asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of total public expenditure on penal custody of all kinds for convicted persons the Government's present budget on research into the causes of crime constitutes.

£450,000 will be spent in the current financial year by the Home Office on research bearing on the causes of delinquency and the treatment of offenders. This figure approximates to 0·7 per cent. of the expected expenditure on the prison service in England and Wales in that period. Additional research is carried out by prison medical officers and prison psychologists in the course of their normal duties.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these figures show that our penal system is still far too closely geared to custody and deterrents and far too little to prevention? Is he also aware that much the most cost-effective means of reducing crime out of the Chancellor's £2,300 million give-away Budget would be a major increase in Home office and external research programmes and in experimental rehabilitation? What is he doing to this end?

I do not accept that at all. The fact that we spend nearly £500,000 a year on research shows that the Home Office takes this seriously—[Interruption.] The cost of imprisonment, which includes the cost of keeping those who are there and all the costs of the staff, is extremely large. But part of the purpose of the present Criminal Justice Bill now before the House is to extend the probation service and give greater opportunities for non-custodial penalties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects that the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee on life sentences will be received; and if he will make a statement.

I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the review which the committee is undertaking of the law relating to, and the penalties for, offences against the person. This is a wide-ranging review and I cannot yet forecast when it will be completed.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is now two years since this review was begun? Perhaps it would be wiser if the matter were brought to Parliament and discussed here; there seems to be a credibility gap on life sentencing at the present.

So far as the length of the review is concerned, as I said, it is a wide-ranging one, concerning the law relating to, and the penalties for all offences against the person, and it is being carried out by a committee under Lord Justice Edmund Davies. I cannot yet say when it will report. On my hon. Friend's second point, these matters have been discussed during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. As for his third point, I do not accept that there is a credibility gap with regard to life sentences.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received this year about the protection of the public against obscenity.

I recently received, and am studying, proposals for amendment of the law from the Society of Conservative Lawyers and from the Nationwide Festival of Light. I continue to receive complaints from the public about obscene publications, the display of indecent material, and trends, particularly towards violence, in the cinema.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of the public, who try to steer a middle course between prudery and licence, would like to see even more action by the Government to protect the public interest, possibly along the lines suggested by the Conservative lawyers?

I am certainly grateful for all advice that I receive in this matter. My concern, of course, is not enforcing the law—which is a matter for the police—but if necessary amending it. So far, I have not been persuaded that any proposals put to me would be an improvement, but I am very grateful for all the advice that I get.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposals of the Conservative lawyers would make the present law even more absurd than it is now?

I am sure that no proposals coming from that source could possibly have that effect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable on the number of police required to attend the fund-raising meeting in Bolton addressed by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) at the end of January.

The Chief Constable of Lancashire tells me that 12 police officers were on duty at Bolton Town Hall for this meeting.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents have sons and relatives serving in Ulster at this moment and that they have been outraged to learn that three Labour councillors attended this meeting, donning green armbands and passing round the hat? Would he not share my view that behaviour of this kind from anyone in a position of public responsibility is an utter disgrace and that we would welcome a condemnation of it from the Labour Party?

The general reaction to collection of moneys on behalf of the I.R.A. would be well understood in this House. As for the law on collections, I made this clear, so far as I could, the other day in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley).

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he now has to bring in legislation to amend the Ireland Act, 1949.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now completed talks with the Northern Ireland Government on internment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the situation in Northern Ireland as it affects his ministerial responsibilities.

As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Lord President and I had discussions yesterday with the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

Would the Home Secretary agree that any change in the autonomy of the Northern Irish Parliament would necessitate amendment of the Act to which I have referred? Consequently, would he agree with me and deplore any tendency on the mainland to take away the spirit of that Act, that is, not to treat Irish people—from either the North or the South—in this country as foreigners? There is a tendency in some scurrilous sections of the Press to do precisely that, especially arising out of the outrage and madness of Aldershot.

I do not accept the premises on which that supplementary question is based, but certainly the hon. Member is right in saying that any change in the statutory powers of the Northern Ireland Government would involve a change in the constitution.

Does not the Home Secretary recall that on 7th March he said in the House that the Government would make a statement on the future of Northern Ireland when he judged it to be in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland? Would not he agree that the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland would be served if the British Conservative Government made up their minds about the future of Northern Ireland and then had the courage to act and say, for the first time in history, that a British Conservative Government would not be deflected by either the hawkishness of some of their own back benchers or by undue pressure from Ulster Unionists?

