asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to remove the restriction on the use of liquor as prizes in draws and lotteries.

There are no plans at present for Government legislation on this subject.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the police authorities regard the offering of liquor as prizes in draws, tombolas and bottle stalls as a contravention of the licensing laws? That is causing problems to many charities in their fundraising activities. Will he support an initiative by a Back Bencher to amend the licensing laws?

I am aware of the problem. As I have told the House already, we would look sympathetically and carefully at any Back Bench proposal.

It is obvious that this law is not enforced, because no one no longer believes in it. Is it not absurd to keep on the statute book a law that nobody wishes to see enforced?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There is no time for Government legislation in this Session. If there is some future prospect of Private Members' legislation, we shall be sympathetically disposed towards it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy relating to the admission of male fiancés to the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for the tightening of immigration control in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now give details of the changes he intends to make in the immigration rules.

I made a statement about this matter yesterday.

Is the Home Secretary aware that on 9 August his hon. Friend the Minister of State suggested that, as well as the rights of immigrants into this country being restricted, the rights of Members of Parliament to take up cases on their behalf should be restricted? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in no circumstances will he countenance any restriction on the rights of Members of Parliament to take up cases on behalf of their immigrant constituents?

Certainly; I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman says "on behalf of their immigrant constituents". There are a number of cases when Members of Parliament take up cases on behalf of other Members' constituents. I question whether that is a reasonable or fair proposition.

Despite the simulated fury from Opposition Benches yesterday, and the predictable hostility of the politically motivated immigrants' organisations, is my right hon. Friend aware that the country is solidly behind the Government in their determination to stamp out the immigration racket and is looking forward to the early implementation of the remainder of the programme?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.

In view of widespread criticism, will the right hon. Gentleman rethink the proposals in the White Paper? Is it not the case that it would become virtually impossible for aged and dependent parents to join their children in the United Kingdom since any money that is sent to them will simply undermine their chances of joining their adult children?

I think that the proposals about grandparents and other dependants are reasonable. They should be debated, and I shall certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Following his supplementary answer to me yesterday, is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to estimate the reduction in the intake from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan due simply to the proposals regarding male fiancés?

Something of the order of 2,000. I should like to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not having answered the second part of his question yesterday. As to the end of the century, no one can estimate the increase, and the effect carrying on from that, if some action on these particular lines had not been taken.

Will the condition that fiancés must have met mean that they must have met since growing up, because in some countries parents arrange engagements to marry between quite young children who may then meet? Surely that ought not to count?

This is a matter that has to be considered under the rules by the immigration officer concerned in the light of each individual case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position, which is still obscure, of an application under the rules that is made between the publication of yesterday's White Paper and the date when the new rules are laid before, and agreed by, Parliament? Will such an application be accepted and a decision made on it under the old rules and not the new rules, because the new rules will have no force in law until they are agreed by Parliament?

I hope that I can give the hon. Lady a clear answer. I tried to yesterday, but I accept that I did not satisfy the House on this matter. I shall try again. Paragraph 13 of the introduction to the White Paper makes it clear that applications for entry will be decided on the basis of the rules in force at the time the decision is taken. An application that is made before the publication of the White Paper will, however, be decided on the basis of the existing rules, even though the decision may be taken after the new rules come into force.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in reviewing the operation of section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966.

The review involves a number of difficult issues which will need further consideration before any decisions can be reached.

Is the Minister aware that section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 is in its small way a useful aid to local authorities in multi-racial areas? Can he give some date when the review will be completed in order that section 11 can be made more sensitive to the needs of such areas?

I accept that section 11 is of some value, as the hon. Gentleman says. However, the question of how to replace it is a complicated one, and I cannot now say exactly when we shall be ready with proposals on that matter.

Surely all the difficulties were solved in the Local Government Grants (Ethnic Groups) Bill presented by the last Government? If the Minister really wants to improve race relations, is he aware that this is the most important contribution that a Government could make?

