asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, with a view to legislation, he will set up an inquiry into the numbers of acquittals in jury trials.

My right hon. Friend has no plans for a formal inquiry, but the significance of the statistics for acquittals in contested trials is one of the many subjects in the field of criminal law which are being considered for future research.

I am pleased to note the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend. He in turn will have noted the remarks of Sir Robert Mark, who has revealed that in London juries have acquitted 41 per cent. of all defendants in recent months and has called for impartial and extensive research into the jury system. To disprove the suggestion—

Order. The hon. Member must ask a question, preferably a brief one.

To disprove the suggestion that large numbers of guilty men are getting away with it, does not my hon. and learned Friend feel that urgent research is required?

The 41 per cent. is the figure of acquittals in contested cases. If one includes all the cases of indictable offences that go for trial, the overall figure of acquittals is 7·5 per cent.

If an inquiry is held, in the light of recent publicity will consideration be given to the importance of ensuring that in sex trials there are women members of the jury?

Under the Criminal Justice Act 1972, as from March next year juries will be taken from the electoral roll. That will rectify the present imbalance between men and women on juries.

May it not be that the 41 per cent. quoted by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) were innocent of the crime with which they were charged? Should there not be research into the way in which juries reach their decision, in view of the analysis by the Oxford Group and the interesting article by Dudley Stamp in Modern Law Review?

I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that 41 per cent. is a high figure, whether it refers to innocent people who have been wrongly charged or to people who have been wrongly acquitted. I agree that research into the jury system is a matter that might be considered, although one has to be careful not to attempt to interfere with the privacy of the jury room.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now concluded his review of the toiletry industry with regard to hexachlorophane; and if he will make a statement.

The use of hexachlorophane in non-medicinal toilet preparations and cosmetics is under consideration in the European Economic Community. Meanwhile, the associations representing manufacturers in this country have agreed to comply with the recommendation of the Department of Health and Social Security's Sub-Committee on Toxicity that hexachlorophane should not be used at all in baby products and should be subject to an upper limit of 01 per cent. in other cases.

I welcome this belated response after 13 months, but will the hon. Gentleman examine the whole range of chemicals added to articles in household use that come under the jurisdiction of his Department to make sure that they are covered by a foolproof system similar to that which is established in the Department of Health and Social Security?

I shall certainly look again at this. There is a later Question on the Order Paper which bears on it. I can reassure parents straight away on the immediate point by saying that our medical advice is that there is no significant risk to health from products containing hexachlorophane at present on sale in this country.

I welcome the Minister's reply, but is the Poisons Committee considering the chemicals mentioned in Question No. 22? Inevitably, with the restriction on the use of hexachlorophane there will be a search for alternatives, some of which may be equally dangerous.

In case we do not reach Question 22, I assure the hon. Lady that we shall be ready to take further action if we think, on medical advice, that these alternatives present a risk to health.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to increase the recruitment of coloured policemen, policewomen and special constables into the Metropolitan Police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the recruitment of coloured policemen into the Metropolitan Police and other forces.

With my right hon. Friend's active encouragement, chief officers of police, who are responsible for recruitment to their forces, adopt the publicity and other measures best suited to their areas. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and his recruitment staff pay special attention to the need to encourage members of coloured communities to join the Metropolitan Police as regular or special constables. He has made it known through newspapers which circulate among coloured communities that appropriately qualified members of these communities would be welcomed into the force and he has sought to convey the same message through the work of his community liaison officers, who are in day-to-day touch with community leaders.

I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will he consider induction courses for traffic wardens to go into the police force after entrance examinations and further approaches to careers officers and youth employment bureaux with a view to getting coloured cadets as well as coloured policemen?

Certainly we shall do what we can, through career opportunities and youth employment officers, to encourage people of all colours to join the police cadet force. I shall have to consider the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman about traffic wardens.

As it is plain that the recruitment of more coloured policemen would be the best possible way of improving relations between coloured communities and the police, will my hon. and learned Friend take up with community liaison officers the idea of approaching headmasters and careers masters to draw the attention of school leavers to the opportunities available?

I shall certainly do so. There has been an increase, though only a small one, in the number of coloured people in police forces. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commissioner's staff attends career conferences and has visited schools to provide information about careers in the Metropolitan Police—and it will continue to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as requested by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the Howard League, he will increase the discharge amount given to a discharged prisoner.

