asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into toy safety, with a view to ascertaining what changes in the law are necessary to cover all the hazards to children from dangerous toys.

I am not convinced that such an inquiry is needed. The Toys (Safety) Regulations 1967 are kept under review in periodic discussions between the local authority associations and the Home Office, and further regulations are being prepared.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern about the number of dangerous toys which are sold in spite of the regulations? Does he recall the glass drinking bird which exploded in a child's face at Christmas, although it had been condemned as highly dangerous several years ago? Will the investigations include an examination of the loopholes by which this sort of thing can happen, and the making of regulations?

We shall look further into the point raised by the hon. Member. I am aware of concern felt over this matter. That is why we are proposing to extend the regulations into matters such as the safety of electrical toys, flammability of pile fabrics, from which some toys are made, and the elimination of sharp points and edges.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the 4,849,119 experiments on animals performed without the use of anaesthetics in 1971 were painless.

I regret that this information is not available; but authority to dispense with anaesthesia is never granted where an operation more severe than simple inoculation or the taking of a blood sample is proposed.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to see that the information is forthcoming in some form? This is a matter of the greatest concern to a large number of people, and the hon. Member's answer is not good enough.

With respect, it is not easy to get precisely the information required but I acknowledge that there is a great deal of concern. I consider that the safeguards in the Act are adequate. We are always looking for ways to improve them, but we must remember the definite benefits which result from what I prefer to call tests rather than experiments. If my hon. Friend and others would like to discuss the position with us, my noble Friend the Minister of State and I would be very happy to meet them.

How on earth can the Minister or the hon. Member for Merton and Mordern (Miss Fookes) know whether the experiments performed are painless? Surely only the animals can know that, and they are dumb.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that there is an element of hypocrisy here, in that we express Concern about the children who suffer from the effects of thalidomide but now we are complaining of too many tests being carried out on animals?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. We must keep a sense of proportion in this matter and be just as concerned, if not more concerned, for humans as for animals.

In the opinion of many distinguished medical experts a high percentage of tests now carried out by vivisection could be carried out on cultured tissues. It is accepted that there is a residuum which can be carried out only by vivisection. Does the Home Office know—and if it does not know, will it carry out a survey to discover—what percentage is representative in each case?

The possibilities of getting the sort of information now obtained through tests on animals by other means—that is, through other forms of research—is a matter for the Secretary of State for Education and Science, with whom we keep in close touch.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was spent in renovating Piddlehinton Camp so as to make it habitable for the Ugandan Asians; how long they were there; and to what future use this camp is to be put.

The preliminary estimate of the cost of preparing this camp for use by the Uganda Resettlement Board is somewhat less than £50.000. The camp was used as a resettlement centre from 19th October to 17th November. The camp is, I understand, surplus to the requirements of the Ministry of Defence, which will be disposing of it under the normal procedures.

Is not £50,000 a lot of money, even in the circumstances, for a camp which had not been occupied for seven years, which was totally unsuited to people coming from a tropical country, and which is about to be demolished at any time?

Yes, I am afraid it is a lot of money. Of course, it was not easy to provide for the needs of a large but unknown number of refugees, as we had to last summer. We had to search out all the possible camps of this kind which could be used. In the event the camp was needed for only a short time, and with the wisdom of hindsight we might even argue that we could have done without it. But it was almost impossible to foresee that at the time the decision to prepare it was taken.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost attributable to the use by Ugandan Asians of Hobbs Barracks, Lingfield; how many were housed; on what days it opened and closed; and what was the average cost per head.

Hobbs Barracks was used by the Uganda Resettlement Board as a resettlement centre from 13th October 1972 to 12th January this year. During that time 1,652 refugees passed through the centre. Final figures for the cost of using the camp as a resettlement centre are not yet available, but the average cost per refugee is estimated to be about £100.

In the light of these costs and other likely costs to follow, will the Home Secretary accept that most of the Ugandan Asians will in the end, quite naturally, join Asian communities in the big cities, and that attempts to scatter them around the countryside in groups of one or two houses, whether or not they are humane, are likely to be fruitless?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it will not be easy to get the sort of dispersal he is talking about, but it has from the beginning been the Government's policy—rightly so—to do their best to achieve that. We owe it to those areas of the country where there are problems of over-concentration and overcrowding. However difficult, we should seek to do this in the interests of those areas and of the refugees.

