asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the extenuating family circumstances, he will reconsider on compassionate grounds his decision to deport Mr. George Kyriacou, the Cypriot husband of a British passport holder.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend took full account of all the relevant circumstances before deciding to act on the recommendation for Mr. Kyriacou's deportation.

While appreciating the repeated reconsideration which my hon. Friend has given to the case of my constituent, although regretting the final decision, may I ask him, first, how soon can Mrs. Kyriacou expect her husband to be reconsidered for re-entry once he is deported, and can a new application be considered once he has been deported? Secondly, what consideration has been given by the Government to giving the same rights of citizenship to British women marrying non-British husbands, as happens in reverse when British males marry non-British women, thereby automatically conferring British citizenship on them? Is not the lack of any proposals to deal with these matters a somewhat unfair discrimination against women?

On the first point, my right hon. Friend does not normally consider revoking deportation orders until at least three years have passed. It is open to Mr. Kyriacou himself to apply for revocation as soon as he wishes, but until and unless the order is revoked he cannot reapply for readmission. On my hon. Friend's other questions, I do not agree that this is discrimination against women. The reasons for the present rule, which began under the party opposite, are well understood. However, my hon. Friend's point may be considered in the review of our nationality law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are still engaged on sewing mail bags by hand; and in which prisons this is still being done.

About 1,500 in England and Wales. I will, with permission, circulate the particulars of the 26 establishments in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I am obliged for that reply, but a little disappointed at its content. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that as long ago as 1967 the House was told that with the appointment of the Director of Prison Industries and the reorganisation which would ensue this would disappear? It obviously has not. How does the Minister think that it helps the rehabilitation of an offender?

It has not disappeared, that is true, but in the last 10 years the proportion of prisoners working on the hand-sewing of mail bags has dropped from 30 per cent. of the total work-force to 10 per cent. So we have made substantial progress towards eliminating it.

Despite the reduction of the labour force employed on this work, is my hon. and learned Friend not aware that there are much more efficient ways of making mail bags than by hand sewing? Would it not be better if all prisoners were engaged on much more useful and constructive work?

As a matter of principle, I entirely agree. Much more machine sewing of mail bags is being done, but I think that my hon. Friend will accept that there is within that population of 1,500 a certain number whose ability to do jobs is very limited.

When considering the prison programme in general and training in particular, will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that in Lancaster Prison the training facilities—although every use has been made of every available cranny—are severely limited? Will he therefore consider rebuilding the prison on a new site, so that the castle may revert to its proper use as a castle and tourist attraction?

I am conscious that there is a shortage of resources for work in many prisons and I note what my hon. Friend says about Lancaster, but I cannot give her any promises about its rebuilding.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving the use of firearms were recorded in 1972; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be in a position to announce his conclusions upon the results now before him of the review of the law relating both to genuine and imitation firearms conducted by the former Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to announce what action he proposes to take upon the report he has received relating to the retail sale in the United Kingdom of imported realistic model firearms.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of recent experience, he will now take steps to ban the sale of replica firearms that cost about £15 each and are unsuitable for use as toys.

The provisional number of offences in England and Wales in which firearms were fired, used as a blunt instrument to cause injury or damage, or used as a threat, is 2,069. I intend to publish in the near future my provisional conclusions on the review of firearms law, and to invite comment on them before I decide what proposals to place before Parliament. The need for a ban on realistic imitation firearms, which would cover many children's toys, is one of the issues on which I shall welcome views before reaching final conclusions.

That statement will be generally welcomed. Is it not a fact that crimes involving the use of firearms in this country are now rising at an alarming rate? Will my right hon. Friend also note that armed crime is also increasing in other European countries? Is there not therefore an urgent need that we should take action upon a European basis to control the supply of these illegal firearms?

It is unfortunately true that crimes involving the use of firearms are rising and the provisional figure I have just given for 1972, unfortunately, shows an increase over the previous year and confirms that trend. It is also true that this is not peculiar to this country. The need is urgent. I am hoping to put forward my proposals in a matter of weeks rather than months and I assure the House that I will treat them urgently. I also take note of the point about the need for European co-operation. I certainly welcome what we are doing about drugs in this connection. I should like to extend it to firearms, but in seeking for wider co-operation I do not think that I should delay action which we can take in Britain.

