asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce new legislation dealing with taxi and private hire vehicles.

We recognise that there is a need for such legislation, but I cannot at present say when it will be introduced.

Is not current law based upon an Act of 1847, which was designed to deal with the horse and cab and is wildly inappropriate to radio-controlled hire vehicles? Did not the Home Office promise legislation as long ago as 1954, for local authority associations, having regard to the difficulties arising in Portland, Dorset, and elsewhere? Will my hon. Friend try to hurry this up?

Certainly new legislation is overdue. That is quite accepted. But my hon. Friend will remember that we recently passed an Act bringing up to date the situation in London in certain respects, and we are looking at the present legislation for the rest of the country outside London. I realise the urgency of this matter.

Is it fully realised how urgent this matter is now becoming? In many of our towns serious problems of semi-violence are occurring because of the unfairness of the treatment of the taxi-cab operator as against the private hire operator. This is very deeply felt. I ask the hon. Gentleman to hasten action on the matter.

I know that this matter is urgent. I have said that previously. But it is not a simple matter to get new legislation right if we are covering the whole country, where circumstances differ very much from area to area. We are pressing on as quickly as we can.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the near impossibility of telling whether a taxi in London is for hire, particularly if the sun is behind it? Is it impossible to devise a system that will cause less frustration than the present one?

I should not fancy myself as a designer of cab signs, but I hope that the new London Cab Act, which the House passed a few months ago, will help considerably in a number of ways in the London area.

As the Home Office has now had for a considerable time the Maxwell Stamp Report, which deals with hire cars and taxis and could well be applicable outside London, may we have a statement of the Government's views early in the next Session, as a prelude to legislation?

Certainly, I hope that we shall be able to say something more in the next Session. Meanwhile, we are resuming our discussions with the Greater London Council about the Maxwell Stamp Report and we shall press forward with that also.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to public funds of the Race Relations Board, the Community Relations Commission and community relation council, over the period since their inception; and if he will make a statement.

Between 1968–69 and 1972–73 public expenditure on the board and the commission, including grants by the commission to local community relations councils, has totalled about £3 million. I will, with permission, circulate detailed information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting feeling about the expenditure of this money, which it is felt in many quarters is being spent to promote rather than abate racial friction and disharmony? In many cases are not community relations officers employed by the commission and the council Black Power agitators? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there will not be a recurrence of a pamphlet that was published two years ago, financed by the Race Relations Commission, intimidated by Michael X, which cost the taxpayer and ratepayers a considerable amount of money?

I do not accept that the amount of money, over the four-year period about which I have spoken, is an unreasonable amount in relation to the work that these bodies do. I most cer-

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

The Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention recently received the report of the Working Party on Internal Shop Security. The main report, and a short version intended primarily for the small shopkeepers, will be made available as quickly as possible.

I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his continuing interest and help with this subject. Does he accept that the large super- tainly cannot accept my hon. Friend's interpretation of the intention, let alone the effect of their work.

Does not the Home Secretary agree that this endeavour is one of the most civilised upon which any civilised nation could embark, to ease tension among all sorts of people in various communities? Does he not further agree that if there is anything that can damage race relations it is the sort of question that he had to answer a moment ago?

There are many sorts of questions that can damage race relations. One important thing, which I hope all of us will always keep in mind when we draw attention, for example, to some of the difficulties suffered by minority groups, is the overall success of race relations in this country and the overall very high level of tolerance that the British people sustain.

I have always accepted that the modern methods of shopping and the ways in which goods are displayed inevitably lead to greater temptation, but I do not think that is any reason why any of us should condone dishonesty as such.

Is the Minister of State aware that none of us would defend the dishonest? What worries so many of us is that the honest are likely to be charged and prosecuted, and that many of those prosecutions fail, by which time those concerned are ill? When will he take this type of prosecution out of the hands of the private shopkeeper and put it into the hands of the police, where it belongs?

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that under the general law either the police or a private individual can prosecute. I see no basis on which to withdraw that right from the private individual in one sector while leaving it to private individuals in all other sectors.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce conjugal visiting in prisons and other places of detention.

My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

In view of the desirability of preserving marital relationships for the purposes of rehabilitation, in view of the needs of prisoners' wives, in view of the need to reduce homosexuality in prison, and because of the dangers of increased personality breakdown arising from the trend towards longer sentences, will the Minister consider carefully a limited experimental introduction of conjugal visiting in prison, since this has already been tried successfully in several countries?

