asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the building of the new police station at Orpington has not yet begun; what are the reasons for the delay; and what is the anticipated date for the beginning of the work.

This project has been delayed by site difficulties. Agreement has now been reached on the site for the police station, but negotiations are still in progress for additional car parking spaces. Subject to a satisfactory outcome of these negotiations, it is hoped to start building in 1975.

While it reflects great credit on my constituents, does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is also deplorable that a town as important as Orpington should be without a police station? Will he not get in touch with those responsible and tell them to stop mucking about and get on with it?

No one disputes the need for a sub-divisional police station in Orpington. Indeed, it has been accepted by the Home Office for many years. The first approaches about a potential site were made in conjunction with the local authority as long ago as 1958. I should welcome the police station's being built at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of help to areas of special need in the inner cities, including those in which substantial numbers of recent immigrants live.

In the three financial years 1970–71 to 1972–73 projects totalling about £18 million have been authorised in England and Wales under the urban programme for areas of special social need. In the same period local authorities with substantial numbers of Commonwealth immigrants in their areas have spent over £24 million on employing special staff under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. In each case the expenditure qualifies for Exchequer grant at 75 per cent.

I welcome that statement, but does my hon. Friend think that this action is anywhere near adequate for tackling the problems that we see before us? Is not the main need for a vigorous joint programme worked out between himself and the Secretary of State for the Environment to prevent deterioration and to revitalise these decaying urban centres?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are working closely with other Departments on this whole problem, and I am glad that he has drawn attention to it. The figures that I quoted, of financial support over the past three years, were at roughly twice the level of the previous three years. If we can continue this upward trend in Government help we shall be very pleased.

Will the Minister consider the special difficulties faced by local authorities to which many of the Ugandan Asian refugees have gone—in areas where, as we understand it, the housing situation is still very difficult, with very high rents being claimed and educational needs not being fully met? Will he consider the view of these local authorities, which is that they need more central Government help if they are properly to cope with the problem?

Yes. These views have been put to me by a number of local authorities. A special extra £2 million for relevant expenditure was included in the 1973–74 rate support grant settlement, particularly for helping those local authorities which had to deal with many Ugandan Asian refugees. But we shall continue to be in touch with the local authorities.

In assessing the needs of these areas, what immigrant population figures does the Minister rely on? Is he satisfied with the adequacy and accuracy of those figures?

The original Question dealt with help under Section 11 of the 1966 Act. That is the entitlement of any local authority with more than 2 per cent. of immigrant children in its schools. In general, there have been analyses of the total immigrant population in the recent 1971 census.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation on the line of the Canadian Hazardous Products Act and similar United States legislation.

I should prefer to await the outcome of the present discussions within the EEC on a draft directive dealing comprehensively with the labelling of household products.

Is my hon. Friend aware that under the Canadian legislation it is possible for that country to prohibit by order the sale and advertising of hazardous products, such as children's seat belts and special car seats which, when fitted in a motor car, prove hazardous, although they are legal? Will he confer with his hon. Friends in other Departments to see whether legislation can be brought in to prevent the sale and advertising of these products?

Certainly. The instances which my hon. Friend gave of car seats and seat belts are matters for the Department of the Environment. We consult that Department. We have also been in touch with the Canadian Government about the way in which their Act is working in practice, and we shall take advantage of their experience.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Hazardous Products (Uniform Labelling) Bill, which I sought to introduce last Session, is now overdue and urgently needed, and that if the relevant EEC directive is unduly delayed my Bill should be reintroduced as a matter of urgency? As soon as he is appointed the Director-General of Fair Trading should be asked to co-ordinate all matters of health and safety about consumer products.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her continued pressure on this aspect of the problem. We are likewise trying to keep up the pressure in the working group within the EEC. Its directive will not be too long delayed. If my hon. Friend wishes to reintroduce her Bill, of course she can.

Will the Minister explain why we have to wait for the working group of the EEC? Have we reached the stage where we cannot take decisions on our own on important matters of this kind? If that is the situation, the Government must think again.

