asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider legislation to ensure that registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies of persons hostile to the Crown and constitution of the United Kingdom does not take place.

The new provisions for registration, introduced from 1st January 1973 by the Immigration Act 1971, give me adequate powers to withhold citizenship where I consider this is the proper course. But the Act preserved the entitlement to registration of Commonwealth citizens already settled here prior to that date.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no danger of a repetition of the astonishing case of Mr. Tariq Ali, who has offered favourable consideration from his organisation to shelter Irish Republican Army bombers and who has admitted without denial that he took the oath of allegiance in bad faith without believing in it? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no registration of Commonwealth citizens of that kind?

No. I am satisfied that those who have settled here since the beginning of the new Act can have registration withheld from them at the discretion of the Home Secretary. That was not possible in relation to those settled here before that date. We have, however, put the law right for the future.

Is it not a fact that there are 50 terrorist or revolutionary organisations with offices in London? What is being done to prevent further recruitment? Is it not true that there are discussions to bring to this country from Chile 200 Marxist mercenaries who originate in other South American countries which do not want them? Could they not be sent back to Cuba rather than brought to this country?

Although those are important matters, they do not arise in relation to the registration of Commonwealth citizens.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the introduction of a Home Counties allowance to help police officers meet the extra cost of living in areas of high housing cost.

Police pay and allowances are a matter in the first instance for the Police Council and under a standing agreement police officers are entitled to free accommodation or to a rent allowance in lieu. This allowance, which is effectively free of tax, is related to rents and rates in the area and can be increased outside the pay limit.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the exceptionally high cost of housing in Surrey is a great deterrent to recruitment? It is of great concern that at present we in Surrey are 105 officers or 10 per cent. below establishment. That is worrying a large number of people.

Yes, indeed. But I am aware, too, I am glad to say, that the strength of the Surrey force is still rising this year, as it has been in recent years, and I hope that that will continue. Under present arrangements the rent allowance, which is the way of dealing with the problem, has a further eight months to run. It will then be renegotiated in the normal way outside the pay limits.

We welcome the Home Secretary's suggestion that allowances for areas of high cost housing will be considered by the Pay Board. Has he been able to make representations to suggest that next summer is a late date for a report from the board on that matter?

As the hon. Lady will understand, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but I promised the House last week that, because of the urgency, we would do all we could to urge the Pay Board to produce the report as quickly as possible. I believe that my right hon. Friend has already taken action in that direction.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a symptom of a difficult situation, not only in those areas which have been mentioned but throughout the country, when serious crime is increasing and the police force is below strength? Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can at the earliest possible moment within the limits of stage 3 to see that inducements are given to increase police recruitment?

I am glad to say that police recruitment over the whole country is going quite well still. Police strength earlier this year exceeded 100,000 for the first time. I am also glad to say that in 1973, for the first time in many years, crime is on the decline. While we are not in any way complacent about it, I can only assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to give the same high priority to the maintenance of law and order.

The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the gravity of the manpower situation in the Metropolitan Police force. Will he now say what in his view is the earliest date by which the Police Federation's claim for a differential increase in pay for London policemen can be settled within the terms of the Government's policy?

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is a matter for the Police Council. I can only assure him that, in so far as the Police Council may be dependent on anything I may have to do, I shall do my best to ensure that it is not held up. Meanwhile, I believe that the new London allowance agreed for the metropolitan area, which raises from £10 to £15 the maximum rent allowance, should be of substantial help.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the results of his review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

It is too early to say when the working party which my right hon. Friend has set up to review the scheme will report.

Is not this delay intolerable, since the committee has been sitting for six months? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that my constituent, Mrs. Joan Rosina Carroll, formerly Smith, who was severely criminally injured by her husband, is still without a penny of compensation? In view of the intolerable delay, will the Government act administratively, as they have power to do, to remove Section 7 from the scheme?