The Opposition are impressed by the economy shown by the Uganda Resettlement Board, rather than the contrary. Will the Home Secretary say how many refugees are still in the camps, and will he convey to the Uganda Resettlement Board the considerable admiration that many of us have for the work it has done?

Yes. I have previously paid tribute to the work of the Uganda Resettlement Board and to the many thousands of people and voluntary associations who are helping it, and I certainly pay tribute again. I agree that, on the whole, this has been an economical operation. Hon. Members who are worried about this should realise that in terms of total public expenditure there is a substantial reduction in terms of the aid expenditure that would otherwise have been spent in Uganda. We would rather it were spent in Uganda, but I have made clear from the beginning that we could not spend it in both places. The number in the camps is now 6,000, or slightly less.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to admit the husbands of holders of British passports who have been expelled from Uganda in order to alleviate the hardship to the families concerned, to ease the burden on public funds of supporting these families, and to end the sexual discrimination involved in the present practice.

Earlier this week I met the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who has responsibility for Ugandan refugees in camps abroad, including the husbands to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. I discussed with him what could be done to speed up the reuniting of families. He is now consulting with other Governments and he will be in touch with me again in the near future.

I suppose I must be grateful for that somewhat uninformative reply. Does the Home Secretary agree that in the light of his disgraceful statement last week, when he spoke of accepting our responsibility for United Kingdom passport holders by admitting them through the special vouchers scheme, there is no longer any danger of a precedent being set which would affect people expelled from other countries, and therefore no longer the slightest justification for imposing hardships and sexual discrimination in immigration matters by separating families.

The hon. Gentleman is not putting a very integrated picture of the situation. We must remember that these families were separated in the first place only because of our speedy action in having been willing to remove wives and children to safety, but it was made clear to both husbands and wives that this would mean a period of separation. I assure the House that we wish to see them re-united as quickly as possible. There has been a United Nations response, those who are concerned accept this situation, and we are anxious to help them to deal with that responsibility as best we can.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are not only compassionate grounds for re-uniting these families but also material ones, in that these are breadwinners who could support their families if they were allowed to come here, rather than that their families should be supported at the taxpayers' expense?

Yes, it is urgent for economic as well as for other reasons. I repeat that I have had a most useful discussion with the High Commissioner. He has been in touch with one or two other Governments, and will be in touch with me again in the near future.

Does the Home Secretary appreciate that if the United Nations chooses to remove these non-British passport holders from the United Kingdom their families will have to join those passport holders somewhere else? Does he realise the upheaval which this will cause to the heads of these families?

We made clear to the families before they left Uganda, and before separation, that they might have to be re-united in a country other than this. We shall help them to be re-united elsewhere.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has discretion to admit these United Kingdom passport holders if he cares to do so, why should they be treated less fairly than fiancées who are able to come to this country and remain here after marriage if separation may cause unreasonable hardship to wives?

The hon. Gentleman should realise that this is a special refugee situation of great tragedy for those who are affected. We wish to re-unite them as soon as we can. The United Nations is accepting responsibility, and I am working in close co-operation with it. Britain has taken full responsibility for a very large number of people.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on his review of the law of citizenship.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to announce a decision on his review of the law of citizenship.

We are proceeding with the necessary technical studies; but, as I indicated in my reply to Questions on 7th December, the subject is a complicated one.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that eventually, when his technical studies are complete, there will be a formally-constituted committee of inquiry into the law of citizenship, that all groups affected will be represented and that the committee will work closely with the Commonwealth Secretariat? Will the Home Secretary, as a matter of citizenship, urgently look at the plight of United Kingdom citizens who are imprisoned in other countries because their leave to remain there has expired and who carry British passports which have the unique distinction of debarring them from entering the United Kingdom?