I welcome the Home Secretary's remarks. Is he aware that the British Safety Council has been advocating measures with regard to replica and toy guns for the last 10 years? Does not he agree that it would be simpler to cut off the supply of replica guns, which are not always the same as toy guns, simply by banning their importation, as all of them apparently come from one source?

It is not as simple as just banning the import of replica guns, because many of the toy guns—if that be the word—manufactured in this country, as well as those imported, are sufficiently realistic to be mistaken for the real thing, at least when seen quickly just looking down the barrel. These are manufactured at home as well as abroad. It is a serious problem.

May I urge my right hon. Friend to use the utmost expedition in publishing his recommendations? The difficulty about publicity concerning the sale and purchase of replica guns is that it tends to increase purchases of them by people who otherwise would not be buying them and using them in pursuit of wrongdoing. Therefore, may I urge my right hon. Friend to review what he has just said and to make it a matter of days instead of weeks?

I shall certainly act as quickly as possible on this matter, but it is a very difficult matter, because it covers the whole field of toy guns as well as anything approaching a genuine replica. This is very difficult, because, quite apart from what one does about the future, vast numbers of these things are in the possession of families and people throughout the country. So I would be foolish to underestimate the difficulty.

I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. Will he draw the attention of his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to the fact that sentences for carrying firearms have not increased proportionately to changes in maximum sentences as agreed by Parliament? Might not something be done in that respect?

I shall certainly discuss the question with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. It is, of course, a precious tradition in this country that we cannot tell the courts how they are to sentence. But the more public concern that is displayed about this matter the more likely it is that the courts will reflect that concern. I must be frank with the hon. Lady, in that I have not yet thought of the question of an amnesty, but I shall give it some thought, as she has mentioned it. The whole question of licences is very much part and parcel of the proposals that I shall be putting forward.

How many of the guns involved in these offences were legally held?

I could not answer that question off the cuff. I doubt whether I could do so even after research, because one does not always catch both the criminal and the gun. I am afraid that the figure is probably unobtainable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that magistrates are conversant with the effects of Section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, in actions brought under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

An explanatory booklet —"Criminal Justice Act 1972: A Guide for the Courts"—which has been distributed individually to magistrates and others describes the new compensation powers and includes a reference to the power to order compensation in respect of offences under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is highly desirable that consumers who are involved in successful prosecutions under the Trade Descriptions Act should get the full benefit of the provisions of Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act for compensation and that magistrates should automatically make the necessary court orders in such cases? Is he satisfied that this is being done in the majority of appropriate cases?

It is highly desirable that the wider strength of the powers of the courts under the Criminal Justice Act to award compensation should be as widely publicised as possible. My hon. Friend has mentioned particular cases, but it is right to point out that there may be some matters, particularly under the Trade Descriptions Act, which can raise difficult issues of liability which may not be appropriate for a magistrates' court. Regarding the use that has so far been made of the Act, it is still too early to say, but I have the impression that considerably wider use is being made of the power to award compensation.

In the information which he is issuing will the hon. and learned Gentleman give special consideration to the problem that arises with written misrepresentations on the specific subject of hearing aids sold to elderly people? In this area it seems that magistrates are not aware of the very fine lines being drawn from time to time, which make liability difficulty to pin.

That may be a slightly different question. But in so far as manufacturers of hearing aids commit offences under the Trade Descriptions Act they can be convicted, in which case the magistrates can also order compensation in respect of the loss of the value of the hearing aid that has been sold.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the operation of Section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 with regard to the repatriation of Commonwealth immigrants; and how many families have been repatriated since the section came into operation.

Thirty families have so far been assisted to leave this country under the Section 29 scheme. The results of our review of the scheme will be announced as soon as possible.

My hon. Friend will know that as long ago as 1st February my right hon. Friend said "shortly" in reference to the announcement of the conclusions of the review. Does he feel that International Social Service is the right agency to deal with the implementation of Section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971? Will he confirm that less than 5 per cent. of the cases of families who have requested the application have been settled?

We shall announce the results as soon as possible, but we want to be sure that we are getting right any changes we propose to make. We have absolute confidence in International Social Service in administering this matter, and I have discussed it recently with the director of ISS. But the applications dealt with are nothing like as small in number as my hon. Friend has suggested. He may have worked out a figure of families out of total applications, but the main number of applications made have proved to be ineligible under the scheme, for good reasons.