No, we shall not. I fully accept the importance of retaining family ties—that is why we have extended the opportunities for home visits towards the end of sentences and are also encouraging more visiting of prisoners and granting them more opportunity to correspond by letter—but the idea of conjugal visits is wholly unacceptable to many people. I believe that it would do nothing but cause embarrassment and, indeed, indignity to many of the wives concerned.

Does the Minister of State recall that an all-party Select Committee made precisely this proposal to his predecessor in 1968? Is he aware that in all the countries where this has been operating for some time there has been a considerable reduction of tension within prison and, therefore, a much easier life for prison officers, who are able to do the job they are intended to do, which is not simply to keep prisoners under lock and key but to do rehabilitation work? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the report again and see whether it is not possible to carry out an experiment on a limited scale?

Of course we are aware of the report to which the hon. Lady refers. We have given consideration to it and also to the views of the committee under Professor Radzinowicz, but we have come firmly to the view that the practical problem of producing a system of conjugal visits that could in any way be acceptable are overwhelming. It is a question of the selection of the prisoners concerned, the selection of the relationship to the women outside from whom they wish to receive a visit, and the selection of the places in which the visits could take place. We believe that the practical arguments against overwhelm the arguments that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a comprehensive index of social deprivation for the purposes of disbursing urban aid.

In allocating urban aid to particular areas and projects my right hon. Friend takes account of the assessment made by local authorities of their needs and priorities, as well as of national considerations, but he is considering how the system of evaluation can be further improved.

I am glad to hear that. Is the Minister aware that considerable concern is being expressed about the way in which urban aid is being dispersed? It appears to many local authorities that this is a very hit-and-miss method. Several years ago there was an attempt by the Home Office to establish an index of social deprivation of the kind for which I am asking, but that work was discontinued. Will the Under-Secretary re-establish this kind of work and give it priority?

As I said in my original answer, we are trying to find a more sophisticated method of assessment. It may be that something on the lines the hon. Gentleman suggests will some day be right. I am not at present convinced that it is right. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions to make from his own experience in Gateshead, which has had a large amount of urban aid, we shall be glad to consider them. I discuss this matter with local authorities when I go round visiting and we are trying to improve our methods in the light of experience.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific aid he plans to provide for the Ardwick constituency in particular and for the City of Manchester in general, in fulfilment of his responsibilities for coordinating Government aid for deprived urban areas.

Manchester City Council has submitted a number of schemes in response to the latest urban programme circular, and I hope to announce by the end of September which have been approved. Of the schemes approved in the past for Manchester, 11 can be identified as relating particularly to the Ardwick constituency.

I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. May I ask him to add to his list of projects for the city of Manchester two in my constituency, which are being starved for lack of funds? One is playground facilities for the Wenlock Way area, where mothers have had to barricade the roads because of the dangers to their children, and the other is benches for old people in the Park Crescent area, an amenity badly needed in that part of Manchester.

I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestions and shall consider them. He probably knows that one of the 11 schemes I mentioned was for a playground elsewhere in his constituency, so it will be seen that that sort of project certainly qualifies.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that during his recent visit to Manchester—which, coincidentally, was on the day he assumed responsibility for co-ordinating Government aid to deprived urban areas—he commented that human needs seemed to have been forgotten? When considering the schemes he has announced today, will he bear in mind the need for more youth clubs in the Openshaw area?

Yes, indeed, Sir. When I see some of the concrete deserts, not only in Manchester, I think they are a disgrace—and I do not care who built them. In future urban development we must pay far more attention to trying not to break up old communities and to meeting the community needs of the new communities in the new development.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on the question of the scope of his powers of co-ordination of other Departments? It is becoming increasingly clear that many hon. Members feel that a wide co-ordination is now needed to deal with urban property. In particular, are the right hon. Gentleman's powers such as to suggest that wherever there is a major housing programme provision should be made for such things as facilities for young people, nursery accommodation, and provision for old people within the estates—which can normally be done far less expensively than if they are added on by a departmental budget afterwards?

These are early days yet. I must learn to walk before I start to run in this difficult matter. It was just because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister felt the great importance of bringing these things together that he asked me to act as a co-ordinating Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from the public on the Green Paper entitled "The Control of Firearms in Great Britain".

The Home Office has received more than 3,200 letters.

