asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that all possible steps are taken at Her Majesty's prisons to prevent inmates from gaining access to rooftops in order to demonstrate.

Precautions are taken in every prison to prevent inmates from gaining access to the roof, and these are kept under continuous review. Any case where the precautions are found to be insufficient is specially investigated to see what further measures are necessary.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that answer, but I am not entirely satisfied with it. Can she confirm that at the recent demonstration at Wormwood Scrubs prisoners got on to the roof by way of scaffolding, and can she also confirm that that was precisely the way in which prisoners got on to the roof at Parkhurst in my constituency a year ago? Does the hon. Lady not think that further precautions should be taken? As this is an expensive exercise, with the throwing down of slates, which cost a great deal to replace, does not she think that prisons should be roofed with rather less expensive materials?

It is the case that scaffolding was erected inside D Hall of Wormwood Scrubs for essential building work and that three prisoners used the scaffolding to break through the security mesh on a window which would not normally have been accessible. Although precautions will continue to be taken and new measures introduced when necessary, building repairs will still sometimes have to be carried out, and every effort will be made to see that this does not make it possible for prisoners to gain access to the roof.

Is my hon. Friend aware that short of having one warder to watch each prisoner for 24 hours a day it is impossible to guarantee that, now and again, something untoward will not happen?

That is true. My hon. Friend is quite right, in that there is a great shortage of staff. Every effort is made to see that when building work is going on there is special surveillance of the prisoners. Special security measures are taken, such as seeing that all interior doors and doors giving access to the roofs of prisons are secured, and special wire is used to protect vulnerable areas.

As scaffolding is not erected where it should be, and is erected where it should not be, and by using it prisoners gain access to roofs, will the Home Office ensure that in future when prisoners do gain access to the roof they are cleared off quickly, with fire hoses, instead of being allowed to remain there for a long time to do immense damage, for which taxpayers and not the prisoners themselves have to pay?

In 1975 there have been only six incidents, throughout our prisons, of prisoners being on the roofs. The object is to ensure that there is no threat to security, and that there is no danger to the staff or prisoners. The practice of leaving the prisoner to come down voluntarily has proved successful in every case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to send an official reply to the Committee which reported some time ago on the work of the Charity Commissioners.

We are studying the recommendations made in the recent report from the Expenditure Committee, but would prefer to defer our reply until we have also seen the report of the committee set up by the National Council of Social Services to study this subject from the standpoint of the voluntary organisations themselves.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this was an all-party report, unanimously agreed to by the subcommittee and the full Expenditure Committee? It is clear, is it not, that there are considerable abuses within the charity field, not least of which is regarding public schools such as Eton and Harrow as charities? If there are to be cuts in public expenditure would not that be a good place to start, since it would save considerable sums of money for taxpayers at central level and for local ratepayers who have to foot half the rate bill for these expensive and exclusive educational establishments?

I agree with my hon. Friend. This was a unanimous report, and a valuable one, with more than 20 separate recommendations, so it is important that we give it careful study.

Is the Minister aware that her right hon. Friend could save many neighbourhood and community self-help organisations which are threatened with extinction as a result of the no-growth phase of local government expenditure next year, by supporting the setting up of non-profit-making voluntary bodies that would have the advantages of the financial awards enjoyed by charitable organisations?

That is obviously one of the points concerning our whole examination of charity law which we shall take into consideration before we make final decisions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfid with the conditions in prison of those awaiting deportation; and if he will make a statement.

In general, yes, although efforts are being made to improve them.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the time has come to draw aside the curtains which heavily veil this dark corner of our society, where men and women are whisked away for long periods and locked up either in Holloway or in Pentonville for up to five months at a time, without trial and without appeal? Should we not do something about this in order to gain much more respect for our kind of society and our way of dealing with such problems?