I think that the right hon. Lady's talk about intolerable delay is somewhat unreasonable. The scheme has been in existence since 1964 on a non-statutory basis. Any review of it to put it on a statutory basis will be accepted by everyone as being a matter of considerable depth. It was only in April this year that my right hon. Friend announced that a working party was being set up. The working party is under way and has already put out a consultative document inviting the views of various interested bodies on its terms of reference. It must have time to consider the views that it has received.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the system of allocation of criminal legal aid work by magistrates' courts consequent upon the study made by the Nuffield Foundation's Legal Advice Research Unit in consultation with Mr. Michael Zander, a copy of whose report has been sent to him.

The method of assignment of solicitors to the minority of applicants for legal aid in criminal proceedings who do not make their own choice is a matter for the justices' clerk concerned, acting under the general direction of the magistrates, to determine. The study referred to has been widely publicised and commented on, and no doubt magistrates and justices' clerks generally are aware of its contents.

Having regard to the serious allegations in that report, coupled with the latest generalised and un-substantiated attack by Sir Robert Mark upon a minority of lawyers and upon the jury system, should not a full investigation be carried out by the Home Office in which the police would provide the evidence available to substantiate those allegations? Was Sir Robert Mark's speech read and considered by the Home Secretary before it was delivered?

The hon. Gentleman starts by asking me about Mr. Michael Zander and ends up by asking me about Sir Robert Mark. I will take the questions in turn. In the article by Mr. Michael Zander certain specific allegations of corruption were mentioned which have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration.

Is the Minister aware that some hon. Members share those views?

Everybody—including Members of this House and others—is entitled to his own views.

To revert to the original Question, are not the disquieting findings of Mr. Michael Zander an illustration of the difficulty of administering the criminal legal aid scheme in its particular form rather than in the form of the civil legal aid scheme, which means that these cases are considered by a committee of lawyers? Given that criminal legal aid has to be dispensed more quickly, could not this be done by emergency certificate?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are considerable differences between the systems of civil legal aid and criminal legal aid which would make their assimilation difficult. Mr. Zander in his article was dealing with the nomination by the court of solicitors to deal with particular cases where the client himself did not mention a solicitor by name. I do not think that is relevant to the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the Law Society.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the state of progress reached in the provision of a remand home for women in the Midlands.

The Home Office has recently put to Birmingham Corporation proposals for building a women's remand centre on land opposite Winson Green prison, and is awaiting the corporation's views.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is now more than five years since the Home Secretary in the Labour administration, arrogantly ignoring advice from the Magistrates' Association, the police and other interested persons in the Birmingham area, closed the Brockhill remand centre for women? Is he further aware that since then women on remand from the Birmingham courts have had to come all the way down the M1 to be housed in Holloway while on remand? Is the Minister aware that this has cost the taxpayer considerable sums and has also cost the women concerned a great deal of anguish, distress and inconvenience? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware, too, that only a few weeks ago one such woman flung herself out of the vehicle on to the M1 in the face of oncoming traffic? Does he recognise that there is great urgency in this matter?

I am fully aware that it has been extremely difficult to find an alternative site to the Brockhill remand centre which, as my hon. Friend said, was closed by the previous administration in about 1968. We have approached Birmingham Corporation for a site opposite Winson Green prison. We are awaiting the corporation's views, and we are well aware of the importance attached to a new remand centre. Without being able to comment on the individual case referred to by my hon. Friend, I am sure she will be aware that in January of this year the Home Office made arrangements so that there is now overnight accommodation in Birmingham prison for women on remand.

Does the Minister recall that the main reason for closing Brockhill remand centre at that time, which I believe was in 1968, was the difficulty of recruiting staff? Has his Department reconsidered the allocation of housing to women officers on the same basis as that used for men officers? Is he aware that this inequality is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to recruit women to work at remand centres?

I seem to recall that difficulty of obtaining staff was one of the matters referred to at that time, but I think it was a question of staff living in rather than with their own quarters provided. I shall consider the matter referred to by the hon. Lady.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now seek an alternative site for a probation hostel in Newcastle-under-Lyme other than that under consideration at Knutton.

I understand that the probation and after-care committee is already considering an alternative site.