Are not the delays experienced by people seeking repatriation and help for repatriation absolutely inordinate, and is not the bureaucracy involved far too extensive?

No, I do not accept that. The cases have to be examined carefully and thoroughly. If ISS finds that it needs more staff to do the job more thoroughly and quickly, we shall consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce amendments to the Street Offences Act 1959.

As I said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 22nd January, a review of the law on vagrancy and street offences is being carried out by the Departments concerned. My right hon. Friend has no proposals for legislation before that review has been completed.—[Vol. 849, c. 28.]

Is not the Minister of State aware that that kind of reply is of no help to my constituents? Why should perfectly respectable women and teenage girls be continually molested and abused by car drivers who come into parts of my constituency trying to pick up prostitutes? The Act has been in force for 14 years. Surely the time has now come when the Minister could introduce an amendment which would allow the police to prosecute motorists who are seeking prostitutes. It happens in my area and in many other areas of the country, and we are fed up with the inactivity of the Minister in trying to solve this problem.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman says that my reply is of no help to his constituents. I should have thought that they would be glad to hear that the Government have set up a working party to review the Street Offences Act so as to look particularly at this point. The committee was set up in September 1971 and should shortly be completing its review, but no steps or legislation in advance of that review can be taken.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Isle of Man will now be subject to the rules and regulations relating to freedom of movement and employment within the European Economic Community; and what steps he intends to take to protect United Kingdom citizens who settle in the Isle of Man.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir". In answer to the second part, my right hon. Friend sees no need for any further protection than already exists. The Crown is already represented in the island—which is a parliamentary democracy—with the normal forms of redress available through the courts.

How is it that the Isle of Man continues to enjoy the protection of the United Kingdom but apparently will not be subject to the rules and regulations of the Common Market? How is it that Isle of Man persons can come to the United Kingdom and seek employment without restriction, but the reverse situation does not apply? In view of the fact that United Kingdom citizens who go to foreign countries can obtain assistance from Her Majesty's consuls, should not a similar facility be available to United Kingdom persons who go to the Isle of Man?

I will look further into the point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, which I think is more for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will know that there are a number of people in the Isle of Man who because of their main connection with the United Kingdom have free movement within the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of convictions under Section 20(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 relating to armed trespass; and what has been the average fine imposed.

In the years 1969 to 1971, 3,358 persons were found guilty in England and Wales of offences under Section 20(2) of the Firearms Act 1968. Of these, 3,037 were fined: the average fine was £6·99.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he said, but does he not agree that it is ridiculous that a trivial fine of this nature should be paid for a serious offence? Will he ask the Home Secretary to call the Lord Chancellor's attention to this aspect of crime, bearing in mind that the maximum fine laid down by Parliament is £200 with a sentence of six months' imprisonment?

I can repeat only what my hon. Friend well knows—that it is not for Home Office Ministers to comment on the use of the court's powers to sentence in individual cases. However, I confirm that under the Criminal Justice Act as from 1st January this year the maximum penalty was raised from £100 to £200 and the courts should take note of the maximum penalty as the framework within which they act. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary heard my hon. Friend's comments.

Will the Minister of State say whether that fine is also typical of non-poaching offences, because if that is so it is ludicrous? Will he let us know what happened as the result of the discussions with the Lord Chancellor on sentencing policy?

All I can say is that if the hon. Member puts down a Question I shall try to give him an answer on other types of firearms offences. I cannot do so without notice.

In view of the ease with which firearms can be purchased—and I refer not to toy guns but to deadly Lugers and the like—in the greater London area by people without a licence, is it not obvious that the deterrents are not sufficiently heavy? Has my hon. and learned Friend considered increasing the penalties and, more particularly, reintroducing capital punishment where death results from the use of firearms?

For the type of offences that my hon. Friend has in mind we have substantially increased the maximum penalties, in most cases up to life, for the use of firearms in these circumstances. My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say earlier that we are considering the report on the control of firearms and that he hopes shortly to be in a position to put proposals before the House. As for the last part of the question, the Government have no further comment to make.

In view of the grave consequences of offences of this type does not the Minister think that it would be more sensible to specify minimum terms of imprisonment and minimum fines?

