any way use or be associated with nuclear weapons or bacteriological or chemical warfare.

The resources devoted to the Polaris force are detailed in the Statement on the Defence Estimates. It is not in the public interest to divulge further information of the sort requested by the hon. Member.

Is it not in the public interest that the public should know to what extent our forces are committed to the use of weapons which are internationally prohibited, or ought to be internationally prohibited if the human race is to survive? Therefore, should not the public know what the position is, even if not in particular detail? One recognises that the hon. Gentleman cannot give detailed information, but the public should know broadly what the situation is. Will the hon. Gentleman not, therefore, reconsider his answer?

No. To give the wider information for which the hon. Gentleman asks would be to give information which would be of assistance to a potential aggressor. I think the whole House will agree it would not be right to give it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the forces would not utilise weapons which are prohibited by international agreements to which we are signatories.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what consideration he has given to lengthening the tour of duty of service units posted to Northern Ireland.

The length of emergency tour has been reviewed on a number of occasions, but, as I said in the Defence Estimates debate on 11th March, I think that four months is long enough.—[Vol. 813, c. 740–1.]

I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the words he used on that occasion:

"I am inclined to think that anything longer than four months would be too long."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 741.]

I agree with a good deal of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Accommodation has been improved, but it is still not good, and troops often have to live in makeshift accommodation. They have to undertake particularly exacting duties, and they are separated from their families during that period. I think that four months is long enough but steps have been taken to improve the continuity of intelligence cover.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what assistance he has provided to the British consortium led by the British Aircraft Corporation in planning a guided-missile defence system for South Africa.

None, Sir.

Can the hon. Gentleman go a little further and say that if an approach is made by the people who are developing this project—it is called, I think, "Country 102", and the proposition is for nuclear and Thunderbird missiles to be used—he will turn it down straight away so that the people embarking upon it can stop their drawing board work and devote themselves to some more useful work?

No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a hypothetical question. I can inform him that no commitment to sales in relation to air defence systems in South Africa has been requested by the South African Government and none has been given to them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what memoranda, instructions or recommendations have been sent or given to police authorities concerning the rights of people who have been detained for questioning, or following arrest, to consult their solicitors.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instruction or advice is given by him to police authorities relating to the right of persons detained to consult solicitors.

In January, 1964, the attention of chief officers of police was drawn to the Judges' Rules and Administrative Directions to the Police. These deal, among other things, with the rights of a person at any stage of an investigation to communicate and consult privately with a solicitor.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he aware that, in what has become known as the Carr bombing case, at Barnet Police Station two men were detained for 24 and 48 hours respectively, 23 others were questioned for some period of time, all these people were subsequently released and many of them were denied the opportunity of seeing a solicitor? Is he further aware that the officer in charge of that investigation described the process of seeing a solicitor as "a legal nicety"? How is this consistent with the statement made to the House by the Secretary of State that:

"It is an accepted principle that every person at any stage of an investigation, even if in custody, should be able to communicate and to consult privately with a solicitor, provided that no unreasonable delay or hindrance is caused to the processes of the investigation or the administration of justice by his doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 1639.]

My right hon. Friend stated the position accurately. It would be quite improper for me to comment in any way upon the case which the hon. Gentleman has raised, which is sub judice.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has stated that the case is sub judice. The matters to which I have referred are not sub judice because these people were released.

This is not a point of order for me. I am not responsible for Minister's answers.

Let us have an answer.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a supplementary question which I put to the Minister of State on Question 30, I specifically referred to 25 people who had been detained at Barnet police station and subsequently released. My Question related to those people. In reply the Minister of State indicated that it would not be proper for him to consider the activities of the officer in charge of those investigations because the matter was sub judice.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I misled the House and the hon. Gentleman I do, of course, apologise and withdraw. It is quite true that the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the 25 people—are not strictly sub judice. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. I am advised, however, that it would have been improper for me to have made any comment about those cases whilst the other cases connected with them are proceeding because it is likely that the matters which the hon. Gentleman raised are likely to be referred to in court in connection with the other cases.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has withdrawn the suggestion that was made. I am grateful to him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases in magistrates' courts, during the past 12 months, have children appeared as witnesses of character in cases concerning their parents.

I regret that this information is not available.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on 15th March at Staines Magistrates' Court a 12-year-old boy was brought into open court by the direction of the chairman of the bench, Mr. John Slagg, J.P., to witness the shame of his mother who was facing that court on a charge. Is he further aware that the chairman asked the boy:

"Do you know why your mother is here today?"

I am aware of the case on 15th March. The behaviour of individual magistrates is a matter for the Lord Chancellor, but in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said it is only right that I should say that I do not necessarily accept that the purpose of doing this was that the boy should witness the shame of his mother. I understand there is considerable dispute whether any questions were put to the child.

I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman, and also my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner), on having become "learned". In view of the statement that has been made by my hon. Friend which the hon. and learned Gentleman has disputed, and the fact which has been elicited by my hon. Friend, would it not be for the satisfaction and the good name of the magistrate that there should be a statement of what happened so that we can judge the matter?

I do not think that there is any case for a statement. The conduct of a court in any matter is a question for the justices concerned. The chairman of the justices apparently considered that, in the interests of justice, he would like to see the child of this woman, who was present at court, before deciding what it was appropriate to do with regard to his mother. What I said was apparently in dispute is the question which the hon. Gentleman said was reported in the Press as having been put to the boy. I have seen a report which suggested that this question was not put in the way the Press implied. I do not think it is right to suggest that the magistrate did this with the intention of shaming anybody.