I should like to look into the second part of the question and communicate with the hon. Gentleman. On the first part, I should not like to commit myself at this stage to a formally-constituted committee of inquiry, but there will have to be widespread consultations outside the country as well as inside it. I will keep the House informed as to how we proceed. We want to proceed quickly and we have to proceed thoroughly, and, I accept, not in isolation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is deep concern in the country on this question? We are undoubtedly faced with the possibility of large-scale immigration, and the country wants the Government to get on with the studies. I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said, but will he get on with this as quickly as possible, in consultation with our Commonwealth partners and European friends?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are getting on with it as quickly as possible. It is urgent, but it is also very complicated, and there will have to be widespread consultation inside and outside the country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he received in January 1973 from women awarded alimony by court order who had not received it.

Seven letters were received in January 1973 from women complaining about the enforcement of maintenance orders in magistrates' courts in England and Wales.

The Minister may have had seven, but I have had 83 since the Mechanics of Payment of Aliment Bill. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that there are a great many women—perhaps I have been partly responsible for this—[Laughter.]—whose hope have been built up. As the report of the Finer Committee is disappearing into the distant future, could this question be hived off from the main part of the committee's deliberations, and something done about it?

I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's hopes, but he obviously gets rather more letters from women on this subject than does the Home Office. He has had 83 in one month, whereas the Home Office received 67 in the whole of 1971 and 59 in the whole of 1972. I am not sure on what evidence the hon. Gentleman says that the Finer Committee report is disappearing further into the future. As far as I know, the Finer Committee is shortly to report.

My respect for the capacities of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is boundless, but I do not hold him responsible for this problem. May I ask the Minister of State to look at this again? Most people in this position write to their Member of Parliament rather than to the Home Office, and I should be surprised if most hon. Members on both sides of the House have not encountered this problem as one of the most substantial they come across. There is no doubt but that women who are just above the supplementary benefits level, and therefore cannot gain from the mechanics now adopted by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, are often in a desperate plight, especially those who have young children when the courts' decisions are not carried out.

I assure the hon. Lady that I am fully aware of the seriousness of this problem, as I think I have said every month to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)when he has tabled Questions about the number of letters received. Within the lest two years we have brought in the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, and we are still awaiting the report of the Finer Committee, which was set up by the Labour party, on the whole problem of one-parent families. We shall certainly look with interest at that report when we receive it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to change the law whereby persons unable to work and in receipt of sickness benefit can be consigned to prison for arrears on a court maintenance order.

A magistrates' court may commit a maintenance defaulter to prison only if it considers after inquiry in the defendant's presence that the default is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay. My right hon. Friend sees no need, therefore, for legislation on the lines proposed.

My hon. and learned Friend will know of the two cases I have in mind. Can he tell me what public advantage there can be in sending a man who has one collapsed lung and emphysema in the other lung, in receipt of £11·51 supplementary benefit, from his own bed to a prison hopsital bed for six weeks for £60 arrears of maintenance? Will my hon. and learned Friend recognise the fact that I have another constituent who has a suspended prison sentence hanging over his head for the same offence—if we can call it an offence—whose recovery from multiple injuries sustained in a road accident is being materially retarded by frequent appearances in court?

First, it is not an offence. I shall willingly look at the cases to which my hon. Friend refers. However, he would not expect me to comment on individual cases. Magistrates' courts have the power to impose imprisonment, but only if they are satisfied that the failure to pay is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ensure that jurors are chosen by the court without any interrogation as to their personal views on public and political matters.

A practice direction on this matter was given by the Lord Chief Justice on 12th January. My right hon. Friend does not think that further action is called for.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but does he think that it goes far enough? Is there not still a risk of a repetition of what happened during the Angry Brigade trial when the jurors were questioned? When the safety of the State is under discussion, is it not vital for jurors to be without any political taint?

The decision on any question and on what questions to ask in any particular case must of course be a matter for the judge who is trying the case. On 12th January this year the Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction to all courts and all judges, as follows:

"It is contrary to established practice for jurors to be excused on more general grounds such as race, religion, or political beliefs or occupation."

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accidents from fireworks requiring hospital treatment occurred during the month of November 1972, and how many of the victims were children.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the total casualty figures of firework accidents occurring on 5th November 1972; how many of these necessitated an overnight stay in hospital; and how these figures compare with those for 1971.

The hospital returns are now being analysed, and I hope it will be possible to give the full figures later this month.

Is it not clear that publicity campaigns alone are not stopping these tragedies? Will the Minister consider legislation restricting the sale of fireworks to representatives of groups and organisations presenting properly controlled displays?