It depends on the type of offences that the hon. Member has in mind. Section 22 deals with trespassing on land while armed. The maximum penalty for that offence is a fine of £200. I do not agree with the idea of minimum penalties. Minimum penalties, either imprisonment or fines, create injustice because they do not allow the court to take adequately into account all the circumstances.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve relations between the police and the coloured community in the Metropolitan Police district.

My right hon. Friend is giving every encouragement to the wide variety of steps taken by the Commis- sioner of Police of the Metropolis to foster and maintain good relations with coloured people. These include the appointment of laison officers, special training arrangements and formal and informal meetings with representatives of the different communities.

May I pay tribute to the Metropolitan Police for the efforts they have taken in trying to foster good community relations? Will the Government provide public money to continue the scholarships which have been available for police officers to travel to countries from which coloured people come, and which have been extremely successful? Will the Minister of State make use of the suggestions of the Select Committee on Race Relations that attempts should be made to recruit more coloured policemen, and perhaps look for recruitment from traffic wardens, with training schemes provided to enable them to pass police entry examinations?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said about the Metropolitan Police. They do a great deal to help community relations. I will bear in mind his comments made about assistance for those sent abroad to study the problems of community relations. As for recruiting coloured policemen, although the figure is not large, we have 12 coloured policemen and one coloured policewoman in the Metropolitan force.

In taking steps to ensure good relations between the police and the coloured community will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that good relations between the police and any part of the community are a two-way matter? Will he do his best to ensure that those who are concerned with the coloured community, leaders in youth clubs and elsewhere, do their best to educate the coloured community in the duties of the police and the obligations of a good citizen in this country?

I entirely agree with what my hon. and learned Friend has said. A responsibility clearly rests on community leaders to do their best to ensure good relations with the police as well.

Is the Minister of State aware that, whatever conditions prevail outside the parliamentary constituency of Brixton, I have had no complaints for quite a long time from my constituents about worsening community relations or undesirable conduct on the part of the police? My constituents have many other things to complain about.

I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. That again shows, as the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Faser) said, that the Metropolitan Police are making great efforts in this matter, and are being successful.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the working of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is in general satisfied with the working of the immigration appeal system as modified by the Immigration Act 1971.

Is the Minister aware of two of my constituents who experienced some delay before their appeals were heard? Will he take action to speed up the work of the tribunals hearing appeals on this matter?

Yes. I know that there have been delays in a number of individual cases, and I should like to shorten the time. We have taken steps to try to streamline the process but if we are to be sure that the system is fair and thorough, matters cannot always progress as fast as we should like.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in some parts of the world the system is working anything but satisfactorily, and a very large backlog of appeals remains to be worked off? That will continue as long as people are able to appeal without any kind of condition, and as often as they please. If our posts overseas are to be given any chance to deal with what they have on their hands, the system must be urgently overhauled.

I am aware of the point that my right hon. Friend has made and I am looking at it at the moment. I will discuss it further with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whose staff are also involved in this matter.

We must preserve the right to appeal in all cases where a decision has been made. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of publicity for decisions made by the adjudicators or the tribunal? It would help if there was a system of law reporting from the tribunal. On the whole, the Press do not cover these cases.

I will have another look at that. My impression from seeing the appeal system at work and seeing the judgments on paper is that on the whole it is working fairly from the individual's point of view. However, if more publicity would be helpful I will consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's internal review on shoplifting.

The working party is expected to report within the next few months.

I do not wish in any way to exonerate the large number of dishonest people who are active in supermarkets. However, does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that those who introduce a system of shopping, or whatever, which results in an increase in crime must bear some responsibility as accessories towards paying for the cost of trying to reduce this crime?

I do not accept that they bear responsibility as accessories. What I concede—and what I have always conceded—is that modern methods of shopping and the way in which goods are displayed undoubtedly offer greater temptation.

Is it not right that a substantial proportion of those who are charged with shoplifting and whose cases come before juries are acquitted? Is there not an intolerable risk that the innocent will be charged and that they will become ill with anxiety long before they are acquitted?

I do not think that there is any evidence that the innocent are more likely to risk prosecution for shoplifting than for other offences. It is true that the proportion of those acquitted by a jury is quite high, but my recollection is that it is not very much higher than the average for other offences.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are many prosecutions for shoplifting as a result of determination on the part of hops where shop detectives, either because of zeal or from pressure from the management, push into court cases which should never go there in the first place?