I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's second point is altogether true. As to his first point, while I accept that this is a useful piece of legislation, I believe that the problem of how to replace it is a complicated one. We made it clear in opposition that a number of difficulties had to be faced up to, and we are thinking hard about these problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Police Complaints Board.

I have no present plans for a further meeting with Lord Plowden.

Does the Home Secretary accept that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the current police complaints procedure? Does he accept that the police force is a publicly accountable force and that there ought to be an independent element of investigation into police complaints? That has been considerably reinforced by the recent deaths of Blair Peach and Jimmy Kelly. Many hon. Members are concerned to ensure that the police maintain and improve their reputation. Surely one of the ways to do this would be to have an independent investigation into police complaints rather than have the police investigating them.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember that the previous Government, supported by myself and many others, believed that it was right to set up an independent element of inquiry into the police through the Police Complaints Board. I believe that the board is independent. I only wish that the House would accept that it is. This House set up the Police Complaints Board as an independent element of inquiry. Now that it has been set up, for some reason which I do not understand certain hon. Members will not accept that what they set up as independent is independent. The hon. Gentleman mentioned two specific cases. I am sure that he will appreciate that they are both the subject of inquiries and possible investigations by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Therefore, it would be quite improper for me to add anything in respect of either of them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the whole the Police Complaints Board has a reputation for carrying out its powers thoroughly and fairly? Of course, it has no power to investigate complaints that involve criminal, or possible criminal, prosecutions. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that one of the defects in the existing system is that the board is not complainant-activated, and as a result must trawl through a vast mass of complaints which are trivial and vexatious and were never really intended to come before the Board at all?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is a lot of truth in what he has said. The board is due to make a report on the first years of its activities next year. We can then all investigate to see whether further improvement ought to be made in its procedures.

Does the Home Secretary accept that the present police complaints procedure is not a satisfactory means of investigating the deaths of no fewer than 60 persons who have died in police custody over the last nine years from non-natural causes excluding suicide? Does he accept that the evidence of so many cases of violent injury and death while in police custody—not only Jimmy Kelly and the others who have been mentioned—is now on such a scale as to require a public inquiry if confidence in the police is to be restored?

I could not conceivably accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have no intention of doing so without looking into the facts, and that I am perfectly prepared to do. Equally, I should add that the House set up the Police Complaints Board and we shall have an opportunity to look at its activities over the period since it was set up. Surely we ought to do so. But to go on arguing that it is not independent, when we set it up as independent, and to suggest that it cannot do the job when we set it up to do the job, is an extraordinary way for the House to proceed.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that the only complaints against the present police complaints procedure come from the extreme Left of the Labour Party?

It is not for me to say from where the complaints come, but I do notice. I have a good eye for what is going on.

Does the Home Secretary accept that there is considerable public concern and disquiet into the policing of Knowsley by the K Division, not just because of the death of Jimmy Kelly after being in police custody, but also because of the injuries sustained by a constituent of mine, Michael Canavagh, who lost a spleen and a kidney after being in police custody? There are many similar cases of serious allegations. Would not these be dissipated by an independent public inquiry, not least so that the reputation of the police, and the public's confidence in it, can be restored? This concern will not be allayed by an investigation carried out by internal means.

I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that over the years evidence of what has happened at the public inquiries has never been as satisfactory as he hoped it would. In many cases, public inquiries have not led to the results that many people hoped they would—

Nor have police inquiries.

Where there is any lapse of duty on the part of any police officer, it is very important that that should be pursued through the courts and the criminal procedures. It is very important indeed that the police live within the law. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. An inquiry is going on into some of the cases that he raised. That inquiry is an internal one but is being carried out by a police officer from another force—that is important—and the result will go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will, therefore, then be outside the police itself. Here again, I think that we should wait to see how that procedure works.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the Police Complaints Board is a good body to have set up, in many cases where one refers a case to the board it seems to rely for its decision purely upon evidence provided by the police? A number of people feel that the present set-up should be changed and improved to allow more of an independent assessment?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is exactly the opportunity that the House will have when the board makes its report on the first years of its operations. We shall then have to look at it very seriously and consider whether we have got it right.