Account will be taken of these suggestions when the existing arrangements are reviewed later this year.

Could not this suggestion be adopted with little cost and to great advantage, since the allowance has not been adjusted since 1964? Is it not the case that very few prisoners have accommodation arranged for them in advance of leaving prison, and that those who do not often get caught in a vicious circle, for they cannot get social security benefit without giving an accommodation address and they cannot get an accommodation address because they cannot afford the down payment of rent? Should not official policy facilitate adjustment to the outside world, rather than increase the pressures which can lead only to the road back to jail?

I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. We should do all we can to ease back into society those who are at the end of their prison sentences. On the question of rent, as well as the discharge grant there is power to make an advance payment of rent of up to £4 to the person who provides accommodation for a homeless ex-prisoner. These matters will be reviewed later this year.

In view of the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) is it not clear that the important question concerns the amount of money which must be paid for furnished accommodation? I am pleased that the Minister is to consider this matter, but will he bear in mind that £4 will not find accommodation in London or any other part of the country?

The £4 is an advance payment to the landlady. The purpose of the discharge grant, as such, is merely to tide a person over following his immediate release from prison, but, as I said, the existing arrangements are to be reviewed later this year.

Some of these discharged prisoners live in "halfway houses", of which there is one in my constituency. Will my hon. and learned Friend say what arrangements are being made to ensure that those who live in these houses, if they are in remote areas, have the opportunity of seeking jobs, are given the opportunity to know where vacancies exist, and are financially able to seek the work that they undoubtedly need?

I think I am right in saying that the hostel to which my hon. Friend refers also provides sheltered workshops. Certainly those who go to a normal discharge hostel have everything done for them that can be done to help them to obtain employment and accommodation.

I am sure that the Minister recognises that while the number of hostel places has increased slightly the number of places in Rowton Houses and their equivalent has dropped dramatically in the last couple of years. Will he therefore consider not only increasing the release grant but also the possibility of informing a social security office in the area to which the prisoner intends to go, so that that office can make the man advances until he finds accommodation? Will he also consider the question of insurance stamps, which stand in the way of many men getting employment, so that, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) said, they are driven back all too quickly to crime?

The hon. Member has asked a fair number of questions. As for probation after-care hostels, I think I am right in saying that the voluntary bodies are providing more places—now at the rate of 200 places a year. The discharge grant does not directly affect this, but the Home Office has increased the weekly payment made towards places in these hostels. I shall consider the other matter raised by the hon. Lady but I must repeat that the discharge grant is merely a lump sum payment to tide a person over until he can apply in the normal way for whatever benefits he may be entitled to.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has now received about the Erroll Committee; and what replies he has given.

About 335. The general line of reply has been that the views expressed will be considered before decisions are taken on the committee's recommendations.

As action on the Erroll Committee Report is likely to be long-delayed will the Minister consider one specific point? Is he aware that some brewers are conducting a most vicious campaign against tenants of public houses? Hundreds of tenants are being kicked out and replaced by managers. Will the Government consider the possibility of introducing some form of protection for people whose only crime is that they are at the mercy of the brewers whose sole motive is financial greed?

These are lurid charges, and they are not the responsibility of the Home Office. I shall be glad to examine any evidence the hon. Member likes to give me.

Since the House of Lords gave the proposal such a roasting the other day, shall we be given an opportunity to discuss the matter before a decision is taken? Is this the time to ease the licensing requirements for liquor, when all the indications are that the ill effects of alcoholism are increasing?

Obviously the question of a debate is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We would welcome the views of hon. and right hon. Members on this important matter. We have had an airing of views in the other place, and even if this House does not debate the matter in the near future I hope that hon. Members will send us their views. The point raised by the hon. Member is one of the main criticisms put to us so far in representations from members of the public.

Is the Minister aware that the Erroll Committee proposals go further than even the brewers wanted, for obvious political reasons? How many of the letters he has received propose the lowering of the age at which drinking becomes legal from 18 to 17? Many hon. Members would oppose that proposal.