One must keep a sense of proportion. I have always accepted that there is concern about the possibility of people being wrongly accused of shoplifting. Equally, one has to bear in mind that a substantial volume of goods are being stolen from shops. Dishonesty of all kinds must be dealt with. Therefore, the shops have a responsibility to take what steps they can—including preventive measures—to avoid shoplifting. They are entitled to use their own people to arrest those who are committing this offence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which organisations he has received representations supporting and opposing, respectively, the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee on Evidence (General); and if he will make a statement as to the Government's policies concerning the proposals contained in the report.

Representations have been received from 25 organisations, although some are of only an interim nature and at least one organisation with a major interest has yet to submit its comments. In general, organisations have indicated that they support some proposals but oppose others, and it is not possible to divide them simply into "supporters" and "opponents".

Is it not right that the Bar, the solicitors' profession, distinguished judges, Justice, and a number of other organisations have expressed grave disquiet about the major proposals that have been made by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, in particular, the proposals regarding the introduction of previous convictions, the abolition of the caution and the abolition of the present rules against self-incrimination? Is there not an almost united expression of opinion against these recommendations?

It is true that certain organisations which have put in representations have taken strong exception to some recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee—including the Bar Council. The Law Society's comments have not yet been received by the Home Office.

In view of the widespread criticisms by the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and other bodies of the recommendation suggesting the abolition of the right to silence in police stations, and the injustice that this proposal is likely to cause in future in the conduct of a trial, will the hon. and learned Gentleman at least say that he does not propose to implement that proposal?

No. I can only repeat what I have already said, namely, that we are giving careful consideration to all the representations that have been made. There has been a debate in another place and we have undertaken that we will listen to opinion in this House before coming to any conclusion. I am not prepared, in advance, to reject or accept any particular recommendation.

Who, apart from the Lord Chief Justice, has supported the abolition of the right to silence in interrogation?

If an individual answer is required to that question I will have to have notice of it. As far as I know, it was recommended by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which consists of many eminent judges. Certainly we have had representations both ways on all the committee's recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the latest figures available to him of the Ugandan Asian refugees still remaining in Resettlement Board establishments.

On 28th February there were 4,121 refugees in the Uganda Resettlement Board's centres.

Does my hon. Friend not regard that as an excessive figure, bearing in mind the time that has elapsed? What discussions is he having with the board about an effective policy of permanent settlement over a very wide area?

I do not accept that it is a large figure. On the contrary, considering the difficulties, I think that the progress made has been very good, and reflects a lot of credit on the board, the local authorities, and others who have been at the receiving end. I know the anxiety of my hon. Friend and others about where the remaining refugees may go. There is hope that a higher proportion of them will go to more remote areas, where there are not already concentrations, than has been the case with the first few thousand who were resettled.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that up to now there has been a concentration in certain areas of immigrants from the Uganda Resettlement Board? I am sure that he is aware that this is causing enormous problems for local authorities such as the London Borough of Ealing.

And Leicester.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to have consultations with his colleagues in other Departments to try to reverse the policy where local authorities claim that the Government have been mean and insufficient in their aid? The Government say that at least it is equal. That does not help local authorities. Will the hon. Gentleman press the Government to do something for them?

I do not accept the implication in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have visited a number of these areas, including Ealing yesterday and Leicester a few weeks ago. I know the difficulties. I hope that the hon. Member will recognise the additional help which has been given by both the Uganda Resettlement Board and the normal working of the rate support grant machinery.

Has my hon. Friend seen reports in the Press today of a Mr. Dhanda, who had been deported overseas as an illegal immigrant here but who returned and found employment, apparently without difficulty? Would not it be easier to resettle and find employment for those immigrants who are here legally if the Home Office could be more efficient about preventing illegal immigrants coming in?

I have seen the reports and I am having special inquiries made into that case. Cases such as the one reported in the Press this morning are very rare. We are always looking for ways of improving our defences against both illegal immigration and overstaying.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to report further on his discussions with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, on the admission to this country of Ugandan Asians whose relatives and dependants are already in this country.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) on 22nd February.—[Vol. 851. c. 146–7.]

