asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the increasing use of armed security guards.

I am not aware that there is an increasing use. It is not the practice of chief officers of police to grant firearm certificates for protection purposes whether to security guards or other persons.

Is the Minister aware that there are now at least 100 persons in this country under the constant surveillance of armed security guards? What is the hon. and learned Gentleman's estimate of the cost to the British taxpayer of guarding Royal, political and diplomatic personnel from abroad? Is not there a danger of the matter getting out of hand if the practice escalates?

It all depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by "armed". As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Firearms Act, 1968, any application for a firearm certificate has to be accompanied by a good reason for having the firearm in question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recommended to chief officers of police that personal protection should never be regarded as a good reason for the purposes of the relevant section. The position of the civilian security guard is no different from that of any other person.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to strengthen the law on the keeping of guard dogs.

No, Sir. I am not persuaded that special measures of control are necessary.

Does my hon. and learned Friend recall the case of the small boy in my constituency who was attacked by three alsatians and a doberman pinscher? Is he aware that an eleven-year-old girl was attacked by the same pack of dogs, with the result that she has had to have 18 stitches in different parts of the body? Is it not time that the Home Office did something about the matter?

I am aware that my hon. Friend asked me a Question about guard dogs on an earlier occasion. I am sorry to hear of the further incident in his constituency. If he cares to write to me about it I will look into the individual facts. But I must make it clear that in the present situation, those who, unfortunately are attacked or bitten by guard dogs represent under 2 per cent. of all accidents involving dogs.

Does the Minister realise that that is no consolation to the 2 per cent.? Does he recall an incident in my constituency when dogs dragged a four-year-old boy under a fence because the fence was too high off the ground?

The position is that the behaviour of guard dogs, like all other dogs, is subject to the normal provisions of the law relating to dangerous dogs. However, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that the advice that we have received from the police is that regulations would be difficult to promote and enforce, and that they would be unlikely to be fully effective. The police do not consider that legislation specifically related to guard dogs is necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to introduce legislation to change the law in respect of adoption and custody of children.

The Government will reach conclusions on this matter when they have completed their study of the report of the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the High Court case re "O"—a minor—earlier this week has highlighted the need for legislation? Have the Government not had an interim report, and the more recent report? There may be thousands of children at risk and there is an urgent need for legislation on this subject.

The case re "O"—a minor—is not immediately at the front of my mind at the moment. I will certainly consider it. I am sorry that I was not aware of it. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the report, which is a major one, was published only in October of this year. The Government have been asked to allow time for professional bodies to study and comment on it before coming to any conclusion on legislation. That is what we would wish to do. It is a major and complex report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the British Safety Council and the Chemical Industries Association about the carriage of dangerous chemicals by road; and what replies he has sent.

I have nothing to add at present to the replies given to Questions by the hon. Member on 9th November.—[Vol. 845; c. 214, 215.]

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that so many new dangerous chemicals are coming on to the market that the only really satisfactory solution to this problem is a 24-hour emergency telephone service? Does he not accept that it is no good telling the British Safety Council that he is in touch with the Chemical Industries Association, when that association says that he is not? Will he not, instead, accept the British Safety Council's offer to provide this 24-hour telephone service?

I can bring the hon. Gentleman a little further up to date than that. I accept that this is a very serious and important matter. With respect, he is doing a little less than justice to the progress that we have already made in extending these controls. We want to extend them more. On the point of the 24-hour service, I have been in touch with the Chemical Industries Association recently and it has undertaken to complete its inquiry and consultations as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions he is now making for disturbed women convicted of offences requiring care and psychiatric treatment.

Courts already have powers to make orders enabling an offender to receive psychiatric treatment in hospital or within the community where this is medically recommended and suitable arrangements can be made. Within the prison system there are full-time medical staff with psychiatric and other specialist qualifications and experience in treating disturbed women; and consultant psychotherapists visit regularly.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that provisions within the prison system for psychiatric treatment for women are grossly inadequate, that the service is understaffed, and that public opinion generally is incensed that women like Pauline Jones and Jacqueline Paddon are sent to Holloway and kept there for many months? Does he not think that it is high time that alternative accommodation to Holloway, and to closed prisons generally, was found for these women?

The hon. Lady has asked me two separate questions. To deal with the second one first, on the named cases that she has mentioned I can only repeat that it would be completely wrong if there were any power to detain a person in hospital other than on medical evidence—and no such evidence was available. As for the general point about the prison service, at Holloway there are five full-time medical officers—all of whom have psychiatric experience—and six visiting psychotherapists. Holloway is about to be rebuilt as a medically-orientated prison.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has now made with the review of the scheme for the repatriation of Commonwealth immigrants.