I am not convinced at present that this is necessary. If the final statistics for 1972 show serious cause for concern that our measures are not being effective, we will consider whether there are any further steps we can usefully take for the future.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the deep concern that is felt by our women constituents? Last November in my constituency a petition was signed containing thousands of signatures. Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that I have taken deputations to his Department during the time of his predecessor, and that it was agreed that the Home Department should attempt to get in touch with the local authorities about this matter and that we should have public displays in parks and elsewhere with the aid of the police? Has that been followed up?

I am, of course, aware of this matter in my constituency as well. There is a trend towards the holding of larger public displays with this in view. I remind the House that in 1970 and 1971 the number of injuries in England and Wales as a result of firework accidents was much less than half the figure of 10 years before. We want to maintain that progress.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of places available in remand homes, detention centres and residential schools for juvenile offenders in South London.

My right hon. Friend has recently made available to courts in England and Wales an additional 108 places in junior detention centres. The provision by local authorities of accommodation for offenders committed to their care is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is a particular shortage of secure accommodation for disturbed adolescents in the South London area? Will he bear in mind that magistrates at juvenile courts are too often faced with the stark alternative of sending unruly boys to the Ashford Remand Centre and unruly girls to Holloway, or letting them run wild?

I am aware that there is a shortage of secure accommodation for those to whom my hon. Friend has referred. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services dealt with this matter at a recent meeting with the Magistrates Association on the Children and Young Persons Act. I think that all I can do is to refer my hon. Friend to what was said on that occasion.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is concern not only in South London but in the country generally? Can he give an undertaking to the House that never again will a juvenile be sent to Holloway Prison or a men's prison'? It is that matter which is so disturbing.

Of course, I cannot give that undertaking.

Why not?

Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to explain. The law provides that over the age of 14 a person can, if the magistrates certify, be sent on remand to a prison. That provision still applies. It is bound to continue to apply until we have adequate alternative and secure accommodation. We want to provide—and at the moment it does not adequately exist—alternative and secure accommodation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is attempting to achieve that.

As the reconviction rate following attendance at junior detention centres is now almost 85 per cent., making them universities of crime with a very high pass rate, will the hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that resources are diverted to more successful forms of treatment? In particular, will he ensure that the Area Planning Committee for London, which is supposed to report on schemes for the treatment of young offenders by the end of 1972, will report fairly rapidly?

The hon. Gentleman's final question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, to whom reports are sent.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the courts are deprived of a useful form of punishment today, compared with some years ago, when a little corporal punishment would have solved the problem and would have avoided people having to go into institutions?

I think that my hon. Friend will agree that that is a wholly different matter, upon which the views of the Government are known.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many aliens have been permitted to enter Great Britain in connection with the Children of God movement.

Accurate figures are not available but the number is believed to have been something over 150 in 1972. Many have since left.

Is my hon. Friend aware that among those leaders who are left are many who are peddling a dubious brand of Christianity to impressionable and often unstable young people, and, in the process, turning them against their parents and society? Unless it can be shown that these Americans are engaged in gainful employment, is not there a strong case for seeing that they are united with their mysterious leader, Moses, back in the United States?

I know of this anxiety, and my right hon. Friend is keeping a close eye on the adherents of this movement. So far we have no evidence of criminal offences. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will use our powers to get rid of any who prove undesirable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what stage has now been reached in the review of voluntary repatriation of immigrants.

I hope to announce my conclusions shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am glad that that will be so? A little urgency might strengthen public confidence in the Government immigration policy.

I can assure my hon. Friend that when I say "shortly" I hope that I shall he proved right, and that I mean "shortly".

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement following the entry of a number of illegal immigrants via the ship "Marika", recently arrested in Bristol docks.

On 22nd December on the M1 the police stopped a car which contained six men who were believed to be illegal immigrants. The men were apparently from a party of 36 who left the Continent on 17th December in the motor launch "Marika" and arrived at Bristol docks on 21st December. Five of them have been returned to India and the sixth has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment and recommended for deportation. The police are seeking the remainder of the party and the organisers of the expedition.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is a widespread impression among those who have experience of the problem of illegal immigration that the number of cases which come to the notice of the police and finally into the courts represents the tip of an iceberg? Will he assure the House that he will do all that he and his Department can do within their power to deal with what is a very grave problem in society today?