That is not the situation at all. We are naturally playing our full part in the working party within the EEC, but we are not neglecting the situation in this country. We continue to produce regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1961 over a wide range of matters. If it is necessary to do something urgent under that Act, of course we shall.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing legislation to amend Section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 with a view to assisting the courts and defendants who feel unable to conduct their own defence and who lack the financial means to engage a legal advocate.

No, Sir. Courts have discretion to grant legal aid when they think legal representation is desirable in the interests of justice and that the defendant requires assistance in meeting its cost.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that at present poor people who apply for legal aid are sometimes refused on the ground that the charges against them are of only a minor character? Because many such persons are inarticulate, or because no matter how well-educated a defendant may be he naturally freezes in the presence of a court for the first time, surely it is in the interests of British justice that a defendant who claims he is innocent should be given the opportunity of providing the courts with proper evidence. In that way the courts could come to a proper decision. On those grounds alone will the Minister think again about the answer he has given and offer defendants the chance of being defended in a proper manner?

Discretion under Section 75 is as wide as it can be. It is that legal aid should be granted where it appears to the court desirable to do so in the interests of justice. There are then the criteria recommended by the committee under Lord Widgery and about which the Home Office recently reminded the courts in a circular. That said in particular that legal aid should be granted where the liberty, livelihood and reputation of the accused were in real jeopardy. Use of the grant of legal aid is going up enormously in magistrates' courts. Last year, for example, 83·7 per cent. of all applications were granted.

As any legal-aided defendant has to make a substantial contribution if he has sufficient assets, is there now any reason why he should not be allowed legal aid as of right?

It is true that the courts have power to make a contribution order when granting legal aid, but if the hon. Member is seriously suggesting that everyone who appears in court, whether it be for a parking offence, or a speeding offence, or whatever, should, as of right, be entitled to be represented at the cost of the State, I do not agree with him.

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

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce amendments to Section 45 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.

Any amendment of this section must await the outcome of the current general review of the lotteries law.

The current review has been going on for about 18 months or two years. May I enter a plea for urgency on behalf of nearly all Scottish football clubs which are dependent on income from lotteries to bring their grounds up to crowd safety standards? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the £750 limit on the sale of tickets, which has been eroded by application of 10 per cent. VAT on printing costs, is adequate to meet the needs of bringing these grounds up to the required standards of safety?

There is undoubtedly a case for considering the limits under Section 45. I do not dispute that for a moment. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member that the review which has been taking place by an inter-departmental working party of officials has now been completed and that it has reported to Ministers. The Government are now considering what the next step before consultation should be.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to define the means of self-defence which a citizen may legitimately use when attacked.

No, Sir. The law on self-defence, which allows the use of such force as is reasonable in the circumstances, is under review by the Criminal Law Revision Committee as part of its review of offences against the person. It would be premature to contemplate legislation before the committee has reported, nor is it likely that it would be found possible to define the precise means of defence that would be reasonable in the great variety of situations than can occur.

I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, but is he aware that in the last 10 years in Great Britain cases of robbery and assault with intent to rob have increased by 230 per cent. and cases of rape by 63 per cent.? In these circumstances, does he think that the ordinary citizen has the right to protect himself and the right to know what means of protection he may use for his self-defence?

Of course the ordinary citizen has the right to self-protection, and he must have, but if we were to give him the right to carry weapons which could be offensive weapons, how would we know, when someone was carrying a weapon, whether he intended to use it for offence or defence?

Does the Home Secretary seriously maintain that carrying firearms, knives or other cutting instruments cannot clearly be said to be not justifiable in terms of defence? In these circumstances, will he consider the matter again? The standard excuse put forward by criminals for carrying offensive weapons is that they carry them for self-protection.

On the question of firearms, in a very short time the House and the public will have the chance to consider new proposals that I am about to publish for consideration. I hope that that will be the time to go into the matter. On the question of the control of weapons which cannot be carried lawfully—and I think this was the point I was making— if we allowed them to be carried lawfully we would be unable to control them.

