asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the Northern Ireland Government about the implications for security of the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland), 1971; and if he will make a statement.

Security was one of the aspects of which I took account during discussions with the Northern Ireland Government about the Act and its operation.

Nevertheless, since civil disobedience through rent strikes is the only means left, short of violence, for both individuals and communities to protest against long-standing social injustices and discrimination, let alone internment, in Northern Ireland, will the Minister not acknowledge that the repression of this channel through the Payments for Debt Act can only drive people back hopelessly into violence; and will he, on social security grounds, make representations to the Northern Ireland Government for the drastic amendment or curtailment of these provisions?

I cannot accept that. It is not right that people should have the right to live rent and rate free at the expense of other ratepayers.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, even after the deduction of rental payments from security benefits, a married couple with two children are still nearly £5 a week better off than their counterparts in Southern Ireland?

Social services in Northern Ireland are particular good. But the purpose of this Measure is that people should not benefit at the expense of other ratepayers by not paying rent and rates.

Is not the objections to this that the provisions are entirely arbitrary? Is the Home Secretary aware that the Act has been described by the Child Poverty Action Group as probably the worst piece of social legislation of the twentieth century? Will he look at it again?

I have seen that description. I disagree with it. The problem could be solved if people paid their rents.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the protection of Royal Ulster Constabulary members and their families from attack, following his meeting with a deputation of Royal Ulster Constabulary members on 9th November, 1971.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the Questions by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) on 18th November. Certain other points put to me by the deputation are under urgent consideration.—[Vol. 826, c. 191–2.]

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that any protection provided for members of the R.U.C. will be on the same scale and on the same conditions as would prevail among police forces on this side of the Irish Channel under similar conditions?

It is difficult to envisage similar conditions on this side of the Channel. The Government attach the highest importance to giving protection to members of the R.U.C., who have been subjected to the most dastardly attacks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) is not satisfactory and that at least the same degree of protection should be given to police barracks as is given to Army barracks in Northern Ireland, because these men are in the front line and there have been more attacks on police barracks than on Army barracks during the emergency?

The trouble is that if the Army were to provide a permanent guard on every police station, it would be tying up forces that would be better used in another role. That is why I said in my reply that the Army will be extending its activities, but where that cannot be done, automatic weapons are being provided for the police, together with training.

Is there any evidence of threats being made against the families of R.U.C. personnel recently, and, if so, has the Home Secretary been able to give them the protection they deserve against these very cowardly attacks when their husbands are carrying out their duty?

We have done everything possible, but I cannot say that we are doing everything we would like to do. These threats to the families are one of the most deplorable features of the whole situation and I know that anything we can do will receive the support of the whole House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for further meetings with the Chairmen of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority, relating to coverage by the broadcasting media of events in Northern Ireland.

None, at present, Sir.

Will the Home Secretary accept that when he goes off, if he goes off, trundling again to see the two Directors-General or the Chairmen he should go perhaps as the emissary of the 1922 Committee but not of this House as a whole? Is he aware that there is grave concern in the country at the calls for the B.B.C. and I.T.V. to report things from the point of view only of the Unionists or security forces because while, of course, those points of view must be put fully and fairly, if we are to have a situation in which there is either voluntary censorship, such as the I.T.A. is now practising, or governmental censorship, that would be the best propaganda weapon that could be placed in the hands of the I.R.A.?

There is no question of censorship. But the hon. Member lumped together the Unionists and the security forces, and that is a very dangerous thing to do. The B.B.C. must be impartial between Catholic and Protestant but it cannot be impartial between the murderer and the policeman.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the opinion on this side of the House is that we do not want censorship; what we want is a fair deal for the Forces, who are not skilled propagandists, as against the I.R.A., which is probably the most skilful propaganda organisation in the world?

I think that I sense the view of the House. The appearances of members of the Forces that I have seen on television have been enormously impressive.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement indicating what progress he is making towards a political settlement, acceptable to the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland.

I would refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I said in the debate on 29th November.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how soon and under what conditions the Government are prepared to enter into party talks to consider the constructive proposals of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Will he also say what is his attitude towards the early transfer of responsibility for security from Stormont to Westminster?