In view of those representations and the widespread concern that many of these administrative controls proposed may prove to be unnecessarily burdensome, will my hon. and learned Friend consider extending still further the period of consultation on the Green Paper? I fully support any measures which will effectively control the use of firearms in crime, but does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the strongest deterrent is the fuller implementation by the courts of the new powers of imprisonment they have available?

We are giving the greatest possible consideration to the large volume of representations that we have received, and we shall continue to do so. I am grateful to have the opportunity of repeating that this is a consultative document, on which we wish to hear representations. I cannot agree to extending beyond the end of July the time limit which we have already extended once, as we believe that it is important that we should be able to introduce legislation at an early date to do what we consider is necesssary about this matter. The final part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is a matter for the courts and not one on which I should comment.

It is now some time since the Green Paper was published. It not the Minister of State aware that since the Green Paper came out there have been further cases of intimidation with imitation weapons? Will he expedite either a White Paper or legislation? Has he given any consideration to my suggestion that all imitation firearms should be brightly coloured, so that people know the difference?

We are giving consideration to all suggestions. It has been pointed out to us that someone could sell a brightly-coloured firearm and a pot of paint alongside it. I am not prepared to expedite matters further. It is reasonable to allow until the end of July for representations, and that we propose to do.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is not the Government's intention to restrict the lawful use of smooth-bore firearms for such activities as clay pigeon shooting or normal legitimate sport?

We have made it clear that there is no intention to prohibit the legitimate use of firearms and shotguns.

Has the Minister of State's attention been drawn by the Leader of the House to the suggestion I made in business questions about two weeks ago that this question should be referred to a Select Committee, particularly in view of the direct conflict of evidence between the statistics in the Green Paper—which many hon. Members on both sides may well have believed at the time—and those given in the book by Colin Greenwood, based on research done at the Cambridge Institute of Criminology?

I do not accept that it is a disagreement on the statistics as such. It may be a disagreement on what should be deduced from them. I see no basis for a Select Committee. I repeat that we are receiving numerous representations. I have already received certain deputations and made it clear that I am available to receive others, and officials will continue to be available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants who entered this country illegally have been detained by the police; and how many have been deported since the recent House of Lords judgment.

The information available to me is that since 1st January 1973, 94 Commonwealth citizens have been detained as suspected illegal entrants, of whom 20 have been detained since the decision of the House of Lords on 11th June. Since that date, one illegal entrant has been removed from this country and this was at his own request.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a breakdown of the 20 who have been detained since the House of Lords judgment into categories of those who were known to the police and had reported to the police before the House of Lords judgment?

I cannot do that at the moment because these and all the other cases are being considered, Of the total of 94, 72 had entered before 1st January this year. Of these 72, 14 will have been removed, 13 of them before the House of Lords decision and the one that I have mentioned at his own request since. The other cases are under consideration and the point raised by the hon. Member is one of the factors about which I am inquiring.

In view of the amount of investigatory detail likely to be involved in my right hon. Friend's policy, which may either swamp him and his officials or tend to be skimped, will he give some thought to the possibility of an independent board with powers to make recommendations to him about these matters?

This is a matter in which ministerial examination and discretion are the most appropriate ways of proceeding. So far, we are not being swamped. If we were to be swamped I should have to consider the matter.

Has the Home Secretary studied the report in The Times this morning that those affected by the House of Lords decision are being subjected to blackmail and intimidation and are providing for certain right wing racialists a new sport of illegal immigrant manhunting? Will he keep a careful eye on this situation and the damage it can cause to race relations?

I saw that report and I was also glad to see the remarks of the acting chief constable who made clear that there was to be no witch-hunt—those were not his words, but that is what he meant. I am about to send a circular to chief constables advising them in the terms of the statements I have made to this House and stressing the "no witch-hunt" point and the need to avoid anything that could be construed as harassment and in particular the development of any practice of asking for passports in connection with minor crimes.

Will my right hon. Friend put firmly on the record that the proper enforcement of the law is not and cannot be a witch-hunt, even if officials in the community relations industry think that it is?

Of course, proper enforcement of the law cannot be a witch-hunt. What can become a witch-hunt is the way in which people inform on their fellow citizens, and that is what we should all be concerned about. We have always taken a serious view about that in our society and I do not believe that any of us would wish to see that become any part of the enforcement of the law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the publication of information and instruction on trafficking in drugs, such as the "Truckers' Bible", a copy of which has been made available to him, he will make an assessment on the effect of such publications on the illegal drug traffic; and if he will issue advice designed to counter these publications.