The answer that I gave previously about the timing of a statement remains valid today.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that my Bill to amend the Ireland Act so as to provide for a referendum on the Border is, perhaps, enough political initiative to be getting on with? Is not a military initiative called for in order to break the I.R.A. terror and the I.R.A. police State in the virtual "no-go" areas, so that the minority can co-operate?

My hon. Friend's suggestion is extremely interesting, but the Government have always made it clear that they do not believe that this problem can be solved by either military or political initiative alone; both are needed.

Where a number of known psychopathic killers and those even more evil persons who have helped them plan and carry out their hideous acts have been detained, what duty does my right hon. Friend owe to society with respect to their continued restraint?

The duty that the Government owe to society is to do everything possible to protect law and order and to try to achieve a reconciliation between the communities, by which alone the future of Northern Ireland can be assured.

Although we cannot expect a report on the current negotiations whilst they are in progress, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that it will be the first to hear the results of the conclusion of the negotiations, and that we will not read what purports to be the result of them in the Sunday Press?

I cannot be responsible for reports that purport to give what is happening. But certainly the Government are well aware of the grave issues involved in this matter. It is our desire to make a statement to the House as soon as possible.

Following what was said by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) in his supplementary question, is it not an extraordinary situation that we greatly restrict the entry of citizens of the Commonwealth into this country yet there is no restriction whatever on anyone coming to Britain from the Irish Republic, which prides itself on being a foreign country? Would not the security situation be improved by requiring citizens of Eire to produce passports before entering this country?

This is a unique situation, which has existed for a long time. Any proposed for changing it should be studied with great care.

Will the Home Secretary undertake to make a statement and to provide for a debate on the proposals relating to Northern Ireland before the Easter Recess?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Government are fully aware of the gravity of the situation and will make a statement at the earliest possible moment.

Is it not time that the people of Ulster were asked, polling district by polling district, whether they prefer government by Stormont or by Dublin?

I rather doubt if that step would commend itself to any party in this tangled situation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the Report of Amnesty International on allegations of ill-treatment in Northern Ireland, a copy of which has been sent to him; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

I have read the report. Five of the cases considered in it were fully examined by Sir Edmund Compton last year; others are being investigated by the police with the co-operation of the Army or are the subject of legal action by the complainants.

Will the right hon. Gentleman order an impartial investigation into the other cases? No one would seek to condone indiscriminate violence, in whatever cause, but does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if the Government appear indifferent to substantial evidence of illegalities perpetrated by their own authorities that is more likely to exacerbate than minimise violence?

These allegations are being properly investigated. We must see the result of the investigation.

Is there not clear evidence that there is a seditious force at work in Northern Ireland, and is it not the Government's responsibility in those circumstances to back up the police and the security forces?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The priority in Northern Ireland is to deal with the men of terror and violence. At the same time, I am sure that the security forces themselves would want any complaint against them to be investigated, because they are confident that on investigation it will be shown not to be well-founded.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received from the G.O.C. Northern Ireland a response to the reference to him of allegations about the activities of the military in Northern Ireland, referred to him on 17th January and since then investigated by the R.U.C.?

I should require notice of that question, which is a little detailed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a further statement on his examination of means to counter the terrorist activities of the Irish Republican Army in Great Britain.

Appropriate steps will continue to be taken, but I have nothing at present to add to the reply I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) on 28th February.—[Vol. 832, c. 42.]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Is it not now time that the Government acted in the real interests of the United Kingdom, particularly the majority loyalist population of Northern Ireland, and declared the Irish Republican Army illegal throughout the whole of the United Kingdom? Would my right hon. Friend further press his right hon. Friend to close the Border? Also, would he bring pressure upon Mr. Lynch to act in a genuine fashion against the I.R.A. and its off-shoots in the Republic of Ireland?

The main task in Great Britain in dealing with the I.R.A. is to bring to book the people responsible for the outrage at Aldershot. A great deal is being done by the police. I think that the police have the full support of the House in carrying out their work to try to bring those people to book. The main thing is to deal with those who use violence. When it comes to proscribing a particular organisation or organisations, I fully understand the feelings on this matter, but the translation of those feelings into a law on the Statute Book presents considerable difficulty.