That is one of the most common points of criticism contained in the letters. Most of the comments we have received have been critical of one aspect or another of the Erroll Committee recommendations, and the one referred to by the hon. Member has caused a lot of anxiety among many people.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to make a policy announcement with regard to the import and sale of replica firearms.

Has my hon. Friend seen these replica firearms, which are very vicious and are certainly not toys? Does he realise what offence has been given by the display of these ridiculous things in the Arndale shopping centre in Bolton, and is he aware of the number of letters that I have received on the subject?

Yes, I have seen them and I hope shortly to include some proposals on the matter in my consultative document. I emphasise, however, that the matter is not as simple as it might seem at first sight. For example, it would be no good confining proposals literally to replicas.

It seems that fairly large quantities of these replica weapons are being imported now. Does the Home Secretary recall having a letter from a docker in my constituency expressing great horror at what he was unloading from the ships and sending forward?

Yes. This is a serious matter and I intend to treat it seriously. Any change in our present position would require legislation, and would have to be dealt with in legislation on firearms control generally. That is why we need a consultative document.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average sentence imposed for summary convictions under Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 for the offence of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.

In the years 1969 to 1971, 11 of those found guilty by magistrates' courts in England and Wales of offences under Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 were sentenced to imprisonment for terms ranging from two to six months, and 2,102 were fined. The average fine was £7·91.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary get in touch with the Lord Chancellor in another place as a result of comments made in this House a month ago on the question of sentencing? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it appears to a number of hon. Members that some of the judiciary are totally unaware of the stringent maximum level of penalties which Parliament laid down years ago? What did the Lord Chancellor say?

I assure my hon. Friend that the views expressed by hon. Members were brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as he promised to do, but I must reiterate that it is Parliament's duty to lay down penalties and it is the duty of the courts to determine the appropriate penalties, within those limits, in different cases. Offences of carrying firearms in public places, which include the carrying of air pistols, vary considerably in gravity.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that in order to deal with the problems to which he has referred it would be as well to increase the penalties to a minimum of five years for carrying a firearm, 10 years for using it, and the death penalty for causing death by using it?

All the matters which my hon. Friend has raised are slightly outside Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968, but I assure my hon. Friend that I have heard what he has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider a short amnesty for those illegally possessing firearms in England, Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce an amnesty for illegally held firearms.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will seek the views of chief officers of police on whether it would be desirable to arrange a general firearms amnesty as soon as practicable or whether it would be preferable to consider the possibility of an amnesty in connection with any legislation that may follow the provisional proposals which will be published in the near future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that there is a case for tougher penalties for those illegally possessing firearms but that more stringent conditions should apply for the annual re-licensing of firearms? Given that the Government are considering making alterations to the law, is there not a case for, for example, a three- to four-weeks' amnesty as a last chance for people to hand in that which they illegally possess?

I certainly think that there is a case for an amnesty. The question on which I am seeking advice is its timing —namely, whether it is better to have an amnesty now or as soon as we possibly can, or whether we should tie it up with the new law, if that is the conclusion to which my consultative proposals lead.

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Surely the reply he gave to me in answer to a Question on Tuesday indicates the urgency of this matter. In the last three years there have been nearly 1,000 extra prosecutions of people holding illegal firearms. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House and the general public do not want our police armed. Surely we have a duty to stop the use and the circulation of illegal arms. That is what the urgency is about.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the urgency of the matter. However, we cannot have amnesties every year, or they will lose their effect. The only matter which I am considering is the question of the best time for an amnesty. I am properly considering that —with the Secretary of State for Scotland —by consulting chief constables.

In considering an amnesty will my right hon. Friend also consider the possibility of allowing, in conjunction with that amnesty, the sale of currently illegal arms to authorised arms dealers? Does he agree that such a policy might result in more currently illegal arms being withdrawn from circulation than would be the case with a simple amnesty?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am a relative new-comer to these matters, and that suggestion is new to me. I shall think about it.

May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to remember, in the event of an amnesty, that it is very important for action in Scotland to take place simultaneously with action in England and Wales? It is important that action in Scotland should not be delayed. Will the Secretary of State impress that point upon the Secretary of State for Scotland?

That is one of the reasons— quite apart from the formal constitutional reason—why, in my answer, I coupled with mine the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Clearly such action must coincide.

asked the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department whether he has completed his review of the law relating to the use of firearms.