We welcome the line that the right hon. Gentleman has taken in the matter. The Question was put down before his statement. I assure him that we welcome the fact that relatives are to be admitted to this country.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I emphasised from the beginning that we could not take responsibility for those who were not our citizens, but once the United Nations had firmly accepted that responsibility and after it was seen that it was being so successful in meeting it, with the assistance of other countries, I thought it right for this country to take those few hundred extra people whose families were already here.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the use being made of voluntary effort in home defence preparations for dealing with civil emergencies.

In a matter of this kind there is always scope for improvement. But I am satisfied that the Government's policy is clear and well understood by all concerned. My right hon. Friend and I will continue to urge local authorities to make the maximum use of voluntary effort in support of their emergency plans.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that there is now a firm requirement for the recognition, encouragement and instruction of an entirely voluntary body, whose rôle during hostilities would be civil defence? Were such a body now in existence it would be able to offer extremely valuable help in certain hospitals.

I am not sure that there is a need to create a new body. I remind my hon. and gallant Friend of the existence of the National Voluntary Civil Aid Society. Leaders of the local operational units of that society are in contact with either civil defence officers or the new county emergency planning teams, when they are established, over the rôle of their units in various emergency situations.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept from the Opposition that it would be totally unacceptable to use civil defence in any way for strike breaking?

That is another matter. I am aware that many of our difficulties in maintaining a good civil defence organisation originate in the decision of the Labour Government in 1968 to run it down virtually to nothing.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider the Government's decision that there should be no grant aid to local authorities for either the training or the administration of volunteers?

I am not prepared to reconsider that at this stage. I prefer to see how we get on with the arrangements we announced in the circular about a year ago. There is scope for Government aid for training generally, though not specifically for volunteers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the Immigration Act 1971 so that the time in which the police can prosecute any immigrants who have come to the United Kingdom as visitors and have overstayed their landing conditions is no longer restricted.

No, Sir. Prosecution for overstaying is already the subject of an extended time limit under Section 24(3) of the Immigration Act 1971.

Is my hon. Friend aware that certain members of the police force who deal with this aspect seem to think that the 1971 Act implies that those immigrants who come here as visitors and overstay their term are secure provided they remain safe from arrest for three years, and that people coming on certain conditions for employment are clear provided they manage to stay away from the police for six months? Before 1971 the offence was a continuing one. Could not the position be made clear to the police?

There should be no misunderstanding. The position is not as my hon. Friend has stated it. I should like to discuss further with him any misunderstandings that there may be. I hope that he saw reports of the court case the other day which confirmed that we now have powers to prosecute after years and not months, as has been the case.

Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter? The case to which he referred suggests that a man can be deported at any time, with no time limit, whereas Section 28 of the Act says that the time limit should be three years. That time limit was inserted specifically as a safeguard against blackmail. If the Act allows a man to be deported at any time, a real threat of blackmail persists.

I shall re-examine the matter, but I am sure that we were right to take stronger powers, and we shall not hesitate to use them.

Is it not a fact that the amount of evasion through the route mentioned in the Question is enormous, and that the number of visitors and students who are given permission to stay on is so great that immigration control, from those two factors, is virtually stultified?

I do not accept that. There is a problem; many people are trying to get round the regulations. But day by day, and week by week, cases are found and brought to the courts, and those who have been guilty of evasion are being deported.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry in the matters of explaining the operation of value added tax, especially upon small businesses.

I have been asked to reply.

Does not much alarmist criticism alleging the inflationary effects of the new tax invariably conceal the fact that price reductions must result from the simultaneous abolition of purchase tax and SET? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that much remains to be done to explain the operation of VAT, especially to people who cannot afford to take professional advice?

I agree with my hon. Friend on all those points. Certainly, there is alarmist criticism. There must be some price reductions resulting from VAT replacing purchase tax and SET. There is machinery to try to make sure that those reductions take place. I agree that, as is perhaps inevitable, there is still some lack of knowledge and understanding. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be arranging for a major public information campaign after his Budget next week, and Customs and Excise officers will step up their activities during the remaining period.

Is the acting Prime Minister aware that the imposition of VAT, coupled with the returns required under the Government's prices and incomes policy, is placing an intolerable burden on the small shopkeeper and the small business, which makes the Labour Party look like the party of free enterprise and laissez-faire?

I am glad, for the well-being of the country, that I am not acting Prime Minister.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the meetings arranged to explain the tax and its operation to small businessmen have not had the greatest regard to their needs, in terms of geography and timing? May that matter be looked into?