I am very concerned—I am glad that my hon. Friend shares the concern—about the amount of time that people spend in detention awaiting deportation while their cases are being reviewed, but one difficulty is that we take the most careful note of representations made to us, particularly by Members of Parliament, which frequently takes a long time. In the case with which my hon. Friend is most concerned—that which lasted five months—he knows that I investigated his representations at great length.

To put the record straight after the wild question of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), will the Minister confirm that great care is taken by those responsible, whether in Harmondsworth, Pentonville or Hollo-way, to see that, at a time when it is unavoidable for individuals to be kept in detention, conditions are made as civilised for them as possible?

I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is difficult to describe the conditions in Pentonville or in Harmondsworth as civilised. I should like a situation in which we did not need to use either, but, as long as we do, we certainly do our best to make the situation tolerable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for co-operation between the police and security services in the hand ling of information received from the general public to combat terrorism.

Yes, Sir.

But it is not the case that outside the metropolitan area there is no formalised procedure? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a further extension of such co-operation to the regions would be in the public interest?

I have no reason to think that such co-operation is not equally good outside the metropolitan area and within it. The formalisation of relationships is not necessarily always a guarantee of their success, but I should not wish to go further, because I think that the hon. Gentleman and others will recognise that it has long been a practice for the House not to have detailed discussion of security matters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we were very glad to hear the Under-Secretary of State say, last night, that chief officers of police would have all the necessary funds to reward those giving information about terrorism?

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. What chief officers of police think desirable here will be available to them. I should point out that the point of view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-North-wood (Mr. Crowder) is rejected strongly by nearly all chief officers of police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will bring forward legislation to reintroduce capital punishment for those who are found guilty of acts of terrorism.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is respect for his personal point of view on this matter but that, due to the deterioration in the situa- tion in this country, the overwhelming majority of people, including erstwhile abolitionists, believe that a return to capital punishment for terrorism is not just desirable but essential?

It is in no way a question of my personal point of view. As it stands at the moment, it is a question of the decision of the House, taken, I believe, with great responsibility in the early aftermath of the worst of the incidents that we have had—the Birmingham incidents—and taken by a very large majority—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that is undeniable—and taken, I believe, because the majority of the House took the view, as I still do, that this is not a matter in which one should allow old prejudices or traditional views to sway one. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I should have thought that that was a sensible point of view. I was putting the point of view against any view that I had previously held. I believe that in present circumstances one should consider, in the hardest and most objective way possible, whether the return of the death penalty would reduce the danger from terrorism. It is my judgment that it would not so do.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent quashing of the verdicts in the Confait case is an uncomfortable reminder that guilty murder verdicts in our courts do not always correspond to the truth and that this scandalous case should cause us to go slowly in returning to a penalty which is quite irreversible even if it is discovered that a mistake has been made?

I know that some hon. Members believe that particular considerations apply to terrorist charges, but in the two periods in which I have been Home Secretary I have certainly had to deal with an uncomfortably large number of capital decisions in which there was doubt, or in which doubt was shown to exist. This is bound to give one cause for doubt about such an ultimate penalty.

Leaving aside the question of the death penalty, which involves immense difficulties regardless of the crime for which it is considered appropriate, will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless give confidence to the public by invoking the fact that life imprisonment, which is the penalty prescribed under Section 3 of the Felony Treason Act 1848 as appropriate for these very crimes, shall be imposed in such cases and shall mean life imprisonment and nothing less?

I shall certainly reiterate the words that I used a year ago and say that, while no Home Secretary and no Parliament can bind their successors, is is certainly my view that anyone imprisoned for life or for a long term for terrorist offences, who believes that life will be nine years or anything like it, or that an early amnesty is in prospect, is gravely mistaken. In my view, people who commit such crimes should expect to serve very long periods indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the measures taken by his Department to combat terrorism.

Yes, Sir. The police are, of course, our main defence against terrorism, and they know that they have my fullest support in their efforts to combat terrorism and detect those responsible for terrorist outrages. As I said in the House yesterday, I am always willing to consider additional measures which are both practical and effective.