Will the learned Minister be good enough to give instructions through the means open to him—never mind the facts of this case—that in future children will not be heard in open court in matters of this kind and that the magistrates, in the exercise of their discretion, will, if they think it will help them, see such children in private and not expose them to the unhappiness which this case has obviously brought about?

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman and thank him and his hon. Friend for the kind remarks which they have made about me. That is a valuable suggestion. It must be within the hands of the magistrates to decide whether they wish to see a person in open court or in private, and it is not a matter upon which I can comment as a Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time taken for Home Office Ministers to reply to letter from Members of Parliament about immigration cases.

Owing to seasonal and other factors affecting the volume of work, this would vary at different times of the year, and an average for any one time would not be a reliable guide. But I am well aware that on occasions it has taken an unduly long time to send a reply. Steps have been taken to reduce delay.

I welcome the last part of the Minister's reply. Does he realise that the delay in answering this type of inquiry is much greater than the delay in answering other inquiries? This appears to be due to the slow and imperfect communications between the Home Office and diplomatic missions overseas. Will the Minister see whether that aspect can be improved?

Yes, Sir. I appreciate that this is often the cause of delay. We are doing what we can to speed this up.

Is the Minister further aware of the delay which is experienced by many people who call at the Aliens Department in having their cases attended to? Is there not a case for employing a larger number of people in this Department?

The staff in the Immigration Department has been increased, but the Department gets something like half a million letters, 200,000 callers and more than 100,000 telephone calls a year. The Department has to do a very large volume of work.

May we have an assurance that the political need at party conference time to say that the Government are cutting down the number of civil servants will not lead to a shortage of civil servants in some departments? I suspect—and I do not put the blame on anybody—that this is true of the Immigration Department, given the large number of people who call there.

As I said, we are taking steps to try to improve the position. This involves a certain readjustment of staff.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of the 15 Members of Parliament about whose correspondence Home Office officials gave advice to electoral registration officers.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that, at the expense of considerable time and effort, I have extracted information that the Home Office is in the habit of providing advice to electoral registration officers on correspondence between them and Members of Parliament? At the least, it should be the habit of the Home Office to tell hon. Members when representatives of the Executive have given such advice. Is the Minister further aware that I was informed by the electoral registration officer that my letter to him was being referred to the Home Office for advice? It is, therefore, highly undesirable that I should then be refused any indication of the nature of the advice provided by the Home Office.

This practice has gone on for many years. It is open to an electoral registration officer to seek advice from the Home Office on technical matters and on the interpretation of the law. The responsibility in replying to the hon. Gentleman must be on the electoral registration officer.

I am not suggesting anything different, and the Minister knows it.

Will the Minister say on what subjects advice is tendered by the Home Office?

The subjects on which electoral registration officers seek advice from the Home Office relate to publicity arrangements, corrections of the register, printing of the register and technical matters of that kind. It would be quite wrong if electoral registration officers did not have a Government Department to which they can turn for advice on technical matters of this kind.

If, for example, an electoral registration officer, who, I take it, is a law unto himself, is seeking advice on how he should collect the names for the register, what sort of advice is given? Is he asking for technical advice, and what is his relationship with the Home Office?

He is an independent officer, responsible for his own decisions, but sometimes he can ask the Home Office for technical advice on matters of this kind. The decisions that he takes are his own.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the general guidance provided for electoral registration officers is available in the Library of the House of Commons, and, therefore, this entirely unofficial but helpful advice—not mandatory advice—provided by the Home Office to registration officers is generally available? Is the Minister denying that he has said that when this advice is provided in a particular case in relation to correspondence with one hon. Member it becomes confidential? Is the Minister further aware that not one of his answers on this subject have related to the Question that I put? Will he try to deal with the question I asked; namely, why should it be necessary for this advice to remain secret from the hon. Members directly involved?

Because the decisions which the electoral registration officer takes are his own decisions. In his Question the hon. Gentleman asked whether I would list the names of hon. Members of this House about whose constituencies advice had been given. It would be entirely improper to disclose confidential information of that kind.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner for the protection of consumers.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) on 19th January by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry.—[Vol. 809, c. 253.]

Does the hon. Member realise that the position has changed since January, and that with the 50 per cent. cut in S.E.T. there is a need to watch prices and ensure that those that should come down do come down? Does the Minister also realise the need for overall price surveillance; that the Crowther Report emphasised this in terms of consumer credit; that in the United States and Canada public funds are devoted to this purpose; and that in Sweden the office of consumer ombudsman has been created? Does not the Minister agree that the British consumer deserves the services of a similar official? Why does the Minister refuse to act in this matter?

We are giving further consideration to the recommendations of the Crowther Commission. I am aware of the position in Sweden, but I believe that in this country the best protection for the consumer can be provided by the consumer himself. This matter is not appropriate for Government action.

The Minister has said that there should be competition and that the consumer should judge, but does he not agree that when the article concerned is of a complex technical nature the consumer requires assistance to enable him to judge between competitive firms?

If the consumer wishes to establish an independent arbitral body, it is a matter for him to put into effect. The Government act by means of legislation. A considerable number of Acts of Parliament are designed to protect consumer interests in general. Consumers in this country are sophisticated buyers who know best how to look after their own interests.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the result of the public inquiry relating to the future of Kirkgate Market, Bradford.

As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) on 5th April, my right hon. Friend hopes to announce a decision soon after Easter.

Is the hon. Member aware that many people in Bradford have great affection for this Victorian Kirk-gate Market, which many thousands visit weekly, and that they are waiting with increasing impatience and great anxiety for the outcome of his deliberations? Will he seek to ensure that the decision comes as fast as it possibly can?

I have said that it will come after Easter. It was a compulsory purchase order for only one-third of an acre but it was a key site in a development area and was bound to raise difficult problems. The decision will come as quickly as possible.