My right hon. Friend is studying the results of the first 12 months' operation of the new scheme, but he is not yet ready to make a statement.

Has this not gone on for rather a long time? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that our election pledge is being fulfilled, and does suitable machinery exist for helping those immigrants who wish to be repatriated?

Our election pledge was carried out by Section 29 of the 1971 Immigration Act, through which, as my hon. Friend knows, we are now using International Social Service to administer this new scheme, which is in addition to the supplementary benefits commission scheme. We have recently had a report from ISS. I met the director myself to discuss it, and we are seeing what lessons can be learned from the first 12 months' operation—whether the present criteria are too narrow. We are also considering possible changes to ensure that genuine demands for repatriation are being met, so far as is practicable.

How many families have been repatriated in the last 12 months and how many were repatriated in the year up to 1970?

During the past year we have had inquiries under the new scheme from nearly 500 families. These inquiries take a lot of time but, under that scheme, 30 families have already departed or are about to depart. In addition, as I mentioned, there is the scheme operated by the supplementary benefits commission, under which an average of 100 families a year have been repatriated over the last four years. The figure for this year will be slightly over 100.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the intention of Parliament in Section 29 of the 1971 Act has been almost completely sabotaged by the manner in which its administration has been entrusted to a small private body, virtually incapable of coping with the volume of work?

I do not accept that the intention of Parliament has been sabotaged; nor do I accept the aspersions that my right hon. Friend casts on International Social Service. As I say, we are reviewing this matter, and if it proves necessary to widen the criteria we shall do so—and we shall announce it in due course.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's election pledge is satisfied by the repatriation, under this section. of 30 families a year?

I am not implying anything of the sort. I am implying that the machinery has been set up according to our undertaking embodied in Section 29 of the Act. We are naturally now seeing how it is working in practice, and we shall make changes if we think fit.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he had with bodies with experience in the field of immigration casework in formulating the new immigration rules.

These bodies had the opportunity to comment on the draft rules when they were published last year, and full account was taken of their comments in revising the draft.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that one of his predecessors at the Home Office, during the passage of the Immigration Bill, said that there had been no prior consultation with these bodies before the Bill was laid before the House? Is it not quite clear that there have been no real consultations with organisations that are really active in this matter, and could not they teach the right hon. Gentleman a thing or two and help him to get out of the present mess?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. There have been frequent and continuing consultations with, for example, the Community Relations Commission, the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Standing Conference of Asian Organisations in the United Kingdom, and one or two local community relations committees. What they have had to say in respect to the rules was in many respects taken account of, and the results of the consultations were seen in the changes between the original draft and the latest version.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House, apart from consulting these various bodies, what consultations, if any, he has held about the new immigration rules with the ordinary people of this country?

My hon. Friend, along with all other hon. Members, represents the ordinary people of this country, and the draft rules lay on the Table for over a year before the final version was produced.

Members of Parliament are in a very difficult situation in considering long and detailed rules which they have no chance to amend. Is the Secretary of State willing to accept the suggestion of consultation and refer the draft immigration rules to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, so that hon. Members may have a chance to look at the detail and make comments?

I believe that our normal consultation procedures here should be adequate. Hon. Members had well over a year in which to discuss the details with me, my predecessor and my colleagues in the Home Office. They had time to consult about this. Whatever else may be wrong with the rules hon. Members did not lack the opportunity for consultation. I would not, however, rule out something different in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT those public functions and activities that are prohibited, including the limitations to the activities of individuals, on 31st December, 1972, as a result of this New Year's Eve day falling on a Sunday.

The Sunday Observance Act, 1780 prohibits the opening and use on a Sunday of any place to which the public is admitted on payment for public entertainment, amusement or debate. Exceptions have now been made in respect of the cinema, concert halls, museums and picture galleries, and the like, lecture halls and theatres. I will, with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the various statutes which impose restrictions on activities taking place on Sunday.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Will he confirm that no public dance can be held on next New Year's Eve and that if any other public function can be held those attending it will be inhibited and limited in what they can do and enjoy? Is there not a genuine case for excluding from the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act and the Sunday Entertainments Act the odd occasions when New Year's Eve falls on a Sunday?

There was no great difficulty when it last fell on a Sunday, five

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the requirements to be followed by police officers in applying for a search warrant.

The provisions in the relevant statutes vary in detail; but, in general, the police must satisfy a justice of the peace by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for the issue of a search warrant in any particular case.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. He is no doubt aware of the wide criticism that is made of the apparent ease with which certain police officers can obtain search warrants. Therefore, is it not time that a system of reporting back to the magistrate who signed the warrant was introduced? This would go a long way towards easing the fears of many people that many officers can, on demand, obtain search warrants without afterwards having to justify their reasons?