As one who has been attacked, may I assure my right hon. Friend that the last thing in one's mind is deciding whether it is reasonable to use a particular form of defence when the occasion actually arises?

I am sure that is so, but that is exactly why it is probably better to leave it under the common law position, as it is at the moment, because that does not restrict in any arbitrary way what can or cannot be done in a particular circumstance. It leaves the court to judge whether what an attacked person does is reasonable in the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present prison building programme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the prison building programme.

Good progress is being made. The number of new places started in the last finacial year was over 2,000 and is hoped to be about 3,000 in the current year. This compares with only 80 new places started in 1969–70. I will, with permission, circulate a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a growing body of public opinion that believes that the policy of building a large number of new prisons instead. of the smaller kind of hostel accommodation, which is urgently needed, is misdirected? Does he not agree that his thesis is untenable as long as highly disturbed women are being shut away in Holloway without receiving the kind of treatment that they need, and as long as boys and girls of 14 and 15 are put in prison because the right kind of hostel accommodation is not available for them?

As the hon. Member knows, accommodation for all those under the age of 17 was transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As for accommodation for those over 17, we are building hostels as well as prisons, in the literal sense of the word, and those who object to the present prison building programme somehow fail to realise that even if we are successful, as I would hope we shall be, in stopping the apparently never-ending increase in prison population, we shall still be faced with the fact that 12,000 of our roughly 30,000 to 40,000 prisoners are accommodated more than one to a cell—sometimes two or three to a cell. Even if we halt the rise we shall still need new prisons.

On a separate problem affecting prison building, may I remind my right hon. Friend of the serious disturbances in a number of prisons last year? Has he decided whether troublemakers should in future be housed in a separate prison, as recommended by Lord Mountbatten, or in separate facilities in existing prisons? If he has not decided that, when may we expect a decision on the matter, which affects prison building policy?

It is a very important matter. I have almost completed my study which I announced last autumn, and I hope to make a statement in the not-too-distant future.

Can the Secretary of State say anything about the provision being made for workshops in the new prisons, and whether they will be adequate to introduce a full industrial day? Is any consideration being given to much smaller prisons along the lines of the interesting experiment in the Netherlands, where the rate of recidivism is much lower than it is here and where no prisons of more than 200 places are any longer being built?

The workshop situation is far from satisfactory. I can assure the House that a significant part of prison building expenditure is designed to improve workshop provisions. But whatever we do to some of our old prisons we shall not be able to provide adequate workshops in them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his consultations with chief officers of police and other interested parties relative to his proposal to set up independent review procedures for complaints against the police on an experimental basis.

Discussions have begun with the police representative bodies and a further meeting has been arranged for later this month. It is too early to make any comment on the progress of the consultations.

Is the Secretary of State aware that since the debate in February I have received a number of letters from all over the country giving case histories which stress the need for a statutory basis to the review procedures which the right hon. Gentleman then agreed in principle? Will he accept that, whilst in that debate none of us felt it right to mention specific cases, specific chief officers, or specific police authorities, we are under great pressure to see the experiment under way this year and a statutory basis to review procedures next year?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not lost enthusiasm for the project since I made my statement to the House about it in February, on the occasion of the debate on the hon. Gentleman's Private Member's Bill. Discussions are proceeding, and I hope to keep to the time table that I announced in February, of bringing the outcome of my discussions to the House before the end of the year. It is very important that the police should feel sure that all their views and objections—the hon. Gentleman will know as well as any that there are some rather serious objections within the police force—should be able to be aired, fully discussed and debated, and considered. Therefore, we must not make too much rush—but I want to make as much hurry as I can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will invite community relations council officers from all over the country to meet him in order to discuss future concerted policies for the promotion of racial harmony.

The work of community relations councils is co-ordinated by the Community Relations Commission, with whom my right hon. Friend and I keep in close touch. We have no present plans for a national meeting with community relations councils.

I thank the Minister for confirming that he keeps in close touch with that body. Does he agree that the work being undertaken by community relations councils and community relations officers, particularly in stress areas, is most constructive and valuable in ensuring racial harmony? Will he at the same time repudiate the approach of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in his recent speech at Brent, in which he alleged that Government Departments were misleading the country, and in that way sought to arouse fear, which can only do damage to improving racial relations?