With regard to the Blair Peach case, which has been mentioned in these exchanges, I recognise that the Secretary of State will want to wait for the outcome of the inquest, but will he keep his mind open about the desirability, perhaps, of a public inquiry at the end of that inquest, as much in the interests of the police as of those who are complaining against the police?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I am very strongly advised by lawyers, and when I am advised by lawyers I believe it to be right to take their advice. I have not always been so loyal to lawyers, but in this case It would seem to be an ideal solution to it would be quite wrong of me to make any comment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he considers that the amount of police time spent on road traffic offences could be reduced.

While it must be for individual chief officers to decide how best to use the manpower available to them, I hope that the working party which the Government have decided to set up, to review fixed penalties and other aspects of traffic law, will be able to suggest ways of saving police time.

The Minister and his right hon. Friend are to be congratulated on the review which they have set up, but is the Minister aware that this is limited to fixed penalties and that there is also the possibility of a points demerits system?

The question of spot penalties raises wider issues than would be possible within a review of this kind. The carrying of driving licences and their presentation are primarily matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this may be an opportune time at which to set up two separate forces—one to concentrate completely on traffic regulations and offences, and the other to deal with major crimes? It would seem to be an ideal solution to incorporate the traffic warden system into this traffic force.

I am a little sceptical of suggestions concerning major reorganisations of that kind, because they nearly always lead to more expenditure and less efficiency. But we shall certainly want to consider what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he has had with regard to the need for local authorities to maintain their expenditure on all aspects of the maintenance of law and order, including after-care services to courts and those education and social services which help to prevent crime.

The Government have made clear to local authorities the priority they attach to expenditure on the law and order services, and that in particular the plans for courts, police and probation services should not suffer any reduction.

Is the Home Secretary satisfied, then, that there will be no cuts in the staffs dealing with truancy in schools and in the social services departments which give counselling to young people?

These are matters for the local authorities. We have indicated that we think it right that priority should be given to matters concerned in the broadest sense with the maintenance and improvement of law and order. I have no doubt that the local authorities concerned will, because of their own public opinion, wish to give to these matters the priority that the Government attach to them.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the level of expenditure is not necessarily an indication of the effectiveness of a service, and that, although law and order is the first priority, there is scope for reduction in bureaucracy in this as in every other area of local Government.

I agree that that is so. My hon. Friend, with his very great experience of these matters, has shown that that is absolutely the case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why it is necessary to have meters used in London taxicabs sealed by both the British Standards Institute and the Carriage Office.

Because two different processes are involved. The British Standards Institute tests and seals the meter itself. The Public Carriage Office tests the meter on the cab and seals it in place.

In view of the Minister's answer and the time elements and costs involved, can he say, with regard to the new electric meter that is liable to come into operation in the near future, whether it will be subject to an annual test or whether it can be dealt with by the British Standards Institute?

I understand that the new electronic meters are unlikely to need such frequent testing, but the precise requirements are a matter for the licensing authority.

It may be bad enough for two authorities to be involved, but would it not be much worse if the European Commission were also to get involved in the business of authorising the shape and size of London taxis? Will the Minister of State find some way of notifying to the House the interest of the European Commission in this subject at the moment, and make sure that before the Government do anything there will be full consultation with drivers and owners of London taxis?

There is an EEC directive which requires mechanical taxi meters to be both bench-tested and road-tested. There does not seem to me to be anything wrong with that. If there are changes, we shall, of course, consult with the EEC about them.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to see that London cabs all have up-to-date meters, to avoid the use of a computer every time one tries to discover the fare?

I have a good deal of sympathy with the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend, but I do not think that it is for me to determine.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the operation of coroners' courts.