My review of firearms law is nearly completed and I expect shortly to publish a consultative document setting out my provisional proposals for changes.

Have the Home Secretary's inquiries revealed why no statistics are available on the number of crimes involving the use of firearms for any year before 1967? Secondly, have they identified any reason why the number of crimes involving the use of firearms has increased by more than 150 per cent. in five years?

I should require notice of those two questions. I do not see much merit in trying to ascertain why figures were not collected for a period which ended six years ago. I have already made it clear in the House and in public speeches outside that in the Home Office I am undertaking new inquiries to try to discover something more about the basic causes of violence.

When his Green Paper is introduced will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the illegal pool of firearms will not be eliminated by harassing the million or more legitimate holders of firearms licences?

It will certainly be no part of my plan unnecessarily to harass anyone. When I put forward my proposals they will have very much in mind the need to control all those sorts of weapons that may be, and unfortunately are, used from time to time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the security precautions for explosives in explosive stores, magazines and other registered premises; and whether he will make a statement.

A review of the law relating to the security of explosives is in progress, and existing controls have already been tightened within the powers available under the Explosives Act 1875.

I am glad to hear what my right hon. Friend has said. Is he aware that over the past three years there have been 99 attempted thefts of explosives from magazines and stores, and that no fewer than 92 of those have been successful? This is not a very impressive security record. In view of the obvious current danger, is not there a need for urgent attention to be given to this matter?

Before the latest worrying events in this country the Home Office had started tightening up under the existing law to which I referred. I have now thought it right to examine the existing law. I am not sure whether I took in my hon. Friend's statistics accurately. My figures indicated that thefts from licensed stores dropped from 28 in 1969 to 10 in 1972.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anyone can go into a local authority office, inspect and obtain a list of all registered premises holding explosives, and then go with a screwdriver and help himself to as much gelignite as he wants?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he may be right when he says that lists are available, but I am glad to say that I am sure that he is not right on the second part.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences have been committed by young people who have absconded while in remand homes in Norfolk in the last six months; and how this figure compares with the same period last year.

I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that 10 young people committed one or more offences while absent without leave from the remand home in Norfolk during the six months ended 28th February 1973; the corresponding figure for the six months ended 29th February 1972 is one.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is an alarming increase in the course of one year and that it would be very, very much greater if the general public pressed charges? Does not he further agree that although the people of Norfolk are kindly disposed towards these unfortunate people they feel that the time has come, in the interests of the police and local ratepayers, to insist that when people are remanded in custody they should be kept there?

A tenfold increase, even if it is from a base figure of only one, is nevertheless a major increase. I share my hon. Friend's view that those who are committed on remand have been so committed because it is felt that they should not have bail, and that it is desirable that they should be kept there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is considering the adequacy of secure accommodation for people remanded in this way.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the arming of the police.

The Home Office has received 55 letters on this subject in the last two years. Of these, 21 supported present practice, 12 favoured general arming of the police, and 12 were against the police being armed, or expressed concern at increasing police use of firearms. The remaining 10 were concerned with points of detail.

Is the Secretary of State aware that according to official information guns were issued to qualified police marksmen last year at an average rate of six times a day? Can he confirm that two new guns which can penetrate light screening and still hit and kill will be available in London police stations and will be carried by policemen on protective duties within six months or a year, even though the Home Office circular makes it clear that police forces have up to 10 years to make these changes?

I cannot make a statement at the moment about types of guns, beyond saying that if the police are to be armed they should have proper weapons which fire with the greatest accuracy, and so forth. It is true that there has been this increase in the number of occasions on which police have been issued with arms. It is also true that in the past three calendar years police have used guns on only three occasions. I assure the House —because this is important—that I have asked the Inspectorate to pay special attention to the question of the issue of guns in its annual inspection of each police force.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the absence of the sanction of capital punishment it must inevitably follow, as night follows day, that the police will end up by being armed?

That may be a matter tor debate but it does not arise on this Question. I do not think that I can accept my hon. Friend's premise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the basis upon which the police are issued with arms is the same as it has traditionally always been and, secondly, that the issue of arms is to individuals and not for each incident? Will he point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) that in 1971 160 police officers were killed in the United States, where the police are armed, compared with two in this country—a United States figure 80 times as great as the United Kingdom one?