I deprecate any statements by anyone inside or outside the House that arouse unnecessary fear. I very much agree with what others have said about the value of the work being done nationally and locally by community relations bodies. I hope to see more of it myself during the year. Any support that hon. Members on either side can give in their own areas is of great encouragement to the many people who are giving a great deal of time to this most important work.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many people believe that the best way to promote racial harmony would be a total ban on all immigration for some time?

I know that many people hold that view. My view is that the right policies to maintain and improve racial harmony, which is what the Government are doing, are very strict control over immigration, coupled with full support—again, I hope by the overwhelming number of hon. Members—for the constructive work being done all over the country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reductions occurred in the size of the Metropolitan Police Force between 31st December 1971 and 31st December 1972 and 18th March 1973.

Fifty during the calendar year 1972, and 84 between 1st January and 18th March 1973.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman extremely worried by those figures? At a time when crime has been increasing in London and the London police force has considerable additional security duties, is he not worried to find himself presiding over a reduction in the size of the Metropolitan Police Force? Will he please institute an urgent review into the numbers being recruited, the pay and conditions of the force, and incentives that can be given to retain experienced officers in the force? Even these figures disguise the loss of experienced police officers after several years service but before they have reached retirement age.

Whereas the police position over the country as a whole gives me cause for encouragement, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the strength in the metropolitan area gives cause for great worry. There is a recruiting campaign this year, under which no less than £100,000 is being spent on recruiting publicity. It should also be remembered— I do not say this in any way to belittle the seriousness of the situation—that during the past year the Metropolitan Police increased its civilian staff by 500 and traffic warden strength by 100. That means that more policemen are being diverted to the sort of duties that only policemen can do and are being saved from doing other work. We must look at the overall position, but I am still very worried.

What has happened to the Special Constabulary? In my experience, the morale of many of its members is very low and in my part of Essex there have been many resignations.

It was only last summer, I think, that I sent a circular to all chief constables throughout the country, asking for a new recruiting drive for the Special Constabulary. It is true that there has been a decline—with many resignations— among the Special Constabulary, partly, I think, because over the years it has become an ageing force. We had to go through the point where many of the older members retired. A recruiting drive is going on throughout the country, on which I am receiving regular progress reports. This, too, is being supported for the first time with some national recruiting publicity.

Does the Secretary of State agree that in many parts of London the crying need is for more policemen on the beat, to stop muggings and people's fear of walking in some areas at night? Is not the police force in London still 5,000 under what is already a tight establishment? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to review the London allowance and the undermanning allowance, to see whether greater incentives should now be given to policemen serving in London?

I agree with the hon. Lady about the need for more policemen in London. I am worried about the present situation. I am glad to say that in the last three years we have managed to improve police pay and conditions, relative to the population at large, by a substantial amount. A differentia] for London is a difficult matter, not only in incomes policy terms but in Police Federation terms.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in the case of Mr. Mohammed Khan who was assisted at the public expense with escort to return to Pakistan and after a short stay returned to this country and was readmitted; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances it is not made a condition of financial assistance towards repatriation that the people assisted should not have the right to return to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mohammed Khan was repatriated under the Mental Health Act 1959 and not under the main repatriation scheme.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that two conclusions seem to follow from this situation? Is not the first conclusion that it is quite pointless to repatriate people under the Mental Health Act because they simply come back again? Is not the second conclusion that an amendment is needed to the 1971 Immigration Act, so that a sensible, voluntary, assisted repatriation policy may be implemented?

The case referred to was a monstrous one, and I understand the high feeling that exists about it, but it should be realised that—as far as I know —it is the first case of its kind, and I certainly hope that it will not be repeated. I shall keep a close watch on the situation. I think that my hon. and learned Friend would agree that, by and large, when people are prepared to go back it is right to assist them to do so. Hitherto, we have not suffered from the trouble of people returning. We have to consider that. As for the 1971 Act, I remind the House that the section which gives the right to which I referred was not included by the Government: it was carried against the Government in another place.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would further assist community relations and enable the Conservative Party to implement an election pledge if he made a reality of voluntary repatriation for the many immigrants who do not wish to remain here?

