asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of men accused of rape in 1976 was released on bail.

The latest year for which information is available is 1975. In that year, 60 per cent. of men committed for trial at the Crown courts on a charge of rape were granted bail by the magistrates' court on committal.

Does the Minister think that bail is given too easily? Is he aware that in more than 50 per cent. of rape cases the rapist is known to his victim and that in many cases where the accused is released on bail pressure is brought to bear on the victim to withdraw the accusation?

Bail is not granted too easily. Indeed, a criticism which has been made—and it is one that I share—is that bail has been withheld in far too many cases in the past, thus putting an unnecessary strain on prison resources. The fact that there are now more complaints about rape offences means that people are less easily deterred from making complaints. The Act which was recently passed concerning anonymity for the complainant will help in that direction.

Has my hon. Friend seen the first report of the Rape Crisis Centre which was published today and which comments on this matter? I take my hon. Friend's point about access to bail in these cases, but will he look at the suggestion that, because of the instances in which the defendant is known to the complainant, bail should be accompanied by an order covering non-molestation?

Decisions on bail and the conditions imposed are matters for magistrates. I have frequently said that we do not interfere with the discretion of the courts in making these decisions. I shall, however, study the report to which my hon. Friend has referred.

I accept the point that the Minister has made about the working of the Bail Act, but does he agree that in these cases, apart from considering the particular criteria laid down in the Act, the magistrates' courts should take account of the feelings of a woman who has been raped? If bail is granted, she knows that her assailant is at large. Will the Minister give guidance on this aspect?

It is not for me to give guidance. The guidance given to magistrates is contained in the Act, and if they use it wisely and sensibly the right result will obtain.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he remains satisfied with the law on the procedures for dealing with police disciplinary cases in the light of the recent report involving the Chief Constable of Lancashire.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he remains satisfied with the law relating to police disciplinary procedures in the light of the recent case involving the Chief Constable of Lancashire.

The proceedings in which the Chief Constable of Lancashire is involved conform to the arrangements laid down in the existing discipline regulations for senior officers which, following the passage of the Police Act 1976, are about to be consolidated in regulations that will be laid before the House on 6th April and will come into effect for charges preferred on or after 1st June.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Lancashire police tribunal is not considering the more serious cases including what has been described as the most disturbing involving the deaths of my former constituents Mrs. Tierney and Mrs. Moyle, in which there was intervention by County Councillor Leonard Broughton, the Chairman of Lancashire County Council? What action will the Home Secretary take on this?

I am currently in difficulty over a particular case. If the chief constable admits or is found guilty of an offence he will have a right of appeal to me, so it would be improper for me to comment on the case apart from considering changing the rules. I am fully aware of what I must do if an appeal is brought to me.

I appreciate the Home Secretary's difficulties in these circumstances, but does he accept that the police committee is referring sections of the report to an independent inquiry and that there is considerable disquiet that certain of the charges will not be referred to the inquiry? In those circumstances, should not my right hon. Friend be prepared to investigate further?

The Chief Constable of Hampshire was appointed by the Lancashire Police Authority to investigate alleged offences by the Chief Constable of Lancashire. I have complete confidence in the Chief Constable of Hampshire, and I must leave the matter there because of my involvement in any appeal.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the deliberate leaking of the report of the Chief Constable of Hampshire was most unfortunate and particularly unfair to those involved? Would it not be better if all comment were withheld until the full inquiry is completed?

A report was made by the Chief Constable of Hampshire and it went to the Lancashire Police Authority for investigation. If such a report is leaked it prevents proper investigation of the matter, and that is something that I shall have to take into account when I consider any changes in methods.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what causes he attributes the rise in the number of crimes of violence, burglary, larceny and housebreaking in the large towns and cities.

Many forms of crime have been increasing, especially in urban areas, for many years. I doubt the value of speculation about the causes: remedial action is more important, and I am encouraged by the indications that the amount of crime does not seem to be increasing at as fast a rate as formerly.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a major cause of crime is that the police forces in our urban areas are under strength? What plans do the Government have to bring them up to strength and to make our streets safe to walk again?

The strength of the West Midlands police force, for example, increased by about 4 per cent. last year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more than one-quarter of all serious crimes involving violence in our cities and large towns and more than half of all burglaries and robberies are committed by children under the age of 17? Now that the Government have these somewhat startling statistics before them, is it not time that the workings of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 should be looked at again and that the possibility of restoring to magistrates the powers taken away from them by that Act should be reconsidered?

The problem of juvenile crime worries many of us, but the hon. and learned Gentleman fails to recognise that we keep the Act under continuous review and that it was brought in because of the thoroughly unsatisfactory situation that existed before 1969 when magistrates had the powers to which he refers.

As juvenile delinquency forms a large part of statistics, would my hon. Friend comment on the success of the community service orders in North London that have had a great effect in solving the problem of young offenders?

I pay tribute to that form of punishment. It has been a first-class innovation.

indicated assent.

I see that the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who helped to pilot it through, is here. The system has been first-class, and it gives us hope that punishment can be achieved in a non-custodial way that will not be thought of as merely soft.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the light of the considerable level of crime, particularly violent crimes in some city centres, this is no time to be reducing civilian aid to police forces?

No programme can be exempt at a time of financial stringency, but I am convinced that our programme of spending more on law and order in real terms and increasing the number of police, as has happened in the past two years, is the right course to adopt.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present state of the law as it affects questions to do with computers and privacy.

In the White Paper "Computers and Privacy", published in December 1975, the Government announced that there was a need for legislation in this field. The content of the proposed legislation is under consideration by the Data Protection Committee appointed last year.