I deplore the publication of this pamphlet and I understand that it is being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I doubt whether the assessment suggested by my hon. and learned Friend is practicable, but we shall continue to watch the situation very closely. The Government are determined to do everything in their power to prevent drug trafficking and have strengthened the resources available for that purpose.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the effect of this demoralising, coarse and essentially evil document is to excuse and glamorise the trafficker in drugs and thereby to enmesh the more impressionable young people? Will he bear in mind that this document is published by a body that is a registered charity, and will he do something—if it lies within his power—to get this body unfrocked as a charity?

Some of the pamphlet certainly amounts to encouragement, but I understand that the Release organisation itself is not a charity, although it gets some finance from the Release Trust, which is a registered charity. I understand that the Charity Commissioners have recently asked for the latest accounts of the Release Trust.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the length of time spent at allocation centres by young offenders under borstal sentence indicating how many, during the last year, have spent over one month awaiting allocation.

Most young men sentenced to borstal training in England and Wales spend two or three weeks at an allocation centre. I regret that the information requested in the second part of the Question is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

That is a pity, because one young offender from Nottingham spent six weeks at an allocation centre awaiting allocation to borstal. Is not the most unsatisfactory feature of these allocation centres that they are within the walls of two prisons—Wormwood Scrubs and Strangeways Prison, Manchester, which were built in the last century? When can we afford proper allocation centres?

I cannot provide the answer in the form requested, but I can state that on 3rd July this year only 19 offenders in allocation centres had been there for more than one month. In the middle of 1970 the average period spent there was four months before being sent to borstal, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that this represents a great improvement. I accept what he says about allocation centres within existing prisons. They are in separate wings of the prisons. No doubt my hon. Friend will be aware of the two new purpose-built remand and assessment centres now being built at Glen Parva. in Leicestershire, and Feltham.

In view of the high recidivism rate in borstals, the encouraging reports in the newspaper this morning about community service orders for young offenders, and the encouraging reports from two borstals that are deeply involved in community service projects, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving to these projects, which have had such an encouraging effect both within and outside borstal, greater priority over the rules that applied in the past, which may no longer be appropriate?

I am grateful for what the hon. Member has said, and I welcome her comments about the community service order. The Government are anxious to expand the experiment to other areas of the country as soon as possible and we hope that the new powers for the courts will be used. I am aware of the hon. Lady's comments about the two borstals, and here again there is encouraging evidence. We are anxious to expand all we can in dealing with more offenders in the community, and it is at that that a large part of our policies are aimed.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the rate of recidivism in borstals is high, as the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has said? Will he give the present rate? Is it not the case, in view of the frequent use of borstal as a last resort in dealing with young offenders, that the rate of those who do not return is considerable?

I do not have the figures that would answer my hon. and learned Friend's question. Regrettably, I have to accept what the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) said. The rate of recidivism is higher than we would wish, but we are involved here with more intractable cases, and therefore any success at non-recidivism at this stage is a success that has not been achieved at some earlier stage in the penal system.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of animal experiments carried out for the last year for which figures are available were for strictly medical purposes; and what proportion were for the other categories.

All experiments under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 must be performed with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving and prolonging life or alleviating suffering, but I regret that within this definition the figures are not subdivided so that "strictly medical purposes" can be identified.

Will my hon. Friend tell me why they are not so subdivided?

Because they never have been. But I shall be as helpful as I can. Of the total experiments carried out in 1971, 35 per cent. were accounted for by experiments for the diagnosis of disease in man and animals, for the mandatory testing of drugs, and for cancer research. A large proportion of those not classified were carried out for medical purposes.

Will the Minister confirm that in exercising its responsibilities the Home Office interprets the law to mean that any experiment that will further scientific knowledge is legitimate? Is he aware that this is a licence to commit atrocities for any scientist who sells his moral judgment for a mess of molecules?

I reject completely what the hon. Member has said. I should like him to see several letters that I have received from my own constituents this week defending the administration of the Act for the purposes of human wellbeing and for the protection of animals.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that at least wherever possible everything is done to encourage those engaged in medical research to use methods of research that do not involve experiments on animals?

Yes, Sir. The latest provisional figures that I have seen of total experiments indicate that the trend may be levelling off, or turning downwards, which rather bears out the point that my hon. Friend has made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce measures to comply with the Consumer Protection Charter adopted by the Council of Europe on 28th May 1973.