I have recently announced an extension and improvement of the repatriation scheme. Those who wish to go back—and I underline "wish to go back"—should be helped to do so. The scheme as it stands provides rather generous help for that purpose.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House whether the Government invited this House to reject the amendment of another place, to which he has referred? I appreciate that he will want to avoid so far as possible, any repetition of this absurd incident, but will he not be deterred from encouraging repatriation, particularly of mental patients from Broadmoor and other hospitals?

The answer to the first part of my right hon. Friend's question is "No." As I recollect it, the Government did not invite this House to reverse the decision taken in another place. I shall certainly not be deterred from doing as my right hon. Friend asks, because it is right for this country and for the people concerned that they should be given help. It is worth running the risk of occasional abuse to achieve the greater good. I must watch the situation carefully.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is only the medical reasons that have to be overwhelming before someone is assisted with repatriation? Will he further confirm, for the benefit of some of the supporters of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), that to think that the coloured population of the country will return to their own countries in any great numbers because of repatriation assistance is absolute rubbish? Does he not agree that the normal pattern of movement with, say, the West Indies is that it is sometimes in one direction and sometimes in another, and that repatriation has nothing to do with it, except in a tiny minority of cases?

I still think that assistance with repatriation is an important service to make available to those who wish to go back. I am sure we are right to do it. We have always stressed that it was there as a service to help those who wished to go back. I accept that the pressure created by it is quite small in relation to the other social and economic pressures which at any given moment tend to cause major flows inwards or outwards. This is still an important matter. Under the Mental Health Act it is only when doctors advise it on medical grounds that repatriation takes place.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it the practice of his Department to collect and publish the numbers of incidents of thefts of wages and salaries by employees being taken to, from or at places of work, and the totals of amounts involved.

This is not practicable with existing statistical resources. My right hon. Friend will bear the suggestion in mind as it becomes possible to implement the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Criminal Statistics, which he has already accepted in principle.

Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that there has been an alarming increase in this type of crime in recent years? If it would do nothing else, would not publication of these figures lead more quickly to a round-table conference between the appropriate Government Departments, the banks and insurance companies, aimed at evolving schemes attractive to low-income groups involving bank or other credit systems which would thus stop what has become the increasing absurdity of taking money to and from place of work?

There has undoubtedly been an increase in robberies and wage-snatch offences, although I cannot give the figures. I agree with my hon. Friend that from a preventive point of view everything possible ought to be done to make such offences more difficult.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of parking fines outstanding in the London area at the latest convenient date.

Information about unpaid parking fines imposed by the courts is not available, but most parking offences in London are dealt with by fixed penalty notices. In the first six months of 1972, 635,000 such notices were issued in the Metropolitan Police district; payment was made or waived in 465,849 cases; 10,563 cases resulted in prosecution; and 158,588 cases remained outstanding.

Does the Minister agree that the recently-announced plan to introduce keeper liability will do something to reduce the high figures he has given? Will he say whether there is any thinking going on in the Government, in his Department or the Department of the Environment, on the next logical step, which is to prevent people who have outstanding fines from renewing their annual vehicle licence? Is he aware that this has been a common practice in other countries for some time, and seems to work well?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of thinking goes on all the time in all Government Departments. I cannot say whether the transport Ministry is giving consideration to the point he has raised. I will certainly bear it in mind. As he says, the Government have declared their intention to introduce legislation on owner liability.

Does the figure which my hon. and learned Friend has given for outstanding parking tickets include those issued to the Diplomatic Service?

Probably not. I think that they would come within the bigger figure of 465,849, which included not only those which were paid but those which had been waived.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on matters within his responsibility.