I confirm that there has been no change of any kind in the policy or the procedure relating to the issue of arms. They are issued only to individual officers for particular purposes, and there has been no change or relaxation of any kind. But, as I have said, in view of the increase— which is due to the increased number of occasions which justify it—I felt it advisable to ask the Inspectorate to pay special attention to this matter in its annual inspections.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the conditions in the deportation wing of Her Majesty's Prison, Pentonville.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member on 22nd March.— [Vol. 853, c. 159.]

Is not the Home Office behaving in a thoroughly complacent manner about the conditions which people who face no criminal charges and who therefore have no convictions are obliged to endure in Pentonville Prison? Did not the Minister of State in another place say that conditions at Pentonville are far from satisfactory? Should not the Home Office be determined to find other accom- modation for these people, bearing in mind that they are innocent?

I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's Question. Those who are sent to Pentonville in the first place have either been ordered to be deported or are awaiting a decision on their deportation following a conviction by the courts for a criminal offence in this country. It is true that at Pentonville, because of pressure, there are those who have either been caught illegally attempting to enter this country by various methods or, prima facie, appear to be evading the control on entry. The latter class have to be detained for a few days while inquiries are made. The other accommodation being full, it is regrettably a fact that those who are among the last category have also to be put in Pentonville.

Persons who are detained under Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 are being detained under a removal section. Can the Minister of State give any recent peacetime example whereby, under retroactive legislation, a person who has previously been immune from prosecution has been arrested and deprived of his liberty, ordered to be deported, deprived of any judicial review, and sent out of the country by executive action? If he can think of no precedent, in any event will he consider granting an amnesty to those people who were immune from prosecution before 1st January of this year?

The hon. Gentleman's question does not relate in any way to the original Question. However, since he has raised the matter I must tell him that the powers under the recent Immigration Act were given by Parliament after normal debate. The point to which I understand the hon. Gentleman is taking such grave objection is that, under the previous law, if anyone managed to evade being discovered for six months he was, irrespective of the fact that he had come here illegally, entitled to stay here for ever. I think that the vast majority of people in this country would think it right that if someone had chosen to come here illegally, even if he had done so six months earlier, consideration should still be given to the question whether he should be returned.

If the Minister wants to make a deportation order, there is a judicial review by the Immigration Tribunal. He is using his powers of removal, which offer no review or any appeal of a judicial nature.

Such powers of removal were granted by this House after normal debate, and I believe that they are acceptable to the vast majority of British people. The hon. Gentleman says that these cases are not reviewed. As has been said on other occasions, each case is reviewed individually before any decision is taken.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to make mandatory the Tremcard warning system for all transport vehicles carrying potentially dangerous loads.

Regulations now being prepared will require vehicles conveying inflammable liquids and corrosive substances by road to carry information about the nature of the load and the measures to be taken in an emergency. Carriage of the appropriate Tremcard will satisfy this requirement. Similar regulations will later be made for other classes of dangerous substances.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for his customary consideration and sympathy, and for his statement, which will be welcomed by the House? I am grateful to him for acting comparatively quickly in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the application for immigration of Mr. C. B. Clifford of Calcutta, India, following the recent representations made to him by the hon. Member for Harrow, East.

I have considered very carefully the further information which my hon. Friend has sent me, but I am not satisfied that Mr. Clifford is qualified to come here under the immigration rules.

I return to the normal pattern of supplementary questions. My hon. Friend is always extremely fair and painstaking on these occasions—

Order. The ordinary pattern is not a statement.

Will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider this case? All the evidence clearly indicates that this man is a patrial under the revised immigration rules. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider this case.

I shall pass over the blush-making preliminaries. I have considered this case carefully. On the evidence, Mr. Clifford is not a patrial. If there were any further evidence, for example, that his grandfather was born in the Isle of Wight, I would consider it. Meanwhile, I am willing to discuss the case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for bringing into effect further sections of the Children and Young Persons Act 1968.

My right hon. Friend has none at present, but he has, by order, raised to 12 the age up to which some provisions already in force will operate. The effect of the order, which comes into operation on 1st April, is to transfer from the probation service to local authorities responsibility for the supervision of children aged 10 and 11, and for the provision of home surroundings reports on children of those ages.