I am not quite sure that I have understood what the hon. Gentleman is asking, but I shall certainly study his question in HANSARD. However, the House would be wrong in imagining that the police are in some way abusing this

In view of the concern that has been widely expressed recently, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of the extent to which magistrates are taking the opportunity, which the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly said exists, of really going into the facts before they authorise a warrant?

Yes, I will, but I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Lord Chancellor issued guidance—instructions, I think I might say—to all those responsible for the training of justices of the peace in this matter. I shall certainly consider the matter and satisfy myself that magistrates are aware of their rights and duties.

Is it not a smear on the police to say that certain officers, whom the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) does not specify, are getting round the law in this matter? Is this not regrettable at a time when the police ought to have the fullest possible support?

Certainly if any such smear were made I would reject it utterly, because whoever else is to blame in this it is not the police, for asking. They have a perfect right to ask. It is the duty of magistrates to examine and grant applications, but if warrants are granted the police certainly cannot be blamed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he received in November 1972 from women who have not received the alimony they have been granted by court order.

Three, Sir.

I give credit to the Government for the measures that they have brought in, but is not the nub of this complex problem the fact that many women who are deserted no longer feel in a mood to get mixed up with lawyers and, therefore, do not pursue their rights under this legislation? In these circumstances, is there any possibility of the Ten Minutes Rule Bill which I shall he introducing on Tuesday, 12th December being given a fair wind by the Government?

I do not know whether I ought to comment on women getting mixed up with lawyers, in view of my profession, but as far as I can see the provisions which the hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to recognise appear to be working. This is a complex problem. One has always known that. I can only repeat what I have said on many previous occasions to the hon. Gentleman, that in the end it is often the economic position of the husband against whom the woman is trying to get the order which affects the matter.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this difficulty sometimes arises because of bloodymindedness on the part of the husband? Will he follow the suggestions made by my hon. Friend and discuss with the Inland Revenue and the Department of Health and Social Security a more effective way of collecting alimony and maintenance, either through the social security system or through taxation?

I agree that the problem arises from inability or unwillingness to pay, or a combination of both. On the second part of the hon. Member's question, his hon. Friend has taken up this matter with other Departments and has tabled many Questions to them. I must stand by the fact that it is not a matter for the Home Office, and that the Finer Committee is due to report shortly on the problem.

When is "shortly"?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to ban fox hunting.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ban all cruel sports, such as fox hunting, stag hunting and hare coursing.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ask him—when he is next across at Buckingham Palace—whether he will explain to Princess Anne that the vast majority of our people are violently opposed to blood sports and are appalled at her determination to bestow Royal patronage upon acts of blatant cruelty? Will the hon. Gentleman also ask his right hon. Friend to explain to Princess Anne that some of us are concerned about the company she is keeping, and that the time has come when she really ought to see a little less of masters of fox hunts and a little more of the lads on the shop floor?

A lot of what the hon. Gentleman has said is not particularly helpful in this difficult matter, on which varying views are held, inside and outside the House. The original Question was about legislation. The Government have a very full programme of excellent legislation, in which such a Bill does not feature, but it is open to any private Member to put one forward, if and when he wishes.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the Prime Minister and the majority of the Cabinet do not indulge in blood sports? Would it not be a good thing if others in high places who enjoy a comfortable living at the taxpayers' expense followed the good example of the Prime Minister and many of his Cabinet colleagues?

This is entirely a matter of individual judgment. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member any further down the road that he is suggesting this afternoon.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the late Mr. Tom Williams, when Labour Minister of Agriculture, said in the House that a plea to abolish fox hunting was no more than a plea to nationalise it?

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for reminding hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House of some things that have been said in the past.

Is the hon. Gentleman—[An HON. MEMBER: "Tally ho!"] Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent television programme the Secretary—I think—for the League Against Cruel Sports expressed himself as being in favour of pursuing a fox with dogs so long as it had been previously crippled? Is he further aware that Princess Anne's mother, grandmother and grandfather were keen followers of the Pytchley Hunt, and that in my urban constituency of Northampton at the last election I had 380 members of the Labour Party and over 2,000 members of the Pytchley Hunt Supporters Club?

This is difficult country. I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member for reminding the House both of the television programme and of his experience at the last General Election.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the pattern of illegal drug usage in the United Kingdom.