Is the Home Secretary aware that many of us who are convinced abolitionists in respect of non-terrorist murder believe that murder by terrorism is a uniquely evil crime that requires a unique punishment? Secondly, in view of the widespread respect in which the Home Secretary is held in the country, will he consider making a ministerial broadcast urging on all the people the importance of giving the police any information which may assist them in tracking down terrorists?

I note the views that the hon. Gentleman expressed in the first part of his question. He will know that he had an exchange on the matter earlier this afternoon. I do not think that there is anything that I can usefully add. As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I made a ministerial broadcast a year ago, in the circumstances then prevailing. I would certainly always consider making another ministerial broadcast if I were persuaded that it would be helpful. I will, of course, consider the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that the use of capital punishment in these circumstances would simply turn miserable murderers into martyrs?

I deployed a whole variety of arguments to the House a year ago, and I shall deploy them to the House again, if necessary. My hon. Friend's point is, perhaps, one of the arguments which convinced me that we should exacerbate and not cure this problem by a resort to capital punishment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Office Department whether he will set up an inquiry into the workings of firearms control.

The controls were examined in 1971 and 1972 by a working party under the chairmanship of the then Chief Inspector of Constabulary, whose findings were incorporated in the 1973 Green Paper, The Control of Firearms in Great Britain—Cmnd. 5297. We see no need for a further inquiry at this stage.

Does the hon. Lady accept that although there was some controversy about the shotgun recommendations of that Green Paper it also contained a number of sensible and universally welcomed suggestions for tightening up firearms control and making the job of the police much easier? Is there any excuse for delaying this still further?

We certainly see the need for some new legislation to control the situation regarding shotguns, but there are still many controversial matters to clear up and at the moment there is no parliamentary time for specific legislation.

Does the hon. Lady agree that if a standing advisory committee were set up to advise the Home Office on firearms matters it could be doing a lot of useful work now? It could be receiving suggestions from the public, the police and other authorities, and it could pave the way for a better attempt at legislation the next time.

An advisory committee might be indicated if new legislation were to give my right hon. Friend flexible powers to alter the way in which the controls operate. Then there could be continuing consultation with the police and other interested bodies about the exercise of such powers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions were obtained for the most recently available year for the making of false declarations and other frauds to obtain legal aid.

I regret this information is not available: the criminal statistics do not distinguish frauds in relation to criminal legal aid applications from certain other types of fraud.

Is the Minister aware of the very real disquiet which has suddenly become evident among the public in this matter? Does he understand that some members of the public cannot quite appreciate why seemingly well-heeled individuals should be able to obtain legal aid while others, who are, on the face of it, much more deserving, fail to do so? At the very least, will the Minister recognise that there is a need for re-educating the public if the legal aid system is not to fall into disrepute?

I try to do my best, in my replies to letters on this subject, to educate members of the public in this matter. There is a distinction between civil and criminal legal aid. In criminal legal aid the application has to be decided quickly and, therefore, there is not always an opportunity for the Supplementary Benefits Commission to do the exhaustive investigation of means that always takes place before a civil legal aid application is granted. However, if later examination shows that there has been any kind of false representation about means, the matter can always be remedied by the court when it make an award about the contribution that the accused has to make to the Legal Aid Fund.

Will my hon. Friend consider handing over the whole of the legal aid system to an independent commission and thus take it out of the hands of the Law Society, because that body is not particularly well suited to handle the legal aid system? Its primary concern is to defend the interests of solicitors and lawyers.

I shall think about that interesting suggestion, although it does not really come within my ambit. Civil legal aid is dealt with under a scheme administered by the Law Society, and that society is responsible to the Lord Chancellor. However, the criminal legal aid system is dealt with through the courts, and for that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible. From time to time we have considered the possibility of setting up an advisory committee on criminal legal aid, but for various reasons that has been rejected. I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he is now considering for appeals to be heard against allegedly unfair sentences.