I understand that this charter is still being considered by the Council's Committee of Ministers, but so far as measures to ensure the safety of consumer goods are concerned, we shall pay proper regard to its general principles.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1971, the latest year for which figures are available, 8,170 children were treated in hospitals in England and Wales for the toxic effects of non-medicinal substances? Is he satisfied at having to make judgments on the need for regulations on the basis of figures already 18 months old?

We never have figures as up-to-date as we should like. I know that it is a very serious problem, and I am grateful for all that my hon. Friend does to keep it in our minds. We are now involved in particular in work in the EEC to prepare new directives for the safety and labelling of products such as the household products that my hon. Friend particularly has in mind.

Is the Minister aware that the number of young children who are accidentally poisoned each year is growing considerably and that the Government are doing absolutely nothing to introduce regulations requiring poisons to be sold only in child-resistant containers?

I do not accept that for a moment. It is not a simple matter to have a totally safe system where children are involved. We must produce sensible regulations, steadily more effective, and increase our publicity—which we are doing—so that potentially dangerous things are kept out of children's reach.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to amend the Race Relations Acts to cover incitement through the medium of films.

It would be for the courts to determine whether the Act as it stands covers incitement through the medium of films. My right hon. Friend has no proposals for introducing legislation to amend the Act.

As the letter of the Act, in Section 6, specifically covers published and therefore printed material, wilt not the hon. Gentleman order an investigation into the use to which films are sometimes put? Will he in particular exercise his right as a member of the Conservative Party to see a film called "England, Whose England?"—a film made and circulated by elements of the Monday Club and which many people feel is a disservice to those working for racial harmony, including the hon. Gentleman's own Department?

I should strongly condemn any film that might inflame racial feelings. If we find that it is necessary to have an investigation, of course we shall have it. But the question of what is published turns a good deal on how public the performance may be, and I have no evidence that the film the hon. Gentleman mentioned has been shown publicly, in that sense. However, we shall watch the position carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of diplomats guilty of parking violations claimed diplomatic privilege during the last 12 months for which records are available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been charged with infringement of the parking regulations during the last convenient period and subsequently have been shown to have enjoyed diplomatic immunity.

The great majority of parking infringements are dealt with under the fixed penalty procedure and do not result in charges being brought. According to police records, the total number of fixed penalty notices cancelled on grounds of diplomatic immunity during the six months to the end of April 1973 was 17,557. The police report the number of incidents and the missions involved, but I regret that the records do not enable us to identify the number of different diplomats concerned in these incidents.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the figures show a disgraceful abuse by some diplomats of the hospitality so willingly accorded to them in this country? Will he consult the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on how the matter can properly and decently be dealt with?

I will, indeed, Sir. It is the duty of persons enjoying immunity to respect the laws of the country to which they are accredited. Every month the attention of the heads of diplomatic missions is drawn to fixed penalty notices incurred by members of their staff.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a com- plete nonsense that diplomatic immunity, intended to allow diplomats to pursue their affairs without intervention by the Government, should be extended in any way to parking regulations of this sort?

The question of diplomatic immunity is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. At present diplomats are entitled to claim it and, as we hear, they do claim it.

Would not a simple plan be to instruct the police to tow away any diplomat's car guilty of a parking violation?

That seems to be another question. One of the difficulties might be to be sure that the car is that of a diplomat and not of someone else.

Has my hon. and learned Friend any figures for the number of British diplomats abroad who enjoy similar immunity? If they were published, would not such figures look just as bad as the figures that he has announced today?

I am not in possession of those figures. Indeed, they would not come from my Department even if I had them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those deported or removed under police supervision during the last two years from the United Kingdom still remain overseas; how many thus remain separated from their wives and children left in the United Kingdom; and if he will reconsider their position.

The total is 1,120, of whom 15 left dependent wives and children here. We review all such cases periodically or on application for a deportation order to be revoked. There is a right of appeal where revocation is refused.

Does the Minister thoroughly understand the suffering of those 15 families? The suffering of young families who have the husband taken away for an unspecified time and who do not know whether he will ever be allowed to rejoin them must be near to the suffering endured by a young widow. Will the Minister instruct high commisions to inform him immediately a person is deported or forcibly extracted from this country? Will he consider directly such matters, and sympathetically encourage husbands to come back again?

I do not think that there is any need to take further steps. Many of the people deported are rejoining their families, who have been overseas all the time.