Is the Minister aware that that news will be welcomed in Knutton, where there is intense opposition to this scheme? Is he further aware that there has been great concern at the thought that an appeal would be made against the borough council's refusal of planning permission, because there is a good alternative site available?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but, as I understand it, the appeal is still being made. The probation and after-care committee found premises which it thought suitable at Knutton and applied for planning permission. Planning permission was refused, and it has appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment against the decision. In the meantime, the committee has been asked to look for an alternative site.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of women who pleaded not guilty to shoplifting charges before juries during the latest 12-month period for which records are available was acquitted.

The latest year for which information is readily available is 1971. In that year, 62 per cent. of female defendants who pleaded not guilty at assizes and quarter sessions in England and Wales to a charge of shoplifting were acquitted.

Is not that a very remarkable and sad figure, which shows that far too many people are wrongfully charged with shoplifting? What do the Government propose to do to prevent as far as possible the wrongful prosecution of the innocent?

With respect, it does not appear to be a remarkable figure. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me the proportion of those who elect to go for trial and who plead not guilty. A fact that he should equally bear in mind is that, of the 47,589 people proceeded against for shoplifting in 1971, 44,251 were found guilty. That is a fairer figure to take than merely the proportion of the much smaller number who go for trial, and I have no reason to think that there is a greater risk of innocent people being charged in these circumstances than in any other circumstances.

In the Home Office working party on shoplifting, the report of which has just been published, why was no original research commissioned into shoplifters themselves? Is there not a danger of shoplifting being categorised as accidental or done under stress, when the evidence that is available suggests that the great majority of it is deliberate dishonesty?

The reason why the working party did not look into that was that the working party was set up by the Home Office Standing Advisory Committee on Crime Prevention and it was dealing with ways of recommending to retailers more effective means of security against shoplifting. I take this opportunity of confirming what my hon. Friend says, namely, that we should all remember that shoplifting is a form of dishonesty just as much as any other form of theft.

Would the figures that the Minister has given have been included in the figures and statistics presented by Sir Robert Mark? Does the Minister think that those figures support Sir Robert Mark's assertions or go against them?

From the fact that the greater includes the lesser, presumably the figure for women acquitted of shoplifting comes within the general overall total. The figure Sir Robert Mark gave of 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. was of those who are acquitted by a jury on trial at quarter sessions and higher courts. I remind hon. Members that 70 per cent. of those who go to a higher court plead guilty. What we are talking about, therefore, is 50 per cent. of the 30 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire into the extent to which British citizenship by marriage is being offered by advertisements for a financial consideration.

My right hon. Friend deplores these advertisements, but he has no reason to think that many marriages of convenience are taking place for the purpose of qualifying the wife for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We shall watch the situation very closely.

I am glad to hear that the Minister will watch the situation, but would he not agree that advertisements of the sort that have been brought to my attention, in which two guys offer a marriage of convenience for £500 apiece, are obnoxious, insulting to the status of women and, indeed, to the institution of marriage, as well as smacking of male prostitution? Furthermore, will he alter existing legislation to enable the women concerned to remain in this country without having to marry dubious characters? In the meantime, will he redouble his efforts to stamp out this sort of advertisement?

Altering the immigration legislation is a much wider question. Of course the advertisements are obnoxious, as I said. My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that there has been more than an infinitesimal number of marriages of this sort over the past few years, but if it looks like developing into a serious abuse we shall consider what to do about it.

Is it not a fact that, by my right hon. Friend's rather quaint proposals for anti-discrimination, it will become illegal for anybody to advertise for a partner of the opposite sex?

That is a much wider question.

Will the Minister take an early opportunity of making a strong public statement that if this abuse were to continue—it exists and the Home Office cannot be aware of its full extent—it could have only one result, and that is for this country to terminate the acquisition of British citizenship by reason of marriage? That would be most regrettable.

That is a helpful comment. If we have to say something stronger about this matter we will do so. But it would mean changing the law. The House must pause to consider how one would define a marriage of convenience. We may have to do so, but I merely remind the House that it is not easy.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the un-satisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals by Ugandan Asian refugees not holding British nationality, but wishing to reside with their families who are domiciled in the United Kingdom, have been allowed during the past year; and how many have been rejected.