I am not aware of any general grounds for dissatisfaction with the system of coroners' courts. It is not for me to comment on the way in which coroners, who are independent judicial officers, carry out their duties within the framework of the law.

Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of personal distress caused when close relatives have to identify bodies after industrial death, accidental death or violent death, and that this could be avoided by the Government introducing legislation to avoid the requirement to identify bodies, or, alternatively, by the Government supporting the Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)?

I sympathise with the distress of bereaved relatives in these circumstances, but where the police are called to a death certain facts have to be established, and it is generally thought best to do this immediately, in order to avoid a second interview if at all possible. But I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Is the Minister aware that there is also need for the Government to take evidence from many coroners who on various occasions have expressed certain disquiet about the way in which, after they have certified deaths due to pneumoconiosis in the mining industry, the pneumoconiosis medical panel has rejected such certification, with the result that the widow concerned has not received industrial death benefit? I hope that the Minister will take evidence from coroners, particularly those in the mining communities, in order to establish precisely what ought to be done in those cases.

This is a subject that I have not considered, but I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the 15th report of the Select Committee on Expenditure concerning the reduction of pressure on the prison system; and if he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) on 9 November.

Does the Home Secretary agree that there is urgent need for attention to the question of the development or further development of the system of community service orders, and for the development of partially suspended sentences? Will he consider taking some action to ensure that these relevant steps are made possible before the end of next year?

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him entirely. We shall do everything we can to encourage those concerned to make more use of community service orders and have regard to the other proposal that he has made.

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there have been a large number of reports about the prison system by Committees of this House and committees outside. What will he do to carry out some of the recommendations of the May committee to improve conditions and to reduce overcrowding within the prisons, as well as to involve more community people in looking after prisoners within the prison?

The report of the May committee is extremely important and very valuable. I intend inside the Home Office to make sure that we respond positively to many of the proposals made concerning the Home Office. We also intend to respond positively to the proposals for taking some people, such as the mentally disordered, out of prison. That is very important. We responded positively and immediately in accepting all the proposals on pay and allowances of prison officers put forward by the May committee. We shall continue on that basis.

Will my right hon. Friend consider taking powers to enable him to transfer to their own countries Commonwealth citizens who are in prison in this country, so that they might then be able to be in touch with their relatives at home?

I should like to consider what my hon. Friend has said; and I shall certainly do so.

Will the Home Secretary publish in the Official Report details of what would be the effect upon the prison population if the recommendations of the May committee that certain types of prisoners should not be in prison were carried through? That may be a starting point, before the right hon. Gentleman examines how much should be spent on prisons.

That is an interesting and important suggestion. I shall certainly look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce an order extending the operation of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to nursing homes registered under the Nursing Homes Act 1975 and to disabled or old persons' homes registered under the National Assistance Act 1948.

The consultation to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend's question of 28 June is proceeding, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend appreciates that there are about 5,000 homes and about 200,000 residents involved. Surely he would accept that, now that the inspection and certification of hotel premises has been either completed or very largely completed in most areas, it would be right to extend the protection afforded by the Fire Protection Act to those 200,000 residents?

I accept that there is a need to bring about a phased improvement in fire precautions in premises in the health and social services sector. But the question we have still to consider is exactly what steps we should take to identify the particular institutions which need further fire protection measures, and what measures are best designed to achieve a greater increase in safety in those institutions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many movements in and out of the United Kingdom have been checked by the immigration service at airports and seaports during the peak months from 1 April to 30 September.

The number of persons subject to immigration control admitted to the United Kingdom during the period 1 April to 30 September 1978 was just over 8 million. Of these, almost 5 million came in at airports and just over million at seaports. Information about the numbers of such persons leaving the United Kingdom is not collated centrally.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. The figures, indeed, are tremendous, and I congratulate the Immigration Service on its handling of so many people. Will my hon. Friend tell me how many people have been refused entry?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the Immigration Service. The answer to his question is that about 8,000 passengers were refused leave to enter the United Kingdom during the period April to September 1978.