How many troops would be required to close the Border?

One division.

My information is that a complete closure of the Border in military terms would be impracticable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what future housing projects are planned for married officers' accommodation at Wandsworth Prison.

The construction of eight 4-bedroom houses will begin in the coming financial year. Longer-term requirements are being kept under review.

I welcome that reply. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the accommodation proposed is totally inadequate for the needs of married officers at the prison. Therefore, as a matter of urgency, would he seek to develop further projects which could be submitted to the prison governor and the local prison officers association, because this matter is giving great concern to them, especially as they hope to see a substantial increase in staff in the very near future? Unless accommodation is available, staff recruitment will be seriously curtailed.

A feasibility study is in hand to provide, by way of redevelopment, 176 married quarters, in the form of maisonettes or houses, but it is unlikely that work will start on that project for a few years yet. Regarding the immediate position, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it has been possible to buy houses on the open market, and my advice is that at present there is no urgent demand for more quarters, other than those I have mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will express as a percentage of the maximum penalty the average fine imposed by the courts in implementing Section 20(2) of the Firearms Act, 1968, relating to trespassing with a firearm on land.

Between 1st August, 1968, and the end of 1970 the average fine imposed on summary conviction in England and Wales for this offence was 6·6 per cent. of the maximum.

Is not this sort of watery inaction by the courts making the task of the police much more difficult and acting as no deterrent whatever? What will he do about it?

Adequate penalties are available to the courts, and they are being increased by the Criminal Justice Bill now before Parliament. It is not for me to criticise the actions of the courts.

As the maximum penalty is only £100, if there is evidence that the courts are not taking into account very strong feelings expressed by both Parliament and country, will the hon. Gentleman consider holding sentencing conferences so that the matter can be discussed and the feelings of Parliament and the country can be made known to the courts?

I am sure that the courts will take note of the views expressed on this matter in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to categorise separately, in the crime statistics, the specific offence of supermarket shoplifting.

My right hon. Friend is still not satisfied that the additional staff and expenditure which would be needed to record this information separately would be justified.

Would my hon. Friend say how and under what circumstances categories in the crime statistics are altered? I am sure that he is aware that many of the crimes listed are ancient. Is not supermarket shoplifting a crime which, in the last 15 years, has grown out of all proportion? Would he agree that if more detailed information could be obtained through separate categorisations, this would possibly help to counter what is becoming a great social problem for many people?

The Perks Committee recommended in 1967 that the whole system of categorising crime should be reviewed. The first priority is the separate categorisation of crimes of violence, and this must take precedence over the information requested by my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware of the tremendous increase in supermarket shoplifting and of the enormous number of acquittals, showing that every honest shopper in a supermarket is in grave risk of unjustified prosecution for a moment of inattention or forgetfulness? Does he not therefore think it right to take some steps to protect the honest shopper in these circumstances.

I know the hon. and learned Gentleman has made a particular suggestion about this subject which is being considered by the working party that is examining the question of shoplifting.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek powers to make the planting of explosives, attempted or actual political assassination and the hijacking of aircraft treasonable offences.

No, Sir. The criminal law already deals adequately with these matters.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that treason was first defined in the reign of Edward III in 1350 and that the law was amended in 1795 to include:

"The use of force to make the King change his counsels…".

Reading.

I am quoting from a Statute—

Order. The hon. Member is destroying himself, because he is not allowed to do that.

The amended law also included the offence of intimidating Members of either or both Houses of Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend not feel that the crimes to which I have referred all fall within that category?

The penalty for murder, attempted murder or hijacking and causing an explosion which is likely to endanger life or property is already life imprisonment—the highest penalty known to the law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new recruits joined the police forces in England and Wales during 1971; how many left the police forces during the same period; and how many of those who left had completed less than five years' service.

The figures are: 7,077; 4,020; 1,770.

On the 1,770 who left the police force during the last year having completed less than five years' service, has the Home Secretary any categorised information as to why they left?

I am afraid not. We had to make special arrangements to obtain this figure to answer the Question.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the 1971 recruiting figures are exceptionally good and give real hope for an end to the police shortage? Would he not also agree that they show how correct it was for the Government to reverse the disgraceful policy of the last Labour Government in restricting police recruiting?