I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's reasons for that. However, does he agree that the presence of an implementation clause is to enable the Minister to defer the operation of a statute until the necessary arrangements have been made but not to delay it indefinitely because he disagrees with what Parliament said? Will the Minister explain how it comes about that although the non-implementation policy was announced publicly outside the House on 13th January, by the Secretary of State for Social Services, whenever I put down a Question to him about it the Question is transferred to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department?

That is because the implementation of the Act is a matter for the Home Office and not the Secretary of State for Social Services. The object of an implementation clause, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, is to defer implementation. If, as happened in this case, one Parliament passes legislation but it falls to another Government to decide whether to implement it, they are entitled to decide which parts of the previous Parliament's legislation they will implement and which they will not.

Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that many magistrates feel that some sections of the Act which are already in force are not satisfactory? Before we implement any more of the Act, should we not review those parts already in operation?

I think I am right in saying that it was in the summer of 1970 that, as the responsible Minister in the Home Office, I announced which parts of the Act we intended to implement and which parts we did not. That remains the case. There has been a certain amount of review of the question of orders being made which put people into the care of local authorities.

Does the Minister recognise that his answer is unsatisfactory? If a Government feel that Parliament has changed its mind they should repeal an Act rather than refuse to implement it. Has any pressure been brought to bear on local authorities to provide accommodation that would make the implementation of this Act possible? May I draw to the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention the fact that without this Act being in operation we have had, in a recent case, extremely severe sentences being passed on young people? Is he aware that many of us feel that if the Act had been in operation those people would have been handled in a more humane and enlightened manner?

I cannot accept what the hon. Lady said at the beginning of her remarks. The fact remains that the Act was passed by the previous Government. In Opposition we made our view clear, and it fell to this Government to decide which parts of the Act to implement. We implemented those parts which we believed it right to implement, and we have made it clear that at this stage we do not propose to implement those parts with which we disagree.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his review of the operation of Section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971, with regard to the repatriation of Commonwealth immigrants.

Yes, Sir. As a result of my review I have authorised a number of relaxations in the criteria governing eligibility for assistance under this scheme and I will, with permission, circulate full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In particular, family groups whose weekly income is up to £5 above supplementary benefit level will now come within the scheme.

I am grateful for that statement, which I shall study. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern over the delays in applications being vetted? Will he confirm that he has come to the conclusion that the International Social Service is the right agency to implement Section 29 and, if so, will he say whether it is to be given additional personnel so that applications may be made more quickly?

If the organisation needs more staff I can assure my hon. Friend that it has only to come to me and talk about the question and I will consider it sympathetically. This organisation is a satisfactory one for the purpose. Some length of time is involved, because it is a welfare provision and the terms of the Act impose certain duties on whoever is operating the scheme to inquire into the circumstances of each family in relation to children, dependants, and all the rest. This is necessarily a somewhat lengthy business.

Is my right hon. Friend able to tell us how many people were repatriated in the last 12 months, and what estimate he has made of the number likely to be repatriated under the new conditions? What increase is likely?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact numbers off the cuff. I think it was over 100 last year, and a further 100 under the supplementary benefit scheme. It is impossible to forecast what change these new, relaxed conditions will bring about.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will invite the respective heads of Government of North and South Vietnam to visit the United Kingdom.

I have no plans to do so. President Thieu may, however, be making a short visit here in April, and if he does I expect to meet him.

Will the right hon. Gentleman seize the opportunity to press the cause of the 200,000 civilian political prisoners of all shades of political opinion, many of whom have no one to plead their cause, and many of whom are too ill to earn a living and have no homes or families to return to? Will he press not merely for their release but for an international rehabilitation operation under the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees?

The objects of any talks we might have have not been fixed because it is not yet definite that President Thieu will come. There has been considerable conflict of view about the number of prisoners involved. It was agreed at the Paris conference that this was a matter which should be settled by the two parties in South Vietnam.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make an early official visit to the Middle East.

I have at present no plans for such a visit.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling abroad that, all other agencies having patently failed, Her Majesty's Government, either alone or in collaboration with our Community partners, might act as a catalyst to bring the two sides together? Is he aware that the Arabs have at last conceded the right of Israel to exist but will not sit down and negotiate until she withdraws to her pre-1967 frontiers? Could my right hon. Friend not mediate?