I wonder whether the Minister of State could persuade his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to reconsider his earlier statement in relation to Members of Parliament raising the question of immigrants into this country? The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it was perfectly proper for hon. Members to raise matters on behalf of their own constituents, but not on behalf of constituents of any other hon. Member. In view of the shortness of time within which it is often necessary for a Member of Parliament to act in such cases, and as many Members of Parliament have expertise in this area—I have a connection with Chilean refugess—would he not regard his statement as a gross interference with the rights and privileges of individual Members?

What causes my right hon. Friend and myself concern is the habit that has grown up, in some cases, where one hon. Member has taken up a case and then, as it were, relinquished it for another hon. Member to step into the breach. That is contrary to the normal customs of the House, and causes real problems.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to meet the Equal Opportunities Commission in the near future.

I have no present plans for a meeting.

I rather thought that might be the answer, following yesterday's White Paper. As the Equal Opportunities Commission shares the concern of the Commission for Racial Equality about a virginity test on women immigrants, will the Minister meet the Equal Opportunities Commission and explain why he has blocked its desire to investigate virginity tests and other matters of immigration? Indeed, the Commission is now thinking about going to law.

The hon. Gentleman seems to have moved from one Commission to the other. He asked me a question about the Equal Opportunities Commission and moved on to ask a question about the Commission for Racial Equality. I think I must answer the question that he asked in the first instance. I shall, of course, consider any representations from the Equal Opportunities Commission. I have heard its views, and I understand them. I do not have to accept them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there could be a useful saving of public funds if the whole future of the Equal Opportunities Commission were reconsidered?

The Government are committed to the Equal Opportunities Commission; and we shall certainly support its work. I wish to co-operate with the Commission and I am very pleased to do so.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is important that the Government should not, as it were, be legally exempt from investigations by either the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Commission for Racial Equality, and that they should not be able to hide behind any sort of privilege if they are breaking the principles on which those two Commissions were founded?

That sounds like the kind of generality that I could entirely accept.

Does the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the order I gave for virginity tests to cease in all parts of the world continues and that the Yellow-lees inquiry into medical examinations throughout the world will, in whatever appropriate fashion, be published?

I can answer "Yes" to both those questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are serving sentences in Her Majesty's prisons at the present time.

On 15 October 1979, there were 35,287 persons serving sentences in prison department establishments in England and Wales.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that these figures are much too high, and has he any proposal to reduce the number? When will the Government announce a decision on the proposals in the May report concerning prison building?

I agree that the figures are too high. The proposals contained in the May report, together with other suggestions that have been made for reducing the prison population, are being considered. I cannot yet say when it will be possible to announce decisions relating to them.

Will the Minister of State tell us what action will be taken—I hope soon—to remove from prisons the mentally ill and disordered, the vagrants, the drunks and petty offenders? Will he say whether the Government will implement the recommendations in the report of the advisory council on the penal system as to shorter sentences?

The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of matters. The removal of the mentally ill from prisons clearly involves my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. He continues to press the health authorities to make proper provision for such offenders, including the establishment of regional secure units. Many, if not most, of the other proposals can be considered in the light of the May report, which is what we are doing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that many people in rural areas still cannot receive 625-line television transmissions, he will defer the ending of 405-line transmissions until full national coverage has been achieved.

There has not yet been a decision on the timetable for the closure of the 405-line VHF television services. The programme for extending the 625-line UHF services to all communities with permanent populations of 500 or more is now well advanced, and is continuing.

Will that extend to those who live in communities of less than 500 people? Does the Minister recognise that there are many remote farms and scattered communities with no access to entertainment facilities, and very little to educational facilities, for whom the limited service now available on 405 lines is all they have? Does he realise that that must be maintained until an alternative can be provided?

I very much recognise the problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I, like the hon. Gentleman, represent a constituency which contains many such people. I think that it is important to take the interests of those concerned into account when working out this programme, and I assure the hon Gentleman that what he has said will be taken fully into account when such a statement is made.