In pursuance of my responsibilities as police authority, officers of the Home Office are constantly in touch with the commissioner and his senior officers on a wide range of subjects. Arrangements for the deployment of police officers, about which the hon. Member recently spoke to me, are a matter for the commissioner, whom I have informed of the views the hon. Member expressed.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but am I to assume from it that the commissioner will support divisional commanders who wish to further the introduction of neighbourhood policemen within their divisions? The system of neighbourhood police has be- come extremely popular in the London borough of Wandsworth and, I am sure, in many other areas. In view of the shortage of police officers in the Metropolitan Police force, will not the Home Secretary think again about a special London allowance to attract officers and also to keep them?

I cannot add any more in reply to the general question, which worries me, about the strength of the Metropolitan Police Force. The neighbourhood police force is a good system and, as far as I know, the commissioner would wish to see it extended as far as the strength allows.

In discussions with the commissioner, will my right hon. Friend study the necessity for the restrictions which still apply to the employment of policemen's wives? Are not these restrictions out-dated, and do they not prevent people joining the police force?

I must confess that that is a new point to me. I shall think about it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Commonwealth citizens who entered Great Britain illegally and who have been resident for more than six months have been compulsorily repatriated; and whether he will make a statement on the arrangements for such repatriation.

Since 1st January 1973, 13 Commonwealth citizens who entered the United Kingdom without examination by an immigration officer and who had been here for more than six months have been removed under the powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971.

I make no comment on the controversial nature of the Appeal Court ruling today about the retroactive nature of the new legislation, but does the Minister agree that there have been disturbing reports about the way in which, in some circumstances, the new regulations have been implemented? Will he ensure that where these regulations are implemented they are always implemented with a great degree of sensitivity for dependants and relatives?

I am aware of the cases to which the hon. Member refers, and I have given instructions in the sense he suggests. At the same time, when we are seeking still further to strengthen our defences against illegal immigration and over-staying, we believe it right to use the new power given in the 1971 Act, but only after careful consideration of all the circumstances in individual cases.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the real question is how many people are able not only to enter this country illegally but to remain here, apparently, for long periods and get jobs here? Is he satisfied that even today our means of combating illegal immigration are adequate?

No, we are never satisfied, but day by day I see cases of men who have been here for varying periods, sometimes for as long as a year, or even longer, who have been found. Proceedings are taken against them and they are deported. We are trying to improve our methods all the time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of cases where compensation was paid to a victim of crime, and the total value of such compensation since the coming into force of the Criminal Justice Act 1972.

The compensation provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1972 came into force only on 1st January of this year. Information on the use by the courts of these provisions is being collected but is not yet available.

I agree that these are early days to expect figures to be produced, but is my hon. and learned Friend convinced that the public have been made fully aware of their rights under the Criminal Justice Act 1972? If he comes to the conclusion that that is not so, will he employ all forms of publicity to make the public aware of their rights under the Act?

Although the figures are not available, my impression is that considerably wider use is being made of the powers to order compensation. I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. Although, obviously, one cannot suggest what the courts should do in individual cases, Parliament made clear in the Criminal Justice Act that it hoped that the courts would use their powers widely to award compensation to victims of crime.

Would not more impact be made on this problem if legal aid were available to applicants before the Criminal Injuries Board? Is not this yet another instance in which the poorest and the least articulate are at the greatest disadvantage?

With respect, that is a rather different question, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the criminal injuries compensation scheme is being reviewed, and one question that can be considered is whether or not legal aid for applicants would be appropriate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make arrangements for the transfer of pension rights for those police officers who were formerly serving in the Armed Forces.

No, Sir. At present the Armed Forces pension scheme does not provide for the payment of the value of pension rights on transfer to another scheme. I understand that this aspect of the Armed Forces pension scheme is under review and future practice will be considered in the light of the outcome of the review.

Is not it an absurd anomaly that a police officer who formerly served, for example, in the Post Office, or as a clerk in local government, is entitled to the transfer of his pension rights, whereas a man who fought in the Armed Forces during the war and subsequently joined the police force enjoys no such entitlement? In the interests of justice and common sense, will my hon. and learned Friend speed up the review and, if it is favourable, implement it?