On the assumption that my right hon. Friend means cases in which representations have been made to us alleging wrongful conviction, I regret that this information could not be provded without disproportionate effort.

Is the Minister aware that there is intolerable delay in considering appeals? For instance, in the Confait case the Catford boy's family and friends had to wait two years before an appeal was heard. Is my hon. Friend not aware that these delays cause considerable anguish to families and friends? What is being done to improve the speed with which these appeals are considered? In particular, what is being done to speed up the appeal of George Davis?

My hon. Friend seems to be labouring under some misapprehension, and to have confused an appeal to the Court of Appeal with a representation to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that there has been a miscarriage of justice. The Davis case is subject to the normal laws relating to appeals to the Court of Appeal. The appeal has not been heard. It is sub judice, and the first time that my right hon. Friend would have any right to make any representations about it would be after it has been heard by the Court of Appeal.

Will the Minister confirm my observations, which are the result of the large number of letters that I have received from persons currently being detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, that over 90 per cent. of prisoners believe that they have been given an unjust sentence? Will he accept my sympathy at the administrative problems involved?

I am bound to agree with the hon. Lady. I remember that when I was at the Bar I never had a client who did not think that he had been wrongfully convicted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what instructions Ian Brady has been force-fed whilst on hunger strike in prison.

The responsible medical officer has decided, on the basis of his professional judgment, that Ian Brady should be fed artificially. The use of force has not, I understand, arisen.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that most hon. Members thought that after his courageous decision in the case of the Price sisters, the practice of artificial feeding as a response to hunger strikes was ended? As this man knows that his crime means that he cannot be released from prison for many years, if ever, cannot it be made clear to him that his requests for better treatment in prison must be considered on their merits and in terms of his own protection from other prisoners, and that the response to a hunger strike will not result in artificial feeding?

His requests for better treatment in prison will certainly be considered on their merits and not in relation to any hunger strike activities.

"Perhaps the best way to sum it up is that I hope in future a medical officer confronted with a prisoner who is going on hunger strike will treat him in the prison as nearly as possible in the way in which a doctor would treat a free man or woman outside prison."—[Official Report, 17th July 1974; Vol. 877, c. 453.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that those who supported the announcement that he made believe that it is implicit in that announcement that neither he nor the prison authorities have any obligation at all to prolong the life of someone such as Brady against his determined wishes to be on hunger strike?

That is exactly the position. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. But I cannot interpose a clinical judgment between a doctor and his patient, whether the patient be inside or outside prison.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been made against the police in the last 12 months for which figures are available, expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage of the total number of police.

In 1974 the police in England and Wales received 17,454 complaints—that is, approximately 17 complaints for every 100 officers.

As the number of complaints, which may not all be valid, is so small compared with the total number of police, and as the police have such exacting duties nowadays, would it not be better for the Home Secretary to support the police in every possible way rather than to propose a new and expensive measure which would facilitate and foster complaints against the police, and so pander to criminal elements?

No, I hardly agree with the hon. Gentleman on any point. The number of complaints is not small compared to the number of police—17,000 is a large number. What was small was the number of substantiated complaints, which was 1,141. This was the view taken by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr). We can help to sustain the police, which I am dedicated to doing, by ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. That has been broadly accepted in this House and is now broadly accepted in the police service. The enactment of police complaints legislation—I hope to get an early Second Reading for the Police Bill—will, seen in perspective, strengthen and not weaken the police.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a general welcome at all levels of the police force for his proposal to introduce an independent element into the complaints procedure?

I have my own sources of information within the police force and, broadly speaking, they agree that this is a necessary step forward.

Will the Home Secretary recognise that at a time when good police morale is a vital ingredient of wider public well-being, this morale could be seriously damaged if the impression were given that chief officers were not fitted to play a major rôle in vital matters of discipline in their own forces?