On the first point, the Leader of the Opposition got into touch with my right hon. Friend on his return from the United States. My answer to that is, the sooner the better. I dealt with the second point in the course of the debate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland would certainly welcome a political settlement, they would be just as grateful for the defeat of the campaign of violence and intimidation, of which they are the co-victims?

Yes, I entirely agree, and the more often that is said the better.

Does the Home Secretary accept that the two greatest obstacles to a political settlement so far as the minority are concerned are the continuance of the policy of internment and imprisonment without trial and the fact that no action has been taken against licensed guns? Will he institute a review of both those items so as to get political discussions on a real basis?

On the second point, I think the review is in progress. On the first point, internment was discussed thoroughly during our two-day debate, when I gained the impression that our point of view and that of the Opposition Front Bench were not so different.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people detained or interned in Northern Ireland under the Special Powers Act have been released in consequence of recommendations by the Advisory Committee.

Twelve internees, I understand.

Will the Home Secretary accept that when a Government detain people without trial, for whatever reason, they bear a heavy responsibility for ensuring that they detain the right people? Do not these figures already indicate that the authorities in Northern Ireland fall short of this standard? While I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the difficulty of confronting detainees with accusers, what are the difficulties in the way of legal representation before the Advisory Committee?

On the first point, the Appeal Committee is working as was envisaged, and all its recommendations have been accepted by the Northern Ireland Government. The second point is one of those which I said we would consider.

As the right hon. Gentleman has called us in aid, may I ask him whether he intends to make a statement on the quite substantial proposals I put forward last Monday in connection with the procedure to be followed in such cases, so that there shall be at least a substantial element of trial, if not a complete trial?

I have said that we are considering and discussing these proposals with the Northern Ireland Government, and if a statement will be useful to the House, I will make one.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain cases, such as suspicion of handling arms, it may be that only three or four people are aware that the person detained has been handling them, and that to reveal the nature of the charge might give away the informant and endanger his life?

That was the point made more than once in the course of our debate.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Brown Committee is farcical in many aspects, particularly with regard to the oath that internees are asked to take or to sign? For example, a constituent of mine has been recommended to the Minister of Home Affairs for release, but since my constituent has an objection to taking an oath, he cannot be released, though there are many internees still inside, such as teachers, who have already taken oaths because of their professions. We have the farcical situation that a man who will not take the oath will not be let out and men who have taken it are kept in.

This matter was in the terms of reference of the Committee. I do not agree that the Committee is a farce. It is a distinguished body of men going into all the cases very thoroughly. There are precedents for the oath, and I think that I am right in saying—I do not have the exact words before me—that it really amounts to saying that the internees will not break the law in future.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Coventry, North, may expect a reply to his letter of 7th October, in which he requested him to obtain from the Northern Ireland Government and secure the publication of the names of those at present held in custody in Northern Ireland without trial.

I wrote to the hon. Member yesterday.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was inspired by my Question to answer it in a letter. Does he not agree that this situation is contrary to natural justice, and does it not smack of Star Chamber methods that a man should be taken from the streets or from his home and his whereabouts thereafter not be disclosed? In the light of this situation, will he not remedy the procedure so that those detained in this way may at least be known to have been detained and may have their whereabouts disclosed to their families?

My understanding is that a notification is sent to relatives and that in that way relatives are informed. There is a difference between that and the publication of a list of names, which might not always be in the interest of the person interned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to the Northern Ireland Government to ensure that the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland), 1971 is carried out without a threat to security.

As I stated in reply to the hon. Member's earlier Question, security was one of the aspects of which I took account during discussions with the Northern Ireland Government about this legislation.

Will the Home Secretary not acknowledge that payment of debt under this Act breaks the Human Rights Convention by being retrospective, by flouting the normal rights of appeal, and by exacting repayment arbitrarily at penal rates, thus causing immense hardship? In view of the security risk in- volved in harsh legislation of this kind, will the right hon. Gentleman give a less complacent answer than he gave to my first Question?

I do not accept any of those propositions. If people are not prepared to pay proper rent and rates, it means that other people have to pay them. Other ratepayers should be protected.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken by his Department to control the sale of replica firearms in view of the increasing use of all sorts of weapons in crimes of violence.