I give that absolute assurance. I know that there is anxiety about this matter. We are regularly reviewing the arrangements and the defences against illegal immigration. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that we are now setting up an intelligence unit at New Scotland Yard to collate and disseminate information about people engaged in this deplorable practice. We will not hesitate to strengthen these measures if necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire into the circumstances in which special arrangements were made by the immigration authorities at Gatwick Airport on 27th December 1972 to facilitate the entry of Mr. Howard Hughes and his entourage; and if he will make a statement.

When Mr. Hughes and his party arrived at Gatwick they were afforded the facilities normally available to passengers in private aircraft arriving during the night at that airport.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members and, I am sure, the general public will be grateful to know that they are entitled to this smooth and streamlined treatment? However, does he expect us to believe that there was no preferential treatment, and that no strings were pulled? It is a bit rich.

There was no preferential treatment whatsoever.

Do the immigration authorities still have the right to insist upon a medical examination when they have reason to believe that an alien immigrant may be mentally abnormal?

We have very good powers which enable us in certain circumstances to insist on a medical examination, particularly of those who intend to stay more than six months. Mr. Hughes established his identity, his nationality and his financial means, and he was admitted for only three months.

Does my hon. Friend accept that in the country as a whole the movements of Mr. Hughes are just about as big a bore as those of George Best?

As that question comes from my hon. Friend, who represents a Lancashire constituency, I will not argue with him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to prevent the sale of imported casseroles which contain more than safe limits of lead and cadmium.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 22nd January to a similar Question by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).—[Vol. 849, c. 25–26.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House welcomes the fact that cooking utensils safety regulations are to be introduced on 1st April and that others will follow later with regard to the cadmium and lead content of ceramic glazing? In view of the clear statement made by his right hon. Friend, in answer to a Written Question which I tabled on 9th August last, that he intended to make these regulations, can he explain why the Observer on 31st January carried a story to the effect that the Government had no intention of making these regulations, and why information in regard to his statement was not available?

The information in the Observer was incorrect. We intend to introduce these regulations covering not only ceramic ware but metal ware. We shall take account of the possible risks which have now come to light in the sort of ware about which my hon. Friend knows so much.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no evidence against the British casserole-producing industry?

That is my understanding.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning anomalies in the pay scales of probation officers in the Greater London area; and what action he proposes to take.

I have received representations against statutory rules made in November last, which treat members of the four probation services in outer London less favourably in the matter of excess rate payments than those in inner London. Any question of altering these arrangements would have to be considered by the Joint Negotiating Committee and in the context of the Government's counter-inflation policy.

Does the Home Secretary agree that these anomalies do not exist in the closely associated professions in the social services, particularly after the recommendations in the Seebohm Report? Does he not feel that the regulations are unfair, and will he review them when an opportunity arises?

Yes, I shall be prepared to review them through the proper machinery, with the kind of proviso that I have made. The Butterworth Inquiry was a big forward step in trying to assess the true worth of the probation service, and brought about a large measure of fairness between the probation officers and social service workers.

No.

I think the probation officers would accept that. It has equally proved to be the case that there are still some unfortunate rough edges, which are now causing trouble.

Does the Home Secretary recognise that there is great concern in the probation service, first about the fact that many social service workers are being appointed above the basic grade, whereas most probation officers are being appointed on it, and that in this respect the Butterworth recommendation has not been implemented by local authorities; and, secondly, that there is a great deal of feeling over the A and B grades in a situation in which, in London, 80 per cent. of probation officers have qualified for B status and are conscious of the small rump of their fellows who are being treated as second-class probation officers?

I am aware of the divisiveness of the A and B grading system. This recommendation—whether it was wise is another matter—was one of the Butterworth recommendations which was implemented, but it is clear that it is a new development which we shall have to review before long.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an independent commission on water safety in view of the number of drowning accidents in the United Kingdom each year; and if he will make a statement.