In the time available it has not been possible to establish how many of the appeals determined during the past year come within the category which the hon. Member has in mind, but the number is likely to be very small. I will write to him when I have further information.

I acknowledge that in a pre-election year the Government may be sensitive to those who regard even a single successful appeal as evidence of a Communist conspiracy in the Home Office. However, will not the Under-Secretary agree that, in the small number of cases involved, it is fundamentally inhumane and absurd to deny to families domiciled in this country the services and prescence of a breadwinner, often the only member of the family who is not allowed to enter the United Kingdom?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that this situation basically derives from the change in the immigration rules made by his right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary in 1969 because the former rules were being abused. In the present situation, in general about one appeal in four is successful—that is, appeals over the whole immigration system; so to that extent the appeal system is working generously towards the people who are appealing.

Will my hon. Friend make clear to the country how effectively the 1971 Act is preventing immigration? Will he bear in mind the correspondence that I have been having with him on this subject?

Yes, that is certainly the case; I have corresponded regularly with my hon. Friend. The latest information is that the total figures for Commonwealth immigration in the first half of this year were 25 per cent. down on the same period last year, and this was the lowest rate since control was imposed in 1962.

There is no appeal against a decision of the Home Secretary in the exercise of his absolute discretion, and perhaps the Government will consider the machinery for that. May I call to the hon. Gentleman's mind the plight of many spouses, particularly in India and Pakistan, who have waited a long time for decisions from the high commissions and embassies in those countries about their right to come here? The delay is now becoming serious.

The final appeal is surely to the House of Commons, where instances when Members think that we have taken a wrong decision, even after appeal, may be brought up. I know that there are delays. The delays result mainly from our determination to operate this control fairly as between one person and another and also, regrettably, from the degree of subterfuge employed by people trying to get round our controls.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the Prison Officers' Association.

On 16th October.

Is the Home Secretary aware of existing conditions in the prison service? Recruitment is down, there are frequently resignations from the service, and massive overtime now has to be worked. When will the Minister do something that will start to rebuild the confidence of prison officers that it is a job worth keeping? Many of them do not think so now.

I believe that the terms of the pay code for stage 3 will give allowances which will help people working unsocial hours of the sort that prison officers have to work. That possibility, of course, will now come up for review and negotiation under the code. We must wait to see what it does for prison officers, but I hope that it will be of some help, as it is intended to be.

It is not exaggeration.

There are almost 2,000 more prison officers in post today than there were when we took office—that is a substantial increase—with 4,000 fewer prisoners. So at least the position has improved substantially, although there is still plenty of room for further improvement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are anomalies between the prison service and the police and that it is a matter of contention? Will he look into that, too, as a matter of urgency?

I cannot add to what I have already said, but we are now due for a new negotiation in the normal course of events for the prison officers. That will take place under the pay code, stage 3, and I hope that the prison officers will find that not unhelpful.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will use his powers under the Consumer Protection Act 1961 to ban the sale of aerosol adhesives containing the same chemical substances as those which have recently been banned by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The production and sale in this country of these aerosol adhesives have already been stopped by the manu- factures. Further investigations are being made by Home Office medical advisers, among others, and until their outcome is known regulations under the 1961 Act would be premature.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is expert evidence that these products can lead to genetic malformation and that, although these products were banned in the United States last August, and subsequently in the EEC, they have not even been the subject of a national warning here, let alone banned? Whereas manufacturers may have withdrawn supplies, they are on sale and in use in this country. Why do we always seem to be trailing behind instead of blazing the trail with regard to the safety of consumer products?

I do not accept that. To use my hon. Friend's phrase, does she not think that we are blazing a trail in many of the ways in which we are protecting consumers? I know the disturbing views that have been expressed, as my hon. Friend said, but I think it right that we should investigate this matter thoroughly, just as it is being investigated in the United States, before we finally decide what steps to take. I take this very seriously indeed, and if necessary we will take action.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure safety from fire in roofed-over city shopping centres.