Are the families of those who are deported given the opportunity of returning with their husbands and fathers to their country of origin at our expense?

Yes, that is so.

In those cases where a man has been deported and separated from his English-born wife, is not that a clear case of the immigration rules discriminating against women? Will the Home Office consider that matter afresh?

The rules about which the hon. Gentleman is talking were introduced by the Labour Government in 1969. I am glad that the Opposition now view the matter differently and disapprove of it. There is no case for altering our present rules. We look at these sorts of factors before we make a final decision about every individual deportation case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the detection rates for crimes of violence in the London metropolitan area.

In each of the three years from 1970 to 1972 the Metropolitan Police have cleared up more than seven in 10 of known crimes of violence against the person. I regard that as a commendable performance, taking into account the policing problems of the London area.

Has my right hon. Friend had any report from the Metropolitan Police about the deplorable attack on Professor Eynsenck at the LSE? Does he agree that the matter should have been investigated by the police? Will he comment on existing police practice in the light of the statement attributed in the Press to the police, that as the attack took place on private property and as no complaint has been made no investigation was called for?

It is a fact that unless they are invited into private property the police do not have the right to enter, except when they have reason to apprehend in advance that there will be a major disturbance to public order. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers they had no such intimation that such a thing might happen. Subsequently—I think that my memory is right—Professor Eynsenck was interviewed and he specifically requested that no further inquiries should be made by the police.

When considering the problem of crimes of violence, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that although many battered wives are the victims of such crimes they are debarred under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme from any compensation for their injuries? Will he carefully study the case of Mrs. Joan Rosina Smith, of which I have sent him particulars, and urgently review the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme so that people like Mrs. Smith can receive some compensation for their appalling injuries?

I am reviewing the scheme at the moment. I shall take into account in the review the general point made by the right hon. Lady. I shall look most carefully at the case which she has written to me about.

I revert to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont). Is it not the case that many university authorities are now incapable of keeping the peace and obtaining free speech. That being so, should not consideration be given to the question whether a university should any longer be treated as a private place?

That would raise rather profound issues. I suspect that many people in the university world, or people interested in it, might take such a change very seriously. It is a very difficult matter.

I absolutely agree that the record of the Metropolitan Police is excellent in respect of crimes of violence and organised crime. However, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the area in which a shortage of manpower shows up most severely is that of what might be described broadly as routine non-violent crimes, such as thefts and actions against property? Last year the clear-up rate of the Metropolitan Police for such crimes was 30·3 per cent. as against 49·9 per cent. for the provincial forces. Does not that indicate how serious the position is for that kind of crime in the Metropolis?

It is serious in the Metropolis and much more prevalent there than elsewhere. The more prevalent such crime is, the more difficult it is to get a high rate of clear-up.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further meetings with the TUC.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of his talks with the TUC and CBI.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC.

As I told the House on Tuesday, I shall be meeting representatives of the TUC on 27th July and of the CBI on 30th July.

Is it not the case that the common interest between the Government and the TUC is in maintaining the rate of economic growth? As more concern has been expressed about the amount of spare capacity available for expansion in the economy, will the Government consider making available publicly, as does the Federal Reserve Board of the United States, regular estimates of the amount of spare capacity in the economy? At the least, as this matter affects confidence, will the Government, particularly in the light of the NEDO report, make fully known precisely what their views are about the amount of spare capacity in the economy?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. We have already told the House that we have offered to make available to both the TUC and the CBI all the information that we have about the future path of growth in this country. If my hon. Friend thinks that it would be helpful for the Government to consider whether to indicate where there is spare capacity, I am perfectly prepared to have the matter investigated.

I remind the Prime Minister of two statements that were made in the Conservative election manifesto, "A Better Tomorrow". First, it was said in that manifesto that the Conservatives were utterly opposed to wage control, and, secondly, that inflation was the direct result of devaluation. Given those two statements, how can the Prime Minister and his Government possibly expect to get a reasonable agreement from the trade unions?

We have had a perfectly reasonable arrangement since last November. We went in detail over the whole of this ground with the TUC and the CBI. We then accepted responsibility for taking the action. There has been co-operation from the employers and from the leaders of most of the unions. I do not see why, in continuing the talks as we are doing, we should not work out a situation that will allow greater cooperation between all concerned and a steady increase in growth. That must be to the interests of the unions just as much as to the rest of the country.