Yes, indeed. I shall look into it. We all have our own local experiences. I have been impressed, from talking to small shopkeepers in my constituency, by the number of meetings that have been available for them to attend. Customs and Excise officers have already addressed about 7,500 meetings throughout the country, so the meetings have been pretty widespread.

Will the Government take action over firms that are exploiting in advance the advent of VAT? For example, will they take action over the large advertisement for kitchen units that I am now holding, which states:

"All the above units will go up by the full 10 per cent. on 1st April"?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs to specific cases. I am sure that he will deal with them very actively. There are specific powers in the Counter-Inflation Bill to enable price reductions to be ordered wherever it is proved that proper allowance has not been made for the abolition of the other two taxes and their replacement by the new one.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with co-ordination between the Government Departments involved in the introduction of value added tax.

I have been asked to reply.

If in the lifetime of the Government the European Economic Community seeks to harmonise rates of value added tax throughout the Community and to extend its coverage to food, will the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, assure the House and the country that the Government will use their veto to prevent such a move?

In spite of my immediate demonstration of open-mindedness, I am afraid that I cannot be drawn on a hypothetical question of that nature.

Will the Minister tell the House whether, in fixing the appropriate rate for prices after the introduction of VAT, the Department of Trade and Industry will insist on retailers maintaining a constant percentage margin rather than a constant cash margin? The Minister will be aware that this will make all the difference in the final relationship between VAT prices and pre-VAT prices?

That is an important point, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it is not in my field. We have taken powers, in the Counter-Inflation Bill now before Parliament, to deal with this. We have also taken powers to extend the standstill until 29th April, to make easier the isolation of the examination and control of the effects of the introduction of VAT.

With respect, the whole impact of VAT on the retail price index and the cost of living will depend on the Government's decision. Is the Prime Minister's deputy not in a position to give the House any decision on this matter a few weeks before the tax comes into effect?

With my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about to introduce his Budget on Tuesday, in which he will have a great deal to say about VAT, I am well within the normal traditions in not being drawn in detail on this point.

Is my right hon. Friend not in agreement with the case that I have been putting, that there are serious anomalies in VAT? The Government are anxious to see as many houses built as possible, but is not my right hon. Friend aware that a person building a house for himself has to pay VAT on the materials whereas a person building a house for sale does not?

There may well be some anomalies associated with VAT, as there are with any form of taxation that has ever been devised. I am sure that there are fewer anomalies associated with VAT than there are either with purchase tax or selective employment tax, which it replaces.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Departments of Health and Social Security and Education and Science in respect of screening, referral, monitoring and education of deaf children.

I have been asked to reply.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he satisfied that the screening of young children is taking place at a sufficiently early stage to discover deafness and impairment of hearing in advance? Is he satisfied that all health visitors are carrying out the test properly? Is he also satisfied that deaf children are going to the best possible schools? Could not the inquiry cover all these points and look into the matter thoroughly?

In general principle I am satisfied, because one of the regular functions of health visitors is to screen children from the age of six months. Health visitors are given specific instructions in this matter. The same is true in schools. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is aware of any general shortage of places, bearing in mind that wherever possible these children should not be separated in special schools because such hearing as they have ought to be encouraged by contact with ordinary children. Nevertheless, I believe that over many years this country has failed to appreciate the tremendous handicap of deafness, as compared with some other disabilities. That is why this review of total facilities and needs is going on.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the needs of deaf children in rural areas? I have in mind particularly the problem, for example, in rural Wales. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people sometimes have to travel up to 100 miles to a screening centre? Will he look carefully into the position to ensure that facilities for screening, education and training are provided much nearer the locality which they are intended to serve?

Rural areas with dispersed populations always provide difficulties, and not only in this connection. I shall certainly see that the hon. Gentleman's point about rural Wales is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Will my right hon. Friend extend the review of co-ordination to mentally handicapped children, many of whom are still not being properly schooled and who are just as much in need as deaf children? Is he aware that this is a very serious problem, since these children were brought into the educational service only in 1971? There ought to be co-ordination throughout.