Fire safety in such premises is secured partly through the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, enforced by the fire authorities, and partly through the Building Regulations, enforced by the building authorities. A code of practice, drawn up by a Home Office working party, was circulated to those authorities for their guidance earlier this year. Research into special problems of fire safety in shopping centres is continuing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are now many new roofed-in shopping centres and that there is a danger from fire in such closed-in areas because smoke is not able to get out very easily?

Yes, that is certainly the case. The research we are carrying out at the Fire Research Station is particularly concerned with the control of smoke-spread. I hope that this, and the recent guide, will be very helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ban the sale of fireworks except under licence for organised displays.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the retail sale of fireworks, except under licence.

No, Sir.

Would my hon. Friend take the same view if this were a brand-new product being introduced to the market instead of a well-established product with vested interests well entrenched?

That is very hypothetical. We must try to keep this in perspective. Last year was a bad year for firework accidents, but, even so, the number has been halved in the last 10 years. This year we took special publicity steps including the help, among others, of the Osmond Brothers to get the message across, and I hope that the figures will be better. If they are not, we shall reconsider the issue.

Are not the arguments all one way, since this proposal would save a great deal of suffering whilst sacrificing nothing in entertainment? How many accidents does the Minister consider to be too many?

I am certainly not complacent about this. Anyone who reads about accidents, particularly to children's eyes, cannot be complacent. However, we would be depriving many people of reasonable pleasure in sensibly conducted firework parties. Therefore, I suggest that the right answer is to continue publicity and education.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of the Government being asked to become far too paternalistic? Is not this on a par with cigarette smoking, for example, which is probably much more damaging to health than the use of fireworks? Should we ask for cigarettes to be smoked only under licence?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should rely as far as we can on the good sense of the individuals, particularly parents.

I should not regard the saving of children's lives and preventing injury to them as being paternalistic. In view of the increase that has taken place in the sale of fireworks, will the Department consider licensing shops for the sale of fireworks and raising the age limit at which a child may buy them? At present, although the limit is 14, younger children are able to buy them.

I know that these suggestions have been made. I do not rule out further steps being taken if we think that they are necessary. At the moment we do not. The balance of restriction freedom and responsibility is about right.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his powers over the use of CD plates on motor cars; and in what circumstances these are permitted as part of the equipment of a hire car.

My right hon. Friend has no such powers in respect of motor vehicles generally or of hire cars in particular.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that he is the second Minister to whom I have addressed a Question to find out who has any power? As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just expressed concern about accidents to children and has mentioned the assistance received from the Osmond Brothers, may I ask whether he noticed that a child was involved in an accident with a car in which those gentlemen were being driven and that that car was displaying CD plates? Is he further aware that regular users of the vehicles of London Airport private hire conveyors are under the impression that CD plates are given favourable consideration?

I am glad to say to my hon. Friend that, true to consistency, he received the same answer from my hon. Friend as he has had from myself. CD plates have no official status in this country and confer no privileges in respect of the vehicles to which they are attached. I agree with my hon. Friend that that should be made clear and known to everyone.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why for three weeks in Great Smith Street, on a yellow line outside Church House, there has been a line of cars bearing CD plates which has congested the traffic on the 88 bus route and has been a nuisance in the area?

The hon. Gentleman may be confusing the CD plate, which gives no privilege, with the fact that certain people may claim diplomatic immunity from prosecution. The police have exactly the same power to remove a car bearing a CD plate as they have to remove other cars.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had recently concerning the pay and grading of probation officers; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards a return to a single salary scale for main grade probation officers.

On 26th October the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service agreed on increased salary scales for probation officers with effect from 1st July 1973. The increases, which have been approved by the Pay Board, correspond to those agreed for local authority social workers from the same date, and the necessary amendments to the Probation (Conditions of Service) Rules are being prepared.

Can the Home Secretary tell us why delegates walked out of a meeting of the National Association of Probation Officers on 26th October?

No, I am afraid I cannot. I am not sure that that is an accurate description of what happened.

In the light of my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask whether he has seen an official expression of opinion from the probation officers which appeared in The Times about 10 days ago and which virtually attacks the Government for a breach of faith? What comment has he on that?