I am certainly pleased with last year's figures, both on recruitment and reduction of wastage, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there is still a long way to go.

It is encouraging that police recruitment went up last year although we do not regard it as unrelated to the unemployment situation. Has the Home Secretary considered the possibility of attaching a welfare officer to those police stations which have a great deal of welfare work during the night? This is one of the difficulties the police face. Can he say anything about the recruitment of coloured police officers?

I will be happy to consider the first point. On the second, I would like to see more coloured police officers recruited, but the difficulty is to get the recruits to come forward.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many more special constables are required in England and Wales; and what steps he is taking to encourage their recruitment.

The total number of special constables at the end of 1971 was 29,990; many more could be used. Recruitment is the responsibility of chief officers of police, who are always on the look-out for suitable volunteers. Some new recruiting material has been prepared and will be available very soon.

Does that answer mean that myright hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not himself wish to give any encouragement to the recruiting of special constables? What is his attitude, bearing in mind that this is a matter of national importance?

It does not mean that at all. It means what I said in my reply—that many more could be used. That is the view of my right hon. Friend and myself. As to publicity, we supply to chief constables centrally posters and leaflets which they can use. Special constables have always been recruited locally, and I think that is right.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main barriers to recruiting more special constables, who are urgently needed, is finance? Will he urge our right hon. Friend to do the maximum he can to support recruiting, and make the watch committees supply more money where required?

I do not think that it is a matter of finance. Possibly there has not been enough publicity recently, but recruiting is well within the capabilities of the amounts now available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the concern felt by the police at the present position whereby allegations of neglect, malpractice and maladministration made against police officers are investigated by the police, and the fact that this affects promotion and security of employment, he will give the reasons why he will not now seek powers to appoint an appeal and investigating committee under a judge.

I made a statement on 2nd December about the procedure for investigating complaints against the police. A member of a police force who is dealt with for an offence against discipline may appeal to me.

But since then there have been a number of cases where the police and their Federation have complained of the unfairness whereby police officers can be, and are, held up to investigation sometimes by people in the very force in which they have had a disagreement, and this may impede the promotion of the person being investigated. Is it not unfair that a policeman can be charged by anyone and then find that people he has quarrelled with will investigate the complaint against him? Surely there should be an independent means of investigation?

I do not think so. Where a member of a disciplined force is the subject of a complaint, it must be investigated by his commanding officer. If there is any feeling of injustice, he can appeal to me.

Does my right hon. Friend also agree that although no one wants to discourage genuine complaints, the vast majority of complaints made against the police today are both trivial and groundless?

How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Therefore, could my right hon. Friend examine ways in which the burden on the police can be reduced in dealing with that category of complaints?

I should very much like to find a way of doing that. It is very difficult. The trouble is that it is a one-way option: a person complains against the police, and if his complaint is established he wins; if it is not, he loses nothing.

I acknowledge the extreme importance of maintaining public confidence in the police, which is very largely justified, but I also recognise the effect that a small number of such cases may have. Has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the suggestion of associating an independent lawyer with at least certain inquiries into police indiscipline?

I think there is a misunderstanding here. It is already a statutory requirement that a complaint about any behaviour that may involve a criminal offence must be referred to the independent judgment of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ban the sale of toy guns and bullets, particulars of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Wood Green; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is not convinced that any hazard presented by this particular toy is so serious as to justify such action.

Does the Minister of State realise that this was sent to him by a constituent, who feels—and I agree with her—that the small metal bullets supplied with the gun are extremely dangerous for any children to use particularly if one of them hit a child in the eye? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has the facilities in this Department adequately to vet this type of toy, bearing in mind all the other responsibilities that his Department holds.

The toy has been very fully vetted. It was tested at length by ballistics experts, who found that a pea fired from a normal pea-shooter had twice the velocity of a missile fired from this weapon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates or investigations he has made of the effect on the prevention of crime of easier international travel, following Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.

I do not expect there to be any significant effect.

Would the Minister of State tell us why?

Because normal immigration controls would operate and it would be possible to keep undesirable people out in the same way as now.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received for amendments in the law affecting confidentiality and privacy in gathering market research information.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister not aware that questions like:

"V.D. is a just punishment for illicit sex"

"If someone offered me pot I might try it".

Order. That is quite enough.