It is a matter of concern that offences against the dangerous drugs laws have been increasing. But so have convictions; and the enforcement agencies have been strengthened in a number of ways.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many parents of possible addicts will not approach the police for fear of informing against their children? In view of the sharp increase in the number of convictions for the possession of heroin, will my right hon. Friend draw parents into the battle against addiction? To make this possible, will he consider setting up specially trained groups of police officers and medical workers to whom parents may go in confidence for advice in such a situation?

I understand the sort of human situation which my hon. Friend mentions and I shall certainly consider his suggestion. He will, I think, be aware already that not only is there now a central drugs intelligence unit serving the whole country but that most police areas in England and Wales now have their special drugs squads. I shall certainly see in what ways their service can be extended to the sort of advice that my hon. Friend mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring in a bill to reintroduce the death penalty for political murder within the United Kingdom.

No, Sir.

If the Home Secretary is unwilling to reintroduce capital punishment will he consider its reintroduction at least for the murder of a soldier or a policeman within the United Kingdom, as political murders, particularly those in Northern Ireland, are often committed by fanatical people who are difficult to trace? Is it not the Government's duty to protect civilians in these circumstances?

Yes, it is, but of course the debate, as always on this matter, among other things, rests on one's judgment of the value of capital punishment as a deterrent. Capital punishment remains in Northern Ireland for certain of the type of murders to which my hon. Friend is referring, and it has hardly worked as a good deterrent there.

Does the Home Secretary not agree that where murders are committed by fanatical people whom it is difficult to trace capital punishment is least likely to be a deterrent?

This is a matter of personal view and conscience. It has nothing to do with normal party allegiance. It has been discussed in the House a good many times in recent years and few people are in any doubt that there is a natural and fairly strong majority here against any restoration of capital punishment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether parathion is included in the scheduled list of poisons covered by List 2 under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933; if he is satisfied with the conditions for its sale; and if he will make a statement.

Parathion is included in Part II of the Poisons List. Controls over its sale are strict and I do not think they require review.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for the letters he has sent me in the past week about the unfortunate incident in my constituency. Action taken at that time, while very proper, showed that the police and fire services need to have continually brought to their attention new developments in this sphere, so that the type of alarm raised in my constituency will not occur again.

We try to keep up with developments so that the police and fire services have immediate information. It is greatly to the credit of the fire officer who gave the alarm that he should have done so. Fortunately, it turned out that the canister contained malathion and not parathion. I gather that malathion is not as toxic as parathion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for the Uganda Resettlement Board to provide long-term financial aid for the City of Leicester.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for the Uganda Resettlement Board to provide immediate and retrospective financial aid for the City of Leicester.

Leicester, like other local authorities, has received guidance from the board about the financial assistance payable by it. Authorities may be reimbursed for one year for the total cost of temporary arrangements directly attributable to resettlement and may also qualify for 75 per cent. grant on capital expenditure on facilities which will have a useful life beyond the emergency. A grant for the re-opening of a primary school at Leicester has already been authorised.

Does the hon. Member not realise that the assistance is hopelessly inadequate? Leicester's problems are long-term and enduring. There is also a great deal of overcrowding in the city, with thousands of local-born citizens awaiting housing accommodation and hundreds of children unable to find school places. Why will the Government not empower the resettlement board to make grants available for much needed long-term facilities instead of leaving the burden to local ratepayers?

I do not accept that the help offered has been inadequate to the extent that the hon. Member says. I appreciate the great problems that Leicester faces. We have already had several meetings with representatives from Leicester, and I know that there is a long-term problem which we can discuss further with the deputation from Leicester, which is coming to meet the Home Secretary in the middle of this month. If the present arrangements are not thought to be adequate in cases at the margin we can, of course, reconsider them.

Is it not correct to say that so far Leicester has not received a penny from the Government by way of help in the present extremely difficult situation? Does the Minister not appreciate that the vast majority of my constituents regard the Government's handling of the situation as utterly deplorable?

I understand that that is not the case. Money has begun to be paid to Leicester, and there is automatic provision, through the rate support grant, to help deal with these problems, which are not caused by the Uganda emergency alone. We are looking forward to discussing Leicester's problems with the representatives in a couple of weeks' time.

Is not the rather curious view that these exiles, already unhappy and lonely, are likely to settle in rural areas remote from their friends and religion, a little inhuman? Would it not be better to accept that they will end up close to their relations, and should not financial provision be made accordingly?

In the early stages the natural inclination of a large number of these refugees has been to go to places like Leicester, where they have friends and relations. We hope that from now on those still in the centres who may not have friends and relations may be persuaded to go more widely around the country. I see no reason, from the cases about which I have heard, why resettlement should not be carried out with good will to enable these people to have a good new life in these rural settings.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry to the United Kingdom by Uganda Asians with non-United Kingdom passports, but with wives, children or other close relatives in the United Kingdom, have been refused at ports of entry; and to what countries applicants have been sent following such refusal.