Yes, I saw that allegation and I both regret and reject it. In the lifetime of this Government the full-time strength of the probation service has risen—in round figures—from 3,300 to 4,400. The salary limits have also been raised substantially as a result of the Butterworth Committee and our joint agreement to that. The two scales, A and B, to which so much objection is now taken, were part of that committee's recommendations and were agreed to by the association's representatives. The association is perfectly entitled to change its mind but not to make allegations of bad faith.

Does the Minister realise that this twin scale has become notorious in the association and among probation officers? Does he realise that it is causing embarrassment and jealousy within the service? To try to help smooth the efficiency of this worthwhile organisation, will he do something to get a single scheme for rates of pay?

I said that the employers' association was looking into the matter. The House must realise that it is only 18 months since the association's representatives agreed to the scales. The association is justified in changing its mind, but we must have time to look at the question properly.

Does the Home Secretary recall that at the time of the Butterworth Report the National Association of Probation Officers expressed its doubts about it, but subsequently it emerged that only a small number of probation officers had been left behind on scale A? Does he also recall that in answer to a Question of mine shortly before the recess he said that he had some understanding of the difficulty and would look into it himself? Will he therefore consider it again in view of the disruption that will be caused?

I do not want to take back any of the words I used to the hon. Lady, but this is a matter for the joint negotiating committee and the employers are actively looking at it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he plans to make in the financial assistance available to relatives to visit prisoners.

The arrangements for providing financial assistance to relatives for visits to prisoners are under review, but I cannot yet say what the outcome of this may be.

Is it not illogical that the financial assistance given to poor relatives visiting prisoners is not available when a prisoner is being held on remand, which can be for long periods? Will the Home Secretary look into the fact that many prisons do not seem to take this problem seriously and that people who go to a prison to visit a relative often find that he has been moved? Is it not time to make an improvement in the existing arrangements?

It is right that it does not apply to those on remand; nor is it available to prisoners serving a sentence or three months or less. It is one of the matters being reviewed. On the second matter, if my hon. Friend will let me have details of individual cases I shall certainly look into them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the criteria he uses for the admission of South African citizens to the United Kingdom.

The admission of South African nationals is governed by the Immigration Rules for control on entry of EEC and other non-Commonwealth nationals.

Can the Under-Secretary tell the House the result of the police investigations into an alleged raid by South African police spies on the home of Mrs. Astrid Viner? Can he also tell us the extent to which immigration control is used to keep out these insidious South African police spies? Is the control as strict as it is against some ordinary Commonwealth citizens and the citizens of East European countries?

My right hon. Friend wrote a few days ago to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) saying that the police had already written to Mrs. Viner inviting her to get in touch with them so that she could help clear up the allegations about this case. On the general point, the hon. Member knows what powers we have under the Immigration Act and the rules to keep out certain individuals whose presence, for instance, is not conducive to public good, and we should not hesitate to use those powers in suitable cases.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mugging offences have been reported in 1973; and what was the comparable figure for 1972.

There is no agreed definition of "mugging", but the most relevant figures are those for offences of robbery or assault with intent to rob. The number of such offences known to the police in England and Wales in the first six months of 1973 was 3,765; the corresponding figure for 1973 was 4,262. I much welcome this reduction.

Is the Minister aware of the astonishing variations in the sentences being imposed by judges—everything from 12 months to 20 years? Are we not entitled to expect consistency from the courts? Is it right that one or two offenders should be picked upon for swingeing sentences as an example to others? If there are to be swingeing sentences, should they not be applied to all offenders?

It is a basic principle of our system of justice, as the hon. Member knows, that neither the Home Secretary nor any other Minister can or should comment on individual sentences, which are at the discretion of the courts.

Questions to the Prime Minister.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the Lord Chief Justice's recent direction to courts, he will give urgent consideration to what relief can be given in the case of Mr. P. Saint, of 39 Hurstbourne Gardens, Barking, who, having been found not guilty of an alleged offence, was ordered to pay £100 towards the costs of the prosecution.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I shall raise on the Adjournment the matter referred to in Question No. 24 if the answer I subsequently receive is not satisfactory.