Has my right hon. Friend seen, published today, a general household survey? Further, has he seen the third leader in The Times this morning entitled, "Britain: a rather comfortable country"? Whilst I recognise that there are selected pockets of hardship which need to respond to selectivity, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the survey shows a picture of a country very different from that which is frequently and vehemently painted by the Opposition? Are not the Opposition, as usual, being thoroughly hypocritical in the way that they are trying to use food prices and other issues to damage the Government?

I agree that that is the outcome of the survey. It is true that the Government have done more than any other Government to help specific deprived groups in the community. Nobody can deny that. It is also true that much still remains to be done. That can be achieved only by sustained growth, which we hope to keep at its present rate. It is in the interests of everyone that that Growth should be sustained.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he will justify to the TUC the fact that since last November real wages have been falling although the nation's wealth has been increasing at the rate of 5 per cent. and that profits have been increasing at more than twice that rate?

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to deal with profits first I can tell him that the TUC has acknowledged—this was part of the structure of the talks—that if the investment which it wants is to be achieved there must be an increase in profitability over the very low levels of the last part of the 1960s. There is no disagreement about this. In any case, profits are controlled under the code, and the code has as one of its key features the firm control of the level of profitability.

rose—

Is there any way whereby the Government and the TUC can get together to work out a formula that will deal with the situation which sometimes arises at works meetings when people are honestly trying to work out disputes but disruptive elements infiltrate as though they were bona fide employees with a view to upsetting the whole thing?

There may be difficulties of a particular kind such as my hon. Friend mentions. I think I know the case to which he refers. This is a matter in which those concerned in the factories must be able to use their influence and reach a reasonable understanding.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that a moment ago the Prime Minister said that he would first deal with the question why profits had risen—[Interruption.]

Order. I was about to call the right hon. Gentleman again for a supplementary question. The content of an answer is not a matter of order.

I am grateful. Now that the Prime Minister has purported to explain why profits have been rising at over 30 per cent. will he tell us how he will explain to the TUC that wages have been falling, in real terms, over the past nine months?

What I will tell the TUC is that with the standstill having extended over the last quarter of 1972 and the first quarter of this year a comparison with the previous six months will show that during the standstill real disposable income rose by 2·1 per cent. That is what I will tell the TUC. I will go on to say that during the first six months of the Labour Government's freeze in 1966 personal disposable income fell by 2·5 per cent. compared with the previous six months. That is the difference between the two standstills.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the 12 months following the Labour Government's four-and-a-half-months' statutory freeze the cost of living index rose by 1·4 per cent.? Is he further aware that during the whole of his six-months' freeze the cost of living rose at 9½ per cent. per annum?

Answer.

I will answer all right. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the terms of trade during that time remained almost stationary. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman professes to be an economist and statistician, yet he cannot understand the simplest thing about the terms of trade. The terms of trade in that period remained stationary, whereas the Economist index showed that during our period of freeze the cost of raw materials had gone up 70 per cent.

asked the Prime. Minister if he will make one Minister responsible for all speech therapy training and provision.

Speech therapy services will become the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in England and of the respective Secretaries of State in Scotland and Wales as part of the reorganisation of the health service. No decisions have yet been reached on the recommendations in the Quirk Report about speech therapy training.

Is the Prime Minister seized of the importance to a specially deprived group of the crisis that exists in this service? Is he further aware that, although after 1st April next the responsibility will rest with the health services rather than the education services, the crisis is such that there will be little left of speech therapy, first, unless action is taken immediately to implement the Quirk Report recommendations and, secondly, unless it is taken by the end of September to deal with the anomalies between the pay scales of those employed in the education sector and the health sector, respectively?

I recognise the importance of this matter, which the hon. Gentleman has previously raised in the House. My right hon. Friend has made an announcement about the organisation. The other decisions are now being considered. Included in such matters is that of provision of therapists. The Department has been consulting all the organisations concerned which naturally takes a little time. I recognise the urgency of the matter. It has not been suggested, so far as I am aware, that the anomalies might be put to the Pay Board. I shall look into this.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent work that this profession is doing, particularly of rehabilitation after a road accident involving brain damage? Will he make sure that nothing is done to hamper that good work?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking. The real problem is how to get a greater supply of those who can help in these circumstances.

Does the phrase "speech therapy training" include training for autistic children and adolescents, for whom, at present, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the provision is totally inadequate?