A replica capable of firing would be subject to control under the Firearms Act, 1968. On the information before my right hon. Friend, he is not satisfied that it is necessary or practicable to control other replicas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that these pistols and machine guns, which are exact working models of the real thing, are freely available? I have been informed by one gunsmith that they are capable of firing up to 12 bullets before the barrel comes to pieces. At a time when crimes of violence are on the increase, should we allow these weapons to come into this country and be put on sale as freely as they are because no one, faced with such a weapon, will ask whether a Luger pistol is the real thing or a replica?

A replica which is capable of firing is subject to control under the Firearms Act, 1968. So far as other replicas are concerned, the difficulty lies in defining what is a replica—for example, whether a child's toy pistol is a replica. Surely the right course is to concentrate on the use to which the weapon or replica is put. The penalties for misuse are being considerably increased under the Criminal Justice Bill.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, from the letters I have sent to him on the subject together with Press cuttings, the sale of these mock firearms has caused a lot of anxiety to sub-postmasters and others at risk?

Yes, and that is the reason why steps have been taken in the Criminal Justice Bill to increase the penalties considerably.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many magistrates' courts operate a duty-solicitor scheme to enable unrepresented accused persons to be advised before and/or represented at the first hearing of their cases.

No duty-solicitor scheme has so far been sponsored by the Home Office and I have no detailed information about any such scheme. But I understand that help is often given to unrepresented defendants by court staff or, on occasion, by solicitors attending for other purposes.

Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a very great deal of concern is being expressed about the problems affecting unrepresented defendants? Would not this proposal be worthy of Home Office consideration, since it would enable the unrepresented defendant to be represented at the critical time, when first denied bail by the police, and at the even more critical stage when he makes his first appearance in court? It is no use relying on solicitors who might be present to intervene.

I am aware that the proposal has been put forward by Justice. It will be considered. But the Home Secretary thinks it right to await reactions from the other organisations who have an interest in this matter before taking a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he will take into account when planning the new remand centre for women in the Midlands.

The need to provide adequate facilities at a suitable place and at a reasonable price.

Will my hon. and learned Friend, having asked Birmingham City Council for its views on this matter, give a categoric assurance that he will act on them? Will he take into account the need for care in the preservation of attractive areas, the objections of nearby residents, the needs of land for housing or the rival claims for land from such bodies as medical practitioner groups anxious to put up medical centres in thickly populated areas?

We have recently received a letter from Birmingham Corporation indicating its view that one of the sites suggested should be used instead for housing. I can assure my hon. Friend that the representation will be carefully considered and that we shall equally consider any other suggestion the Corporation may wish to propose.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of unlawful killings in England and Wales in each of the years 1961 to 1970, inclusive.

I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a table giving figures for offences of murder, manslaughter, infanticide and child destruction known to the police in England and Wales.

While I am obviously unable to comment on the figures before I see them, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give the widest publicity to those statistics and the breakdown under the category of unlawful killings so that those arguing for or against more extreme punishment for these serious crimes may have a greater acceptance among the public?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his reticence in supplementary questions. These are important matters. They are difficult figures to interpret sometimes, and I am anxious that they should be fully understood by and available to the public.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to recruit more nursing officers for Holloway Prison.

With the assistance of agency staff, there is at present a full complement of nurses at Holloway Prison.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not understand that the medical officer of Holloway is anxious to recruit his own staff, because agency staff are much more expensive? Will he give some thought and attention to this to see that the staff are provided for the parts of Holloway where they are needed?

Like the hon. Lady, I have recently visited Holloway and I fully appreciate the need for adequate medical staff. She will appreciate that efforts are made from time to time to recruit nurses directly for Holloway, but it is a profession in which there is a substantial turnover. I do not think that the prison service is alone in suffering from this.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations took place between his Department and the London Borough of Islington regarding the new staff headquarters at Holloway Prison, London, N.7; and if he will make a statement.

There have been consultations with the Planning Department of Islington Borough Council at frequent intervals during the past 2½ years. I understand that the plans for the staff

I am grateful for that reply. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why building has started on the site before final approval has been received from Islington Borough Council and when the views of the local residents have not been taken into account?

It is true that work has started, but it started a year after plans were deposited with the local authority. It is not up to the Home Office to decide when those plans are drawn to the attention of a particular committee of the local authority, if that is necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers left the probation service in the year ending 31st October, 1971.

247 established officers, according to returns so far received from probation authorities, including normal wastage on account of age and sickness, death, resignation for domestic reasons, and losses to other work in the probation field.