I accept that it appears to be an anomaly, but it is based on the fact that the Armed Forces' pension scheme is of a wholly different nature from the pension schemes in the police service and the public service, in which pension schemes are freely transferable. The review is being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I shall draw to his attention what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made at the Guildhall on 10th April on the economy.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made in the Guildhall on 10th April on the economy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Commons a copy of his public speech at the Guildhall on 10th April on Government policies.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the Guildhall on Tuesday 10th April on Government policies.

I did so on 11th April, Sir.

I think we would all agree that the Government are beginning to win the psychological battle as well as the real battle on the economy and that the country and the unions are beginning to realise this. Does the Prime Minister support the statement of Mr. Clapham, of the CBI, that the economy of this country is going up like a rocket?

The figures for wage negotiations under stage 2 strongly support what my hon. Friend has said. Already, 3 million people are receiving wage increases which were negotiated before the standstill and deferred, and furthermore nearly 3 million have negotiated agreements under stage 2. Those figures support my hon. Friend's view. The expansion of the economy is being maintained at 5 per cent., or perhaps at slightly more than the 5 per cent. rate which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced.

In that speech the Prime Minister referred to changing pub- lic attitudes on industrial relations. Will he confirm that the changing attitudes include the Government's attitude, and that they are positively moving forward into constructive proposals for industrial partnership?

The Government have, in fact, taken the lead in this matter. They did so when they negotiated the talks at Chequers last summer, in which the CBI and the TUC co-operated. We made a great deal of progress at that time, although we did not reach final agreement in October. Since then there have been continuing talks, and in all these matters the Government have put forward a constructive approach.

Another theme in that speech was the reconciliation of competing interests and claims. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that only a comparatively small number of workers participated in the strike on 1st May indicates that the majority of workers are abandoning the philosophy of conflict propounded and so beloved by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches?

Yes, there is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says. The public statements that have been made and the articles that have been written by several trade union leaders in the last few weeks have clearly indicated their desire to adopt the approaches which my hon. Friend has outlined.

As the Prime Minister and his colleagues appear to be so convinced that the economy is going up like a rocket, will he confirm that phase 3 will be less stringent than phase 2?

We are inviting the trade unions and the CBI to discuss with us the form of stage 3 and what it should be quantitatively. It is better to await those discussions, because stage 3 will also be affected by the findings of the Pay Board on anomalies and its suggestions on how these should be dealt with in that period. The hon. Gentleman and his friends must make up their minds whether they want to have an expanding economy. This is an expanding economy, and they had better say whether or not they approve of expansion.

Is not it clear from the so-called May Day demonstration that the majority of people want to get on with the job and take advantage of our expanding economy, and that the only people who appear to want to wreck it are a small number of militant trade unionists and most of the Parliamentary Labour Party?

It was demonstrated clearly that the great majority of the working population, which numbers 23 million—of whom more than 21 million were at their jobs—want to carry on and do not want to have political strikes. It will long remain in the memories of people that it was the Labour Party which supported a political strike.

On inflation, which was the subject of the speech, will the Prime Minister say what his calculations are of the average increase for 5 million council house tenants, required under his legislation coming into effect over the past seven days?

I gave the right hon. Gentleman the figures when he last raised the matter. If he wants fresh figures and cares to put down a Question I shall give them to him.

On previous occasions the Prime Minister said how difficult it was to work out what the councils would do. Now he knows. Does he say that at no time since 28th April has he made any inquiries to satisfy himself about the penalty that he is inflicting on 5 million households?

We are not inflicting a penalty on 5 million households. We have given a benefit—which the Labour Government never did—to all those families with two children living on up to average earnings. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that however much people earn they should not pay fair rents for local authority houses, he is rejecting his own policy.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry in determining what balance between taxation, royalties and fees for licences in respect of oil from the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf will produce the maximum advantage to the economy of the United Kingdom.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friends are co-operating closely on these matters in the current review of licensing policy.

Will the Prime Minister care to enlighten us about the criteria being used to ensure that this country benefits from its indigenous oil in no way less than other countries similarly placed? Will he consider setting up a separate fund into which these revenues could be put, so that it could be used to redress the regional imbalance?