Does the Minister agree that this is not a problem that is limited to Scotland and Wales, but that there are substantial acreages of England where the population cannot receive 625-line transmission? The BBC has been quite oblivious to the needs of these communities. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that their interests are safeguarded?

I accept that there are considerable tracts of territory in England which face this problem. As I said, I represent some constituents who are in exactly that situation. We are very mindful of the concerns and interests of such people.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to repeal section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1969, so as to allow convicted persons to vote during detention.

We have no present plans to do so.

Does not the Minister agree that the deprivation of liberty is sufficient punishment in itself and that prisoners should not be deprived of other human rights? Will he reconsider his position?

I am not prepared to reconsider this position. It has long been accepted that one of the consequences of a conviction and a custodial sentence is the loss of various civil rights, of which this is one.

Would my hon. and learned Friend consider repealing parts of the Representation of the People Act 1969 in order to allow those on holiday to vote in United Kingdom elections?

That is another question altogether. The hon. Member should put it on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in establishing the new tough experimental regime at the two detention centres.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give details of his proposals for a stricter regime in selected detention centres for persistent young offenders.

The pilot project will be established within existing legislation at New Hall, a senior detention centre in West Yorkshire for offenders aged 17 and under 21, and at Send, a junior detention centre in Surrey for offenders aged 14 and under 17. With full remission, the minimum period for offenders in custody will be eight weeks at New Hall and six and a half weeks at Send. All offenders from the relevant age groups and catchment areas will undergo the more rigorous regime unless they are physically or mentally unfit, or initially receive more than the minimum three months' sentence. The regime will place emphasis on brisk and constructive activities, discipline and respect for those in authority; there will be drill, parades and inspections. The project, which will be carefully monitored, will start in the spring of 1980.

I thank the sergeant-major. Why does the Home Secretary laugh, particularly when, according to the medical officer at Send detention centre, who wrote an article in the latest issue of the Prison Medical Journal, the vast majority of boys who will be subjected to this regime are physically ill, mentally unstable and socially deprived? All the evidence available shows that these short sharp shocks, which have been used before, are a dismal failure. Does not the Home Secretary agree that it would be right and proper for him now to stop pandering to the law and order lobby? He should try telling the truth and involve himself in a constructive educational programme for dealing with juvenile crime, rather than engaging in this unnecessary barbarity.

I did not laugh, and I do not accept what the hon. Member said. I intend to pursue constructive proposals for the treatment of young offenders, alongside this proposal which I believe is essential for some of the hardened young thugs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the so-called law and order brigade represents about 95 per cent. of people in this country? We hope that he will proceed with these policies effectively and that he will take no notice of those whose suggestions have been singularly unsuccessful.

We intend to pursue these policies as an experiment. I wish to see how they proceed.

The right hon. Gentleman is setting up two institutions as an experiment. Is he aware that we wish to know more about the experiment—the cost, staff, the training, and the types of young person covered by the scheme? In particular, we shall need information to enable us to make proper comparisons. If all the appropriate young people are put into two institutions, it will be impossible to compare these with other institutions. I disagree with what the Home Secretary is doing, but as this is an experiment, we have the right to full information.

I accept the right hon. Member's last comment. The only significant addition to normal costs is likely to arise if it is necessary to increase the present staff. Decisions on this will be taken during the planning of the project. On the other points that the right hon. Member raised, we will do our best to meet his wishes and those of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total annual expenditure on the police force; and how many policemen and women are currently employed by British police authorities.

Total expenditure in England and Wales for 1978–79 was £1,161 million. On 30 September 1979, 112,491 police officers, including those in interforce units or on central service, were employed.

In view of the statement by the Home Secretary at Blackpool earlier this year that there would be a return to more policemen on the beat from panda cars, will he tell us when a circular will be issued to the police authorities to this effect?

That is a matter that is best dealt with by the police authorities and the chief constables in question.