Is not that an alarming feature? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, despite the recent pay increases, the salaries of probation officers compare very unfavourably with those for similar positions in the local authority social service area?

I do not know what the hon. Member means by "alarming". Obviously we do not welcome any wastage, but some is inevitable through natural causes. I would point out that the figure for the year 31st October, 1971, was 247, for the previous year it was 250 and for the year before that it was 224. I do not think that there is significance in that figure. As to his remarks about pay, he knows that an inquiry is about to start into the matter.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that there are sufficient probation officers to undertake the new duties which will fall on them by virtue of the new Criminal Justice Bill?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have announced a plan to increase the size of the probation service from 3,500 to 4,700, partly to take up the additional tasks that may be required of them as a result of the successful working in later years of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received asking for an increase in the minimum penalty for persons who assault licensees of premises.

None recently.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have received a number of letters from constituents asking for protection because they have been attacked? Is he aware that it appears that this kind of crime is on the increase? Will he consider raising the minimum penalties for such crimes in an attempt to reduce the number of assaults?

I am aware of the general concern felt about all crimes of violence but as the statistics cannot show and never have shown the circumstances of the offence or the status of the victim, I cannot comment on the hon. Member's view that this particular type of assault is increasing. As to minimum penalties, we have no such penalties under other systems in the law.

Allowing for the fact that figures are not available, as was said in an answer to me yesterday, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is widespread feeling in the licensing trade that publicans are not getting protection, that many are being subjected to crimes of violence and that when those who commit these crimes eventually come to court the sentences are ludicrously lenient?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he cannot expect any Minister to comment on a sentence given in any particular case by a court. This must be a matter for the court, within the framework laid down by Parliament. As to the first part of this question, we will look at this.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, because a person who is over 18 and under 21 years of age may now vote at a local or parliamentary election but may not stand as a candidate at either, the Government intends to take steps to change this situation.

The analogy is not exact. My right hon. Friend remains to be persuaded of the justification for such a change.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he accept that in removing this anomaly he will not be distorting our system? To be nominated is not automatically to be elected to this House, as all hon. Members know. I ask him to act on this sooner rather than later.

There will be an opportunity, if the House wishes, on the Local Government Bill to discuss this matter in relation to local elections. Wider considerations come into operation when one considers parliamentary elections.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Marcus Fox) could help himself by tabling an Amendment in the Committee which is now considering the Local Government Bill and so breaking the self-imposed vow of silence of some hon. Members on that Committee.

I am sure that my hon. Friend heard that suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations he has given to the representations made to him by the West Yorkshire Police Joint Branch Board of the Police Federation that the proposed further reorganisation will have a disruptive effect.

My right hon. Friend has considered them carefully, along with comments from local and police authorities concerned. The Joint Branch Board has been informed that he would not feel justified in proposing the combination of the West and South Yorkshire metropolitan counties for police purposes.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is much discontent in Yorkshire? I know he is in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). But we in Yorkshire are concerned about the police force, so will the hon. Gentleman consider a unified police force within the geographical boundaries of Yorkshire?

The policy is that each new county should have its own force except when a new county is too small to secure its own efficient policing by modern standards. Each amalgamation scheme has been considered carefully by my right hon. Friend and myself. In certain cases we have reached conclusions but in others the conclusions still have to be announced.

As the Minister of State and the Home Secretary know, from their conversations with me and from officers of the Police Federation, there is deep and widespread concern about the disruptive effects more generally on the police of local government reorganisation. May we be assured that the Home Secretary will now enter into full and meaningful consultation with the Police Federation nationally on this important matter?

My right hon. Friend has had a talk with Police Federation representatives. He has considered very carefully the views which were put forward and is anxious to reduce the disruption to a minimum. None the less, the principle must remain that police authority areas must be related to local authority areas.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to require persons letting domestic accommodation to provide adequate fire escapes.

Where the occupants of domestic accommodation are at unusual risk in the event of fire, for example in high blocks of flats, legislation already exists to secure means of escape. My right hon. Friend sees no need for the legislation proposed.

How many people have lost their lives in the last two years from fires in rented accommodation? Would not many deaths have been prevented had a comparatively inexpensive collapsible ladder been attached to the wall below the upper window?