I cannot yet add to the reply which I gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend on 6th December.—[Vol. 847, c. 440.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all those who are concerned about the human tragedy of drowning will be disappointed with the reply? Is he further aware that between 600 and 700 people in England and Wales annually die by drowning, that 150 of those are between the ages of 4 and 15, and that 110 drowning accidents occur to children between the ages of 1 and 4? Will he look at this matter again?

We are actively considering this matter at the moment. My right hon. Friend will shortly receive a deputation from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to discuss the proposal for a commission. In the meantime there is a great deal more that local authorities can do. Quite apart from any question of a commission, there are problems which require urgent attention—for example, the control of speedboats, which is a matter which we are now discussing with local authorities. Therefore, we are trying to make quick progress.

Do we need another independent commission to advise us—a commission whose findings no Government will implement? Would it not be wiser to encourage schools to teach children to swim and to provide facilities for them to do so?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the great bulk of the under-fives shown in the statistics drown in water butts and similar things, that that figure has nothing to do with the main problem, and that, unless we are careful, a great deal of false sentiment can be generated?

My hon. Friend is correct. A considerable number of cases of drowning take place in inland waters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has now decided to take to control publicly offensive displays relating to film shows and bookshops.

I am considering proposals for amending the Cinematograph Acts; so as to provide wider powers to deal with public advertising by cinema clubs, and for modernising the present laws relating to indecent public advertisements and displays; but I am not yet ready to announce my detailed intentions.

May I say to my right hon. Friend how much I applaud what he has just said? When I say that after 2½ years perhaps one feels that it is time something like this was done, I hope that he will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are made. May I assure him that these displays give a great deal of offence to a lot of decent-minded people?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I regard the present manner and scale of display as a commercial assault on freedom and not an expression of freedom.

In his considerations, will the Home Secretary look at the recent legislation in Sweden, where I understand they have been quite successful in banning this sort of public display while at the same time being more liberal than we are over what may be published?

I shall certainly look at what they are doing in Sweden.

Am I right in drawing the conclusion from what my right hon. Friend says that he is also truly sympathetic to the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) and I have now in draft and will be publishing in a day or two, to control public display in bookshops, and that that comes under the umbrella of his observations?

I shall look with sympathetic interest at the Bill when it is drafted.

Can the right hon. Gentleman speed this up, because many of us in the House who have very progressive ideas on a number of things—[Laughter.] I hope that hon. Members will listen for a moment. We find displays of this kind extremely offensive. As we have had them for far too long in this country, it is really time that they were removed, as they are offensive to ordinary decent working people.

Perhaps this is a subject on which I can look for support from both reactionary and progressive hon. Members alike.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will advise returning officers for the impending county council elections on the eligibility of students for postal votes during university and college vacations.

No, Sir. The grounds on which persons may be entitled to be treated as absent voters are laid down in the Representation of the People Act 1949. My right hon. Friend considers that it is not necessary, nor would it be proper, for him to seek to advise electoral registration officers on the interpretation of these provisions.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the definition of the question whether a vacation is a holiday and, therefore, whether students are absent of their own volition determines whether 200,000 people will be able to vote in particular areas in the elections on 12th, 13th and 14th April?

What is quite clear is that for those who are absent on holiday it is not a ground for obtaining a postal vote. I must stand by what I have said—that the interpretation of the question whether or not a person is on holiday must be a matter for the electoral registration officer and not for the Home Office.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to make preparations for protecting the population from the effects of hostile air attacks, conventional or nuclear; what is the nature of those preparations; how much will have been spent on them by the Government Departments and local authorities, respectively, in the current financial year; and whether he will make a statement.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes". The preparations made form an integral part of the arrangements for the defence of the United Kingdom and it would not be in the national interest to go into detail about them. In 1972–73 the gross amount to be spent on civil defence is estimated at £10·7 million, of which £2·3 million will be spent by local authorities.

I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said about nondisclosure in the national interest. However, will he say what he is doing to ensure that local government reorganisation causes minimum delay in improving the arrangements which we have—such as they are—for dealing with war-time emergencies, parts of which have been announced by his predecessor?

I believe that the new local government system, when it is established, should help. I cannot tell my right hon. and learned Friend what I am doing at present, because it is rather too early. But I will give close attention to this matter as the new authorities come into being and, indeed, in preparation for their coming into being. I promise my right hon. and learned Friend that I shall do what I can.