The Foreign Ministers of the Community have been discussing this matter. At the moment they do not feel that the time is right to take a fresh initiative. I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the best means of trying to reach a solution would be by negotiation round a table. He is right that at the moment not all parties are prepared to do this. When meeting those concerned, I have always taken the opportunity to say that if either side is in doubt about the sincerity of the other the best way of testing the matter is to sit round a table.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most recent developments in Egypt show an increasing urgency for something to be done? Bearing in mind that Egypt responded favourably to the Jarring questionnaire and that the Soviet presence was thrown out of Egypt without much positive reply from the United States, could we not now put more pressure on the Americans to make them feel there is real urgency about getting a settlement in the immediate future?

I agree that there is a great degree of urgency here. The American administration is well aware of this and on my last visit to see President Nixon in Washington in February I discussed it with him. I do not think there is any doubt about the urgency of the need for action. What is difficult is to bring the parties concerned to the point where they negotiate.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on counter-inflation delivered at the annual general meeting of the Bexleyheath Conservative Association on 9th March.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on the 27th of March to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).—[Vol. 853, c. 293.]

In that speech my right hon. Friend offered a partnership to the trade unions in the management of the economy. Is it not clear that the trade unions should now accept this offer without delay, since it clearly involves an examination of the workings of the Industrial Relations Act with a view to amending phase 3 and such social objectives as the improvement of the conditions of the low-paid and, finally, a return to a free voluntary system of collective bargaining?

Yes, Sir. I hope that it will be possible to resume discussions of this kind. There were very fruitful discussions between the Government and the TUC at the beginning of the year, although the TUC did not find itself able to take part in stage 2 organisation. Nevertheless, we benefited from the views which it expressed. I hope that, on a wider front, this will now be possible. As the House will have seen, some of the proposals made yesterday by Mr. Scanlon would require amendments in the Industrial Relations Act. We have always offered to consider amendments which are suggested. This has been a long-standing offer, which was made right at the beginning of the Chequers talks, but this is the first time that specific matters have been mentioned.

Has the Prime Minister had time to study Mr. Scanlon's suggested amendments? If so, does he think that he will be able to accept them? That seems a very important point. In view of his own speeches and in addition to these proposals from Mr. Scanlon, which seem to make for a better atmosphere, does the Prime Minister now propose to invite the trade unions to meet him to discuss amendments to the Act and, indeed, the future of the counter-inflation policy in general?

On the first point, there has obviously not been time yet to consider the proposals of Mr. Scanlon in detail. The TUC will expect the Government to consider amendments from the TUC itself. That would be the normal way of handling such matters. There is a standing invitation to the TUC to discuss this whenever it wishes.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that while the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly entitled to be either for or against the Labour Party's backing industrial action against the Government's counter-inflation policy, it is the negation of political leadership for him to abstain in a vote on this issue at a meeting of the Labour Party's National Executive? Should not the Leader of the Opposition come clean —or shall we have to wait until the next edition of Cecil King's diaries to find out the truth?

On a point of order. Can you rule, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) persistently to attempt to disrupt and waste time during Prime Minister's Questions by directing questions to the Leader of the Opposition? Is it not a fact that questions should be directed only to the Prime Minister?

In answer to that point, I think that I had better say that no question of order arises.

In reply to the last question, the Prime Minister said that the unions had a standing invitation to discuss "this" at any time. Is he saying that they have a standing invitation to discuss the Industrial Relations Act and its revision at any time?

Yes, indeed, and to discuss any other matters which they wish to raise.

On inflation, which is the subject of this speech, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on arm-twisting the building societies to postpone their increase until after the GLC and other elections—[Interruption.]—this affects 5 million families in this country, and I expect an answer—but is he aware that as a result of his policy some building societies have already raised their rates to 9½ and 10 per cent., and that a general rise is now regarded in the movement as inevitable? How does he reconcile this, first, with his election pledges and, second, with his standstill and prices and incomes restraint?