That is the reason, as the hon. Gentleman who is the assistant Opposition spokesman on this matter will be aware, why I have been careful to reserve the position of chief officers—I have treated the deputy the same as the chief officer for this purpose—in the initial investigation of complaints, when the chief officer acts as the disciplinary authority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet replied to the letter from Amnesty International regarding Des Warren, the imprisoned Shrewsbury trade unionist

Yes, Sir. I have acknowledged to Amnesty International that its decision was not to adopt Mr. Warren as a prisoner of conscience. It has made no formal judgment on the question whether or not he is a political prisoner. There is, of course, no provision in English law for a prisoner to be treated as a political prisoner.

Is it not a fact, however, that Amnesty International was more than a little upset about the fact that the Home Secretary had given the impression to the outside world that it had refused to adopt Des Warren as a political prisoner when, in fact, things were somewhat different? Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to have another look at this case and set up an inquiry based on some new photographic evidence that shows quite conclusively that the man who was supposed to have been seriously injured, a man by the name of Grocott, was present at meetings, in perfectly good health, long after he was supposed to have been injured as a result of what, as he said, the pickets had done during the course of the strike concerned? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if there is new evidence of this kind a full-scale inquiry should take place to establish the facts, based on these new photographs?

My hon. Friend has asked a large number of questions. In so far as there was any question of misunderstanding with Amnesty International, it arose directly out of the question which he put to me previously which was based on a direct misunderstanding on his part.

No.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will listen for a moment. What he said was:

"Is it not about time that the Home Secretary recognised that Des Warren is a political prisoner, nothing more and nothing less…. That is why Amnesty International has taken up Des Warren's case."—[Official Report, 16th October 1975; Vol. 0897, c. 1575.]

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about new evidence. However, will he confirm that this conviction followed the normal and objective processes of our criminal trial system, which processes would not be available in every other country where they might be wanted but could not be secured by a person charged with this sort of offence?

I have made so many statements on various aspects of this case which make it clear that I believe that this is a case where the rule of law and the courts should be upheld that I cannot believe that any further statement of mine would add to the case in any way.

Considering the hundreds of thousands of genuine political prisoners throughout the world, would it not be heartening if some of our colleagues could lift their eyes occasionally from such parochial, petty and piddling horizons?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance Her Majesty's Government have given the Local Government Boundary Commission for England about the numbers of members of county and district councils in relation to the reviews of electoral arrangements now being undertaken by the Commission.

No directions have been given to the Commission on this matter. The criteria promulgated by the Commission in December 1973 as a guide to local authorities when drawing up proposals for revised schemes of representation were:

Is not the size of a local council a key factor for determining the effectiveness of democracy in local government? Does my right hon. Friend, therefore, agree that the criteria laid down by the Boundary Commission are the best criteria?

I would not wish to get anywhere near giving a direction. However, what I can tell my hon. Friend and the House is that I think that the Boundary Commission regards these guidelines as being fairly tentative. It is prepared to consider the matter flexibly and to receive representations, particularly from the larger areas, on the question whether a larger size would be justified.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the big difference in the expenses and attendance allowance being claimed by district and county councils? In some parts of the country some district councils are claiming thousands of pounds for such allowances, cheek by jowl with councils for which nothing has been claimed. Will the right hon. Gentleman urge some restraint on the claims by some councils?

That is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many councillors who are at present absolutely fed up with being everyone's whipping boy are appalled by the suggestion that there should be any further reduction in their numbers, because of the already arduous work that they do? Does he accept the views of the Metropolitan District Authorities Association that this matter should be postponed? Is he also prepared to accept that the question of boundary reorganisation should be postponed indefinitely, until such time as a decision has been made on the question whether there should be regional councils for England?