This is part of the same problem. Obviously these children are included among those for whom provision has to be made.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Spain.

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Even if the Prime Minister does not make this visit, will he look into the position of 41,000 retirement pensioners abroad, 3,000 of whom live in Spain, who have not been getting the increased pension from the date they left the United Kingdom? Since these pensioners are no strain on our resources, because they do not use our housing, food or fuel, surely we should do something to help these least well-off, following the fall in the value of sterling. Is this not a debt of honour that we owe to such pensioners?

We are trying to reach reciprocal agreement with Spain on this matter. We have made progress in recent weeks and I hope that before long it will be possible to conclude an agreement dealing with the problem.

Would the Prime Minister not like to have the opportunity to talk not only to British pensioners living in Spain but to those Spanish citizens who have just returned from Mozambique?

That is an internal matter for the Spanish authorities. It is not a matter for me.

asked the Prime Minister if he will institute an interdepartmental inquiry into the consequences of selective food subsidies.

As I have already made clear, the Government have considered this question very carefully. There are overwhelming arguments against any general measures of this kind. But I am always ready to discuss any particular proposal for action on prices.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor's massive condemnation of food subsidies, which presumably would be endorsed by his hon. and right hon. Friends? If he does, is he really acting in good faith in negotiating with the TUC and telling it that he is prepared to consider food subsidies?

What my right hon. Friend said was that there were certain specific instances of food subsidies that were not only being considered or discussed but had been implemented, and are still being implemented. What he was arguing against was what would undoubtedly be massive and expensive subsidies for particular items that are in short supply in the world.

Will my right hon. Friend once again make it clear to the Opposition that if necessities are scarce, and therefore dear, and are artificially made cheaper by State subsidies but are not rationed, those who are rich will get more than those who are poor?

That is absolutely true, but it is difficult to get that into their heads.

Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that if the floating pound is devalued in the next two months by the same amount as it was devalued in the past two months, namely, 6 per cent., he will give the matter his urgent reconsideration?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis. What I said was that if the TUC or the CBI wish to put arguments on any aspect of food prices I am prepared to listen to them.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us have no objection whatever to being taxed in order to help those worse off than we are, but that we object very strongly to being taxed to provide cheaper food for wealthy people, like the Leader of the Opposition—to name but a few?

That has always been one of the major arguments against food subsidies across the board. It is an argument that the TUC has discussed with us in previous talks, and that it accepts. It has no desire to see indiscriminate and vast food subsidies given across the board because it knows perfectly well that they can be paid for only out of additional taxation, which is either indirectly putting up prices or directly cutting back the pay packet.

As the cost of food has increased by 35 per cent. since the Government took office, and as the right hon. Gentleman thinks that what the Labour Government did, compared with the Tory Government, is producing dividends to the Tory Party of only three-figure votes at by-elections, will he tell us whether, when he meets the TUC—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Prime Minister has difficulty in hearing me because of the wild men behind him. I shall try to speak louder. Will he confirm that when he meets the TUC and the CBI at the end of the month he will be fully briefed from the "think tank", or such other sources as he draws upon, about the possibility of extending the credit income tax system to cover both housing and rates, the possibility of guaranteed minimum earnings, threshold agreements and, last but not least, implementing—[Interruption.]

Order. The House has a great deal of business to do today. It will do it better with less noise and, perhaps, more brevity.

—and, last but not least, implementing the Tory Party's promise that it would increase family allowances? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will put all those forward in the talks at the end of this month?

At previous meetings with the TUC we have discussed these matters—the question of a minimum incomes policy, thresholds and family allowances—as well as the general situation of earnings and prices. As I have told the House before, both the CBI and the TUC said that they wished to do further work on these matters before our next meetings. We shall be able to consider the results at the next meetings on 27th and 30th July.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to provide money to keep prices down when, under the terms he negotiated with the Common Market, he must pay hundreds of millions of pounds of housewives' money to keep prices up in Europe? Is he prepared to accept the payment of a further £30 million fine from the taxpayers and housewives of this country in order to maintain the butter mountain?

The world prices of most commodities that we receive from the European Community are already higher than the intervention prices for the Community. Therefore, the problem that the right hon. Gentleman continually imagines does not arise.

Does the Prime Minister accept or repudiate the estimate of £500 million given to the Lobby journalists by the then Minister for Europe two years ago?

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what he has said is untrue and that the figures of hundreds of millions which are constantly mentioned by him and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) bear no relationship to the truth.