I shall certainly take account of my hon. Friend's point. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and certainly all of those cognisant of these problems, must accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has an outstanding record in this respect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this subject we are about five years behind the times in co-ordination between the Health and Education Departments? Does he realise that as a result of technological breakthrough it is now possible for testing to be carried out at the age of three months, but that the proper machinery is not available here? Is he further aware that the whole question of the way in which the service should be given to deaf children has lagged behind for the last 10 years? Will he get a little bit of expedition into this matter?

I have made clear before that I believe that this country has lagged behind in the attention paid to deafness. I first became personally aware of this when I became a junior Minister at the Ministry of Labour and realised how much more difficult it was to find jobs for deaf people as compared with blind persons.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment in regard to factory closures.

I have been asked to reply.

Greater London would not agree with that reply. It is that sort of languid—

Order. The hon. Member should not preface a question with a statement. May we have a question?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that languid and complacent reply in no way helps the situation in the metropolis generally and West Middlesex particularly? Is he further aware that many firms are moving out, creating many problems, and that despite repeated requests to Government Departments nothing much has been done to help? Will he be good enough to convey to the Prime Minister the concern of the people of greater London and West Middlesex particularly about this problem on their doorsteps?

Local problems are always caused when a firm closes down and moves elsewhere. What I am aware of is that in the Ealing district and the greater London area generally the number of unfilled male vacancies has more than doubled in the past year, and unemployment is at present at the rate of 1·6 per cent.

There are much lower wages.

I am also aware that it has been the policy of successive Governments to do their best to attract industry to the development regions where there are major unemployment problems. When we are successful in doing that I would hope that we would have the support of all sides of the House, and not criticism.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the South-East and elsewhere there are many people who, if they wanted to work, could jolly well find it?

In some parts of the country that is true, but in other parts, alas, it is not. That is the reason for a strong regional policy, and that is why we ought to welcome—while regretting the temporary difficulty caused in the hon. Member's constituency, and in neighbouring districts—the movement of the one firm that I expect he has particularly in mind to a development area.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that when he was Secretary of State for Employment he advised Londoners to retrain for clerical work if factories closed? Is he further aware that in the last 11 years London has lost 440,000 manual jobs? Should he not review his ideas and advise employers in London not to close down their factories if we are to maintain a balance between manual trades and clerical workers?

All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that there is no sign of a shortage of jobs in the London area at the moment. There are increasing facilities for training and retraining, which is most important. We must take an overall national view of this and welcome the dispersal of manufacturing industry to those areas of the country where it has been the policy of successive Governments to try to attract it.

Since the Government have taken powers to help substantial "lame ducks" will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the machinery will be used for the small "lame ducklings", one of which I drew to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry this afternoon?

As Home Secretary I am responsible for wild birds, but I am not sure about "lame ducks". One thing I do know is that the firm whose move I believe has given rise to this question is far from being a "lame duck".

asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Pakistan.

I have been asked to reply.

When the Government communicate with the President of Pakistan will they assure him, in the name of humanity, of the strong feeling in this country that the 94,000 Pakistani prisoners of war being held by India should be unconditionally and immediately released? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that that point of view will also be put forcefully to the Indian Government?

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government, like everyone in the House, want to see these prisoners of war repatriated as soon as possible. I do not want to say anything today which might make that more difficult.

As the spirit of Simla has not yet extended to the repatriation of prisoners of war, may I ask my right hon. Friend to suggest a trilateral meeting in London, particularly since the consent of Bangladesh is regarded by the Indians as a sine qua non for the release of the prisoners?

I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I would not wish to pre-judge his view. In situations like this, calling conferences outside the area concerned sometimes hardens attitudes rather than softens them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to tell Mr. Bhutto that he should accept the realities of the situation and recognise Bangladesh, so that the Pakistani soldiers now being detained in India could be returned? Is he further aware that, in addition, hundreds of thousands of Bangalees who are kept in Pakistan would be allowed to return home? That would be the solution.

This is clearly a complex and controversial problem. I want to avoid saying anything which might make the repatriation of prisoners more difficult.

Although this is a complicated problem, does not my right hon. Friend accept that if the prisoners are retained for much longer relations between India and Pakistan may be poisoned for a generation? Does he agree that the Government should take advantage of the good will we have with both countries to try to promote discussions between them?

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall use any good relations we have with both these countries which might help them to a settlement. It is very much in the interests of the Indian subcontinent, as well as of the poor people directly involved, that this problem should be solved.