I cannot, without notice, give the figures for which my hon. Friend asks. He will know that, under the 1961 and 1969 Housing Acts, where houses are in multiple occupation the local authority can require such means of escape to be provided as it considers necessary. It would be very difficult to extend this provision to every private house.

Will the Minister of State look at the letter addressed to his right hon. Friend a few days ago complaining of the inadequate fire precautions at Arlington Lodge, a large block of flats on Brixton Hill, where the fire precaution arangements are unsatisfactory?

Yes, I will look carefully at that letter.

Will the Minister of State bear in mind that, although the legislation is there, the enforcement is not? A few months ago in my constituency a young couple lost their lives because the means of escape were inadequate. Will the Minister ensure the enforcement of this legislation by circularising local authorities and asking what steps they are taking?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Fire Precautions Act has recently become law and will be brought into operation by stages.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received asking for an inquiry into the Bentley-Craig case.

Five, from two correspondents.

In view of that answer, I assure the Home Secretary that he will get another letter tomorrow morning. Has he read the recent book by David Yallop on the Bentley-Craig case, which appears to raise a number of points of vital interest? If he has read it, will he comment on it? If he has not, is he prepared to consider the matter if I send him a copy of the book?

As the Under-Secretary of State said recently, I have received a copy and it has been studied. Of the five letters, four were received before the book was published.

How is it that the Home Secretary is able to spend time and money on assessing the number of letters he has received on a certain subject?

Perhaps my letters fall into more natural categories.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the latest trends in police recruitment.

Recruitment is improving and wastage is lower than in recent years. There has been a net gain in strength of 2,459 police officers in England and Wales in the first ten months of this year, compared with 1,986 for the whole of 1970.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those encouraging figures. Will he keep in mind that there is still leeway to make up, and will he continue to regard a stronger police force as the top priority in the fight against crime?

Yes, Sir, I accept that entirely. We are making progress, but we should like to see a lot more.

How many of these recruits are school-leavers who cannot find a job anywhere else because of high unemployment?

I cannot say without notice. Wastage is a much more serious problem than recruitment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times his Advisory Committee on Drug Abuse has met this year.

The non-statutory Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence was disbanded at the end of last year. The new statutory Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will be established next month.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a supply of so-called Chinese heroin is persistently available in a main London street? As no Advisory Committee is sitting at this time, will he take other action to stop this racket?

This is a matter which the police have very much in mind, and they have taken certain action.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he now has to reduce vandalism.

A strong and effective police force is the best deterrent to vandalism. The measures my right hon. Friend is taking to strengthen the police are already showing results. The Criminal Damage Act, which became law on 14th October, provides a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for most offences of criminal damage, and a maximum of life imprisonment for certain grave offences.

I wish the Minister well in those proposals. Is he aware that there is a greater public concern about vandalism than ever and that the problem needs to be looked at from two points of view? First, there is the short-term aspect. There need to be greater penalties of the kind described by the Minister. Second, from a long-term point of view there needs to be a study in depth of the causes of vandalism, some of which do not seem to fit the theories that many of us hold.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is concern. It is often difficult to arrest individual offenders for this type of offence. As to a study in depth of the causes of vandalism, if we all knew more about the causes of crime generally we might be able to reduce the crime figures.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the public feel that one of the most annoying results of vandalism is the damage to telephone boxes? Will he have discussions with our right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to see whether a system of lights or bells can be used so that such vandalism is more likely to be stopped sooner and the culprits arrested?

All types of vandalism are disquieting, but I will certainly take up with my right hon. Friend the suggestion my hon. Friend has made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the use of police dogs in industrial disputes and also at political meetings.

It would be contrary to normal practice to use police dogs at industrial or political gatherings.

Does the Home Secretary realise that the sending of police dogs to trade union meetings is more likely to provoke than prevent trouble? Therefore, will he consider dropping a hint to chief constables about the question, particularly in the light of last month's incident at London Airport, where police dogs actually bit a man and helped to provoke an industrial stoppage?

I do not think that further guidance to chief constables is required. A circular was issued by the Home Office in 1963 stating that:

"The Secretary of State wishes to draw attention to the special dangers of using dogs in the handling of even comparatively small crowds …".

Will the Home Secretary reconsider his previous reply and issue a definite, clear Government statement that under no circumstances should police dogs be used in industrial disputes, where their use is a provocation and exacerbates a situation that may already be difficult? Under such circumstances, the Government must give a clear lead.