Obviously one would deplore any form of sales technique which seemed in any way to encourage young people to go in for drugs, which I gather is one of the matters the hon. Member mentioned. But the fact remains that we have had no complaints in the Home Office, and I am not quite sure whether it affects privacy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of juveniles who have been tried in adult courts, when charged jointly with adults, during the last five years.

Information in precisely the form requested is not readily available. In each of the five years 1966–1970, an average of just under 16,500 juveniles were proceeded against in adult magistrates' courts in England and Wales in accordance with the provisions of Section 46(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.

As this arrangement is usually made in order to facilitate the courts and not to help the young persons concerned, does the Under-Secretary of State not think that he ought to see, if young people are brought before the magistrates' courts and if they are required to be remanded, that they should be remanded in suitable homes and not put in adult prisons which provide a quite unsuitable atmosphere for young people of 11, 12 or 14 years of age?

In reply to that part of her supplementary question that arises on the Question, I do not think that that is so. There are obvious advantages in trying adults and juveniles together where they appear on a joint charge, and that covers the vast majority of cases to which the figure of 16,000 relates. The powers of the magistrates are limited unless they remit to the juvenile court for sentence. On the question about remanding those of a young age in adult prisons, clearly there is no power to remand anyone under 14, and those aged between 14 and 17 are remanded in adult prisons only where, because the court gives an unruly certificate, they cannot be held in other forms of accommodation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of illegal entry by Commonwealth immigrants have been detected in the last 12 months.

The information available to me is that during the twelve months ending 29th February, 1972, 26 cases of illegal entry were detected and 73 illegal immigrants were apprehended.

Has my right hon. Friend any information about the number of illegal flights carrying immigrants into this country over the same period.

We only have records of the chaps we catch.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for bigamy took place in each of the last two years.

In 1969 and 1970, the last two years for which statistics are available, the number of persons proceeded against in England and Wales for bigamy were 43 and 56.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in a considerable number of cases of bigamy known to the police no action is taken? Does this not bring the law into disrepute?

It is true that there are far more known cases of bigamy than prosecutions. The decision whether or not to prosecute rests entirely with the individual chief constable. I understand that chief constables do not take proceeding in such cases unless they believe that it is in the public interest to do so.

Would not universal Government-sponsored vasectomy obviate the need for all such questions?

I doubt it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will, at an early date, introduce legislation to remedy the discrimination currently practised against British women who marry Commonwealth citizens and are afterwards expected to reside in the country of their husbands.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend's predecessor decided in January, 1969, to withdraw the concession under which a Commonwealth citizen was allowed to settle here in right of his wife, and the reasons he then gave are valid today.

I know all about the statement of my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary's predecessor. But in these days of moves towards women's rights, women's liberation, equality in pay and social equality, is it not reasonable to abandon the concept of the wife as part of the husband's chattels? Should we not accept that a woman has as much right to expect her husband to live in the country of her origin as the husband has to expect his wife to live in the country of his origin? Should we not bring ourselves up to date in these matters and leave it as something to be settled between the two parties to a marriage rather than something for decision by the Government of the day?

No, Sir; I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The change was introduced in 1969 because of the large and increasing number of men taking advantage of the existing concessions as a means of circumventing the employment voucher scheme. Now that the number of admissions is very much smaller there is all the more possibility of an abuse occurring in this way.

In drafting the new immigration rules, will the Home Office make it quite clear as respects women who are United Kingdom citizens, not Commonwealth citizens, that their husbands will be allowed to stay in this country unless the marriage is a transparent evasion of the immigration restrictions?

I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says in the drafting of the immigration rules. The matter was discussed at considerable length in Committee during the passage of the Immigration Act.

Is the Minister also aware that there are some overhang cases where betrothals were entered into by Indian women and men, under their marriage system, having regard to the circumstances that prevailed before January, 1969? Will he undertake to look favourably at those cases, a kind of residue, which are still in the papers and have not been cleared up, where there is still considerable anxiety? Is it not a fact that the provision is not an automatic ban on allowing husbands to join wives in this country?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well, individual cases of this kind are considered on their merits.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for legal aid in 1970 and 1971, respectively, were granted by magistrates sitting in the county of Derbyshire and the borough of Derby.