The arrangements made with other countries have been studied fully and will be taken into account in the review of the licensing procedures now being carried out. However, the implications of putting the revenue into a separate fund for the financial policy of the United Kingdom are very considerable. All previous Governments have refrained from doing this, for obvious reasons. The imbalance in Scotland and other regions is adjusted from the central Treasury and, again, the implications of any change in the arrangements for the sums which would go from the central Treasury to Scotland, Wales or any other region, would be considerable.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest revised estimates of reserves in the British sector of the North Sea which have still to be announced will reveal that we are now 80 per cent. self-sufficient in oil? Bearing in mind that the search for oil in the North Sea has been going on for only three years, is not this a full vindication of the Government's policy? In the light of the world energy imbalance, does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy should continue to be the most rapid exploration of the Continental Shelf, and not the maximising of revenues at this stage?

The last part of my hon. Friend's question is obviously a matter of balance. Complicated energy issues arise on this question, as to the speed with which particular oilfields can and should be developed in the national interest, and the balance has to be struck between that and the revenue which can be obtained. There is considerable misunderstanding in different parts of the country about the first part of my hon. Friend's question. We are not at the moment 80 per cent. self-supporting in oil. Oil does not begin to flow until 1975. There is time for adjustments to be made as a result of the review before the oil begins to flow. The potentialities of these fields are bound to change continually as fresh discoveries are made. The last figure was 75 million tons a year, and no doubt that has now increased. We must complete the review before we can know what the possibilities are at any time.

In view of the fact that the Public Accounts Committee was told that a review of licensing policy had been going on since the first half of 1972, is not it time that the Government made a statement?

We wish to take account of the views of the PAC. It is right to do that. We shall make a statement as soon as possible. But there will not be a fresh round of licensing before a statement is made.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to impose on senior members of public bodies appointed by Ministers the same conditions relating to the taking up of employment on retirement with outside firms as are now imposed on retired senior civil servants.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to his supplementary question on 12th April [Vol. 854, c. 1505]. As I said then, I am considering this matter generally, but the position of appointees to public bodies is different from that of members of the Civil Service, and this must be taken into account.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that there are certain similarities between the two, in the sense that people who are appointed to public boards and then retire have a good deal of expertise which can be used with great profit by private companies in contractual relationships with Government Departments which seek to engage them? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a good deal of disquiet in Scotland, for example, concerning two people who served for a number of years with the Highlands and Islands Development Board and are now actively engaged in land speculation based on the North Sea oil discoveries? Is not that highly undesirable? The suspicion may or may not be warranted, but it deserves careful examination. I hope that we shall have an assurance that the matter is being studied with a degree of urgency.

All members of the Highlands and Islands Development Board have to sign an Official Secrets Act declaration. That Act binds them during and after their service in regard to information obtained through dealings with the Government. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that a declaration of this kind has been broken, I shall see to it immediately that an inquiry is made.

While awaiting the result of the survey which is being carried out, can the Prime Minister say how far it is the practice of existing public boards, corporations, and so on, in their original employment contracts, to provide, for example, that people concerned with awarding contracts do not, without the permission of the board or corporation concerned, take up service with some of those to whom contracts have been awarded? Is this fairly general practice? Do any of the boards do it?

There are variations in practice in this respect. It would affect the permanent employees of public bodies more than board members who may serve for only a limited period. That is one of the matters that I am looking into.

I appreciate the difficulty of trying to resolve an issue of this kind, but does the Prime Minister agree that there is increasing concern on the part of the general public about the conduct of people in public life? Will he give serious consideration to the introduction of a code of conduct applying to everyone, whether they be appointees or elected representatives, in both local government and Parliament, in much the same way as he applies a code of conduct to his Ministers?

The code is clearly laid down, has been handed on from one Government to another, and is continually brought up to date in respect of the requirements of Ministers.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is no concern in Scotland about these appointments? They are very good. Will he go ahead with them and not be diverted by any of these absurd canards of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)?