I think that the instructions are quite clear. We believe that the circular issued by my predecessor in 1963 is absolutely right. The Commissioner has given general orders that dogs should not be used at demonstrations or political or industrial meetings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects that the Committee of Inquiry into the Liquor Licensing Law in England and Wales will publish its report.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) on 24th November.—[Vol. 826, c. 406.]

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the British pub, that it is the envy of the world, that it is part and parcel of our country scene and that it does not need altering in any fundamental manner?

We all have our own views on the position of the British pub, but I should have thought that my hon. Friend would agree that the whole range of our licensing laws certainly requires looking into.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what proportion of cases reasons are given when legal aid is refused to applicants.

I regret that this information is not available. Courts are not required to give reasons for refusing legal aid in criminal proceedings.

That is a most unsatisfactory answer. It is a great pity that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not have some kind of information. I have been told that many people are refused legal aid on no apparent grounds, aid which is probably due to them. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the position with a view to amending the Criminal Justice Bill to provide that applicants for legal aid are given the reasons for refusal?

My original answer was factual, that the information was not available. It is true that Justice and a memorandum from the Law Society have made this recommendation recently. Such views will be considered, but it is important to realise that the take-up of legal aid in magistrates' courts has increased enormously in the past four years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offences under the provisions of the reciprocal extradition agreement between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom; whether he proposes to seek an extension of this agreement to include other offences; and if he will make a statement.

Our extradition arrangements with the Irish Republic are based on reciprocal legislation which covers indictable offences and summary offences punishable on summary conviction with six months' imprisonment. I see no need to seek to extend these arrangements to lesser offences.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although this agreement on the face of it seems satisfactory, all too often its provisions can be frustrated in the Irish courts for what seem to be quite spurious reasons? Is he further aware that there is widespread and strong feeling about this matter and, although I do not ask him to comment in detail now, would he be kind enough to convey this view to the Irish Government?

My hon. and gallant Friend voices a view that is well known in this country. It would be bad enough if I were to comment on the action of the courts in this country, but it would certainly be wrong and improper of me as Home Secretary to comment on the actions of courts in another country.

Whether or not my right hon. Friend comments on this matter, will he at least consider setting on foot a study to look into how the practice of extradition is in conformity with the Irish Republic's own law, and indeed with international law? If necessary, will he consider taking this matter to the International Court of Justice?

I would be prepared to consider any suggestion put to me that the arrangements are not satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take on the report of the Home Office committee he has received dealing with complaints against the police.

I will, with permission, answer this at the end of Question time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his departmental review of the law concerning soliciting by men and women, with particular reference to the decision by the Queen's Bench in Crook v. Edmondson in 1966 on this subject.

The review is of a wide range of vagrancy and street offences, including the nuisance which my hon. Friend has in mind. I cannot yet forecast when it will be completed.

Would my hon. and learned Friend not agree that the judgment in 1966 not only classified women as second-class citizens in this area of the law but also revealed a discrepancy in the Sexual Offences Act—a discrepancy which should be dealt with as soon as the opportunity arises?

I would not accept that the judgment classified women as second-class citizens. I agree that it threw up a discrepancy in the working of the Sexual Offences Act. This is the reason for the review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce legislation to control the trading habits of supermarkets in regard to their methods of apprehending people whom they suspect of shoplifting.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the police are concerned about the different attitude as between one company and another? Is he also aware that in one case the county police force is refusing to prosecute cases brought by certain companies? Would he look into the situation since this problem is worrying not only police but also many housewives?

Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, a working party is considering all these matters, together with the useful suggestions put forward by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases in 1970 and 1971 compensation was allowed to persons acquitted by criminal courts after spending a long period in custody before trial.

In this period ex gratia payments were made to three convicted persons subsequently acquitted by the Court of Appeal either on appeal or following a reference to that Court under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1968. There were no payments to persons acquited by the court of trial.

Is this not an appalling situation and should not the Home Office give urgent attention to the situation which now prevails in France and Germany, where arrangements have been made to give generous compensation to people who have been detained for long periods and ultimately acquitted?

I do not accept that it shows an appalling situation. The position has always been that ex gratia payments are made from public funds to those acquitted only where there has been some negligence or misconduct on the part of the police or some other public authority or official.