Ninety-nine Uganda Asians with close relatives in the United Kingdom have been formally refused admission. Fifteen of them—all citizens of Uganda—were sent away from the United Kingdom, eight to Uganda, five to Canada, one to Germany and one to Switzerland. The remainder are still here pending further consideration of their cases.

The numbers involved are small and the hardship likely to be involved for these 99 is potentially immense, particularly for those returning to Uganda. Did the Home Secretary see the television programme last week about divided Ugandan families The great majority of people interviewed recognised that great hardship was likely to result from the refusal of entry to Ugandan Asians who have close relatives here and that, if allowed in, they would be likely to impose a burden on taxpayers. But even those who do not wish to increase the numbers of foreign-born citizens here were anxious that these Asians should be admitted. Will the Home Secretary take appropriate action as a result of that?

As I have said before, it was made absolutely clear to the husbands and wives of these people before they left Uganda that if we temporarily took their wives and children to safety here they would have to expect to reunite in a third country and not here. Of course, they are suffering hardship, but they would have suffered even greater hardship if we had not at least taken their wives and children to safety. I am prepared to consider how we can help the wives and children to be reunited with the husbands once the husbands have been established in other countries.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce comprehensive legislation to reform the British laws on citizenship and related matters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a comprehensive review of the law relating to citizenship and nationality.

I am considering whether any changes should be proposed in our nationality law. It is a complicated matter, and I cannot at present say what conclusions will be reached.

May I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the debate that took place yesterday in the House of Lords which bears some relevance to this problem and also, in particular, to the situation of East Europeans who came here as refugees after the Second World War and who, because—like some Commonwealth citizens—they wished to return to their country of origin, retained their original nationality but did not enjoy the same rights in Great Britain as Commonwealth citizens?

I shall certainly take that into account. Of course, the sort of case that my hon. Friend has mentioned serves to underline that this a very complex subject, which will need a very thorough review.

Because of the complexity of the subject the House will welcome the fact that the Home Secretary is studying the need for a review of the British Nationality Acts. We on the Liberal benches would not welcome any further piling of anomaly on anomaly in changing the existing rules.

I take note of what the hon. Member says. It is a complicated matter and therefore any short-term answer to it is, to put it mildly, rather unlikely.

Although there may be a case for doing nothing and making no change, many people believe that such an approach would not be correct. If it is necessary to make a change will the Home Secretary therefore agree that it should be done quickly?

There is no question of delay for delay's sake. It is a difficult matter, and therefore unlikely to be solved in a short time, however much speed we try to make about it. I can, however, say that we shall not waste any time. But it is a complicated and difficult matter, which may also involve other countries.

Is the Home Secretary advised properly by his Department about this? Those of us who are interested in the question have repeatedly pointed out to him and to the Foreign Office that the British Nationality Act 1948 is an absurd statute, in terms of today's practice. It not only inflicts difficulties and problems for people not born here; it inflicts grave hardship on British subjects who were born overseas of British parents and are now in trouble with the passport authorities, and are having their British citizenship challenged? Is it not offensive to any hon. Member who has feeling for his country that the British subject is told that he must consult the Government of Barbados or some other ex-Colony before being issued with a passport, especially where that man has served in the British Army?

We realise that the 1948 Act has become anomalous and difficult. We are reviewing it, and the technical studies involved are well in hand.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will compare the latest police recruitment figures with those for the same month in 1971 and 1970; and if he will show the net change in the strength of the police forces as a percentage of the total strength.

The number of recruits in October, 1972 was 758 compared with 703 in October, 1971, and 609 in October, 1970.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people believe that a much greater increase in recruitment is necessary to ensure that the law is adequately enforced and that people receive the protection to which they are entitled?

Yes, indeed, and I am glad to say that with the important exception of the Metropolitan area, where numbers are almost static, the strength of the police force throughout the country as a whole over the last two years has been rising, and is continuing to rise. I hope that this situation will continue.

Is not that situation of the Metropolitan Police much more serious than that? During the current year it has lost 1,035 experienced officers, which it can ill afford to lose. What is the Home Secretary doing to make sure that experienced officers who know their own community well will stay in the force and not be replaced by raw recruits who need time to get to know the job?

This is a difficult matter. The commissioner is giving great attention to it, and we are also giving great attention to recruiting. The commissioner is well aware of the need to do all we can to retain those officers we have. It is wrong, however, to think that the total strength of the Metropolitan force is falling. It is rising very slowly, but not nearly as fast as I would wish.