If councillors were fed up with being everyone's whipping boy, I am not sure that they would remain keen to be councillors. However, it is desirable that they should do so. As I have indicated, the Boundary Commission has expressed the view and, indeed, in discussions with local councils has made it clear, that it is open to representations about the appropriate size of councils, particularly in large areas. I do not think that it would be right to postpone the operation of the Boundary Commission in relation to part of the job which it has not yet completed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Criminal Law Revision Committee to report on its review of the law relating to sexual offences; and if he will report on his progress in setting up a policy advisory committee on sexual offences.

The review of the law on sexual offences in England and Wales has only just begun and it is far too early to forecast when the committee is likely to report. I am now setting up the Policy Advisory Committee and hope to announce the names of members shortly.

Following the publicity given to the recent tragic case involving a bishop, does not the Home Secretary agree that pending these reports it would be a sound principle if prosecutions took place only where some member of the public had been offended and a complaint had been made? Does not he feel that the police have better things to do than spend time seeking out these rather pathetic cases of elderly men misbehaving themselves?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, while criminal law is a matter for me and, with the approval and support of the House, a matter in respect of which it is for the Home Office to make proposals, the prosecution process is not such a matter. I do not, therefore, think that I ought to fall into the temptation of commenting on the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what discussions he has had recently with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services about the tragic incidents which have hit the Press in recent days, relating to people released—quite wrongly in my view—from psychiatric hospitals?

That is clearly an important question, but it hardly arises on this Question. However, we have the benefit of the Butler Report, which has been delivered to my right hon. Friend and myself. This will be of considerable assistance in avoiding difficulties such as those which have come to public notice and which we are all extremely anxious to avoid. We well understand the public concern about these matters. However, as has also been pointed out, it is not possible to proceed entirely without risk without having a position in which we would have, as someone has said, not one Broadmoor but a new Broadmoor built every few years to supplement the existing one. A balance must be struck, and, of course, we shall endeavour to strike a better balance than has been struck by successive Governments and successive Ministers responsible over recent years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet received the Report of the Heilbron Committee; and if he intends to introduce legislation to amend the law relating to rape.

I have received the Report of Mrs. Justice Heilbron's Advisory Group and hope to publish it before the Christmas Recess. I shall report to the House when the Government have considered the group's recommendations.

If, after he has studied the Heilbron Report, my right hon. Friend considers bringing in legislation to amend the law relating to rape, will he bear in mind the need to embody three important principles—first, that the woman's name should never be publicly disclosed; secondly, that the woman's sex life is utterly irrelevant to the question whether she was raped and, therefore, should not be used against her in a court; and, thirdly, that an accused man should be required to have reasonable grounds for any claim he puts forward that the woman consented?

I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the most useful thing we can do now is to wait and see what are the committee's recommendations on matters such as those he has mentioned. I set up the committee at short notice, and it has done its work.

Should it not be understood that unless we wish to depart from the general principle that there is no guilty act unless it is committed with a guilty mind, the law regarding rape should not be amended in the third instance put forward by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)?

The hon. Gentleman also should wait and see what, within a matter of a few weeks now, the committee will have to say.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the inspection of hotels and boarding houses under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 is completed within the near future.

The enforcement of the Act is a matter for the fire authorities, which, within the limits of their resources, are proceeding as rapidly as they can.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the inspections and surveys by personnel of the fire departments throughout the country have proved to be far more time-consuming than was supposed when the House passed the Act? Does she agree that we are now a long way behind the schedule which the Home Office wished to follow when it introduced this Act? What steps does she propose to take to speed matters up?

The rate of progress in any fire authority is dependent upon the size of the fire prevention staff and the number of premises falling within the scope of the Act. I regret that in the light of current restrictions on local authority expenditure there can be no expectation, in the near future, of increasing the level of fire service manpower for the specific purpose of implementing the requirements of the Fire Precautions Act.

I accept that there has been a slowing down of the programme of inspection, but does the hon.

I appreciate that there are financial difficulties facing hotels and boarding houses, which are already suffering from inflation and rising costs, but there have been tax reliefs and there is a loan scheme. Unfortunately, in the present economic situation it is difficult to justify further financial assistance.