In 1970, 1,154 in the county and 601 in the county borough. Statistics for 1971 are not yet available.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a great deal of unrest about whether everyone is receiving a fair crack of the whip there? My hon. and learned Friend took part in a programme on television which highlighted the fault that exists now. What action has he taken to remedy the position?

My hon. Friend might like to know that in Derby borough the percentage of applications granted was as high as 94·6, and in Derbyshire county 96·6, both of which are above the national average. The granting of that percentage of applications shows that the magistrates are obviously considering every application with the utmost care.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give consideration to financial help towards the Family Advice Centre, adjacent to Winson Green Prison, Birmingham.

Yes, Sir. But I am not yet ready to announce a decision.

In view of the very worthwhile voluntary work being undertaken by this centre in helping the wives and children of prisoners in a practical way, will the hon. and learned Gentleman be very sympathetic towards any application that may be made?

Certainly. It is because we recognise the valuable work that this project is doing that we are in principle prepared to give it financial help. We hope to announce details as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present state of preparation for nuclear war in terms of maintenance of Government; what personnel it is intended to locate in underground bunkers; and whether it remains his policy that preparations cannot be made for the survival of the population as a whole.

It is the view of this Government, as of their predecessors, that useful preparations can be made to reduce the effects of nuclear war in the respects mentioned.

Would the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that this policy should be looked at again, having regard to the fact that it is a policy of basing national defence on a weapon from which the public cannot be protected? Is it not the case that in the last war the few died to save the many, whereas our present policy is the reverse of this? If this were publicly realised would there not be an outcry against this policy?

The whole policy has been under re-examination in recent months. A circular was issued to local authorities yesterday dealing with Government policy in this respect, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

Is it not a fact that the nuclear threat today has increased at least a thousand-fold over what it was at the time that this kind of regulation was introduced, and that any attempt at defence or even mitigation today is totally futile?

No, Sir, I would not accept that. Certainly in areas outside the immediate point of impact it is possible for people to take precautions which will enable a number of lives to be saved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will expedite the investigation being carried out by the Home Office into the remand situation in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the working party which is considering bail procedures in magistrates' courts in England and Wales. The working party will complete its task as expeditiously as possible.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that promising answer, but may I ask him whether he agrees that bail hostels are one method which could be used to overcome present difficulties? Does he feel that sufficient money will be forthcoming for the establishment of more of these hostels?

I welcome the fact that a bail hostel was opened by my right hon. Friend last year with the help of private finance. As my hon. Friend knows, the Criminal Justice Bill makes provision for probation committees to have bail hostels. This is an important and welcome development.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ensure that next year British Summer Time is brought back into force over the last weekend in February.

No, Sir. I believe that the present arrangements, under which British Summer Time starts during the third weekend in March, conforms most closely to the wishes of the public.

Happily I have no time to cite an Act of 1795 in this supplementary question! Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in 1970 Parliament decided to revert to G.M.T. to save one hour for farmers and schoolchildren during the shortest days? Is he aware that if he looks at a nautical almanac he will find that that hour has been restored by the sun by the second half of February? Does he recognise that thereafter the extra hour is extremely important to gardeners, coarse fishermen, golfers, and everyone else who likes outside life.

The decision to revert to British Summer Time, as I remember it, was taken on a free vote quite recently. My hon. Friend does not have to go back as far as the 18th century for a Statute, because there was one as recently as 1968. I accept that different people have different views over different interests but I believe that on the whole the present situation meets the wishes of the majority.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that the research done for the Home Office showed that fewer people were killed in road accidents during the period of the experimental scheme? Will he cause further investigations to be made so that, whatever the decision of the free vote was, we can look at the facts before we have to take a decision again?

I do not accept that. The facts were known to the House when the debate took place and the House in its wisdom by a free vote, decided to revert to British Summer Time. That was the wish of the majority in the House. The hon. Gentleman may disagree, but he was outvoted, and this Government accept the decision taken then.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that many in the House will find that a disappointing answer and do not accept that there is a general demand for the return of full-scale British Summer Time? Does he recall that there was widespread support for an Early Day Motion to this effect when the matter was debated, urging that we do not need to go back to the full extent of British Summer Time?

I understood that the criticism of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was about reverting to British Summer Time from British Standard Time. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has raised a point on which there are differing views. I can only repeat that as recently as 1968 the present dates for Summer Time were set. The Home Office has no reason to think that they do not accord with the views of many people throughout the country.