The right hon. Gentleman has constantly to be told that in his own arrangements for a standstill he did not seek to take control over interest rates; neither have this Government, because it is one of the features of the regulation of the economy. As for the building societies, I know that individual societies have made their own arrangements but, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, the Government are in consultation with the Building Societies Association and the association itself has not yet made any recommendation.

The right hon. Gentleman has given this answer several times when I have put this question to him. Does he not realise that this has nothing to do with the regulation of the economy, with the old use of Bank Rate, which was a casual factor in regulation? Is he aware that the building society movement is saying, and saying rightly, that this is the result of the Government's introduction of new banking regulations in 1971, which meant that the Government had no control over the situation? Will he now act? Does he agree with the figure given in the House yesterday of an increase from just over £5,000 to £8,500 in the average cost of a new house in this country in the fourth quarter of last year, compared with only two years earlier? What calculation has been made of how a young family on an average income can afford a mortgage at 10 per cent. on that basis?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the position. The ability of the authorities to intervene to influence interest rates through open market operations is the same today as it has always been.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the points made by the Leader of the Opposition are real and important to the people of this country? The increases in the cost of houses and in interest rates are a direct result of inflation. Could he not call upon the Opposition and the trade unions to play a real part in trying to end inflation?

I have constantly invited the TUC and the CBI to assist in the battle against inflation, and I think that the response there will have been more effective than would be the case if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were so invited. So far as I can see, they are spending their time supporting political strikes.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to the Telecommunication Engineering and Manufacturing Association on 7th March in respect of equipment suppliers represents Government policy.

R. Morris asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to the Telecommunication Engineering and Manufacturing Association concerning equipment supplies on Wednesday 7th March 1973 represents Government policy.

Yes, Sir.

Before he made that speech was the Minister told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the impact of VAT would be on telephone charges? Was he aware that cheap calls from coin boxes were to go, and that subscribers were to have 10 per cent. added to their bills, at a time of standstill? Further, will he tell us when a decision will be taken by the Government on TXE4?

Value added tax has been debated in the House on many occasions, and the consequences were known on the prices which will decrease as well as on those which will increase. But my right hon. Friend was not dealing with that subject in that speech. It is not yet possible to announce the exact date for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

In view of the points made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the policy of the Government to increase the amount of liberalisation and competition in our telephone service?

My right hon. Friend dealt at some length with this matter and showed that there is now a good working relationship between the Post Office and the suppliers, and that the Post Office has a responsibility not only to its customers but also to those who supply the equipment, from the point of view of our long-term plans. I also believe—and I think that my hon. Friend shares this view—that the Post Office has a responsibility to supply us with materials which can be exported. It is important that home and overseas supplies should move together.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the Minister might have taken this opportunity to alert the telephone equipment manufacturers to the impact which VAT and increased installation charges are likely to have on the demand for telephone installations? Is it the Government's policy and intention, in terms of cost, to put the telephone beyond the reach of ordinary families? Will he guarantee that telephone rental, installation and unit charges will not be increased during the Government's price restraint policy?

That matter concerns VAT. There is no intention to put telephones outside the grasp of the ordinary person. The facts which my right hon. Friend outlined show that demand is very great indeed, and likely to remain so. The net growth of the system this year is forecast to be 9·8 per cent.—nearly 10 per cent.—which shows how substantial the demand is.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.

rose—

Question No. 6.

Order. Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that these increases will amount to £35 million on private subscribers, and that this £35 million increase has nothing to do with the Post Office or with its workers' wages but is simply the result of VAT? Does he also agree that it will result in a reduction in the demand for telephones and affect the Post Office programme?

The whole question of the balance of VAT has been debated many times in the past. The hon. Gentleman knows the situation. As I have emphasised, the demand for the telephone system is now very great indeed. The companies recognise this. The companies are working on long-term plans. [Interruption.] I hope that I have said enough to convince the hon. Gentleman.

Question No. 6.

Order. I was just as interested as anyone else to go to Chesterfield, but the time has gone.

Are not there abundant precedents, Mr. Speaker, if an hon. Member has been called to put a Question—even if you, Mr. Speaker, change your mind afterwards—for the hon. Member to be allowed to put that Question?

Order. I had called Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it have been in order for the Prime Minister, in answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), to give assurances about the efficiency of telephonic communications between Wolverhampton and Chats-worth?

I do not detect a point of order, or much else, in that.