Is it not time that the Government got a move on in this matter as it is now seven years since the problem was first officially identified with the appointment of the Younger Committee? Would it not be a good idea for the Government to give a commitment today of their intention to set up a data protection authority with licensing and enforcement powers?

The Government published a White Paper in December 1975 and the Data Protection Committee started work in December last year. It would be premature for me to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation.

As there is a need to make progress following these very lengthy consultations, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that proposals will be contained in the next Queen's Speech?

I shall give no such undertaking. My undertaking is that when the committee brings forward proposals about the form and content of legislation we shall give them the closest possible examination.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that most European countries, particularly the Federal Republic of Germany, already have statutes protecting the individual in this way and that we are way behind other people? Will he give the committee a prod to see that we get its report in the near future?

I am sure the committee is aware that its report is eagerly anticipated, but I cannot tell the hon. and learned Gentleman when it will be produced. The committee started work only four months ago. Hon. Members opposite always want two objectives—perfect solutions reached immediately, or sooner.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the White Paper on direct elections to the European Parliament.

The White Paper will be published tomorrow.

I am grateful for that confirmation. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall have an opportunity to debate the White Paper very soon after Christmas? [Interruption.] I apologise for my confusion—I mean very soon after Easter. Will that debate be swiftly followed by a Bill so that it can be enacted and allow the United Kingdom to keep its commitment on this matter to its EEC partners?

It is a very good White Paper, but I cannot give the commitment on a date for which the hon. Gentleman asks. Perhaps I should just wish him a happy new year.

Whether we debate the White Paper after Easter, after Christmas or after next year, will my right hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend the fact that many of us believe that it is most important for there to be a free vote not only on the method by which these elections should take place but on the principle?

I can undertake that my hon. Friend's message will be delivered.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the Government intend to give the House the opportunity to vote on the electoral system to be adopted?

No, I cannot. A statement has been made about the method of elections. I have been considering this complicated matter in some depth in recent weeks and in my mind has been the fact that, whether we stick to the existing system which has stood the test of 150 years or more or move in another direction, we must give the matter deep consideration—whether making a change or staying where we are—and not take the leap in the dark that is sometimes taken on electoral matters.

There is no suggestion of taking a leap in the dark. Can the right hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that the House will be given an opportunity to vote on the particular system and express its choice before a Bill is published with a particular system laid down in it?

I can go no further than what was said about the method by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last week.

In view of the recent weather that we have experienced, I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was necessarily out of order in talking about Christmas. On the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), may we have an assurance that the vote on the proportional representation aspect will be quite separate from any vote on the White Paper as a whole? That is very important.

I can go no further than what was said by my right hon. Friend last week. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and his remarks will be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons released from Broadmoor have been convicted of murder since 1945.

I regret that particulars for the whole period since 1945 are not readily available, but for information relating to patients discharged since 1960 I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) on 28th March.

Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern throughout the country about the number of people who have been released from places such as Broadmoor and from prison and have subsequently committed murder? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will review the system of the release of prisoners, particularly those released on parole, so that people may be assured that it is the Government's intention to try to protect the citizen?

It is the Government's intention to protect the citizen. Anyone who has held ministerial office in the Home Office will know that anxious consideration is given to the transfer or conditional discharge of those upon whom a restriction order has been made under the Mental Health Acts. When the hon. Gentleman studies the statistics and compares them with the number of people who have been released, the apprehension that he expresses will be seen in better perspective. It is only a small percentage, although any further offence is sad and causes those who released the person the gravest anxiety. This is a matter that must not be exaggerated.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are quite a number of people, especially younger persons, in Broadmoor who should not be there, and that the question of not releasing should be considered in that respect? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if there were more suitable secure places for such people it would be very much better if they could be allowed to go to them?

There are many institutions that could benefit from the creation of auxiliary institutions more suited to particular people. The fact is that no one in Broadmoor—certainly none of the specialists to whom I have spoken—is in any way desirous of keeping people at that institution after the need for so doing has passed.

Would my hon. Friend be prepared to seek discussions with the Confederation of Health Service Employees, which has many members employed in mental institutions of every character? Its members have an intimate knowledge of the administration and many of the problems of such institutions. I feel sure that they would be able to proffer him reasonable guidance and advice and make their contribution to resolving a difficult problem.

We should be delighted to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his official engagements for 31st March.

This morning I attended a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, I shall dine with the Justices' Clerks Society, and I will be participating afterwards in a television programme on the Stechford by-election.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can find time in that busy day to give some further thought to the Philip Agee case? In particular, will he ensure that he sees original raw evidence relating to the matter rather than relying on the second-hand reports of his advisers?

I can assure my hon. Friend that in a matter such as this I do not rely on my advisers. I have taken the decision myself. The decision I took was right. I should not have announced it in the House if I had thought otherwise.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he would be likely to be able to give more satisfactory answers if the Questions addressed to him disclosed the subject matter and were not of a generalised character, which has unfortunately become prevalent in Questions to the Prime Minister?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether in considering that matter Ministers and others will also bear in mind that many subjects are refused acceptance by the Table Office, which makes the task of Back Benchers extremely difficult.

rose—

Mr. Christopher Price.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that there will be no question of deportation until all the legal procedures have been gone through, not only in the English courts but in recourse to the European Commission of Human Rights at Strasbourg?

I have tried carefully to allow this matter to go along while matters are being taken to the courts in this country. One of the people concerned was dealt with expeditiously by the European Commission. I shall bear all this in mind. I have no wish not to allow that aspect of natural justice to take its course, but I have to make a judgment at the end of the day.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to introduce legislation amending penalties for the possession or use of cannabis.

Provisions in the Criminal Law Bill, at present in another place, designed to implement recommendations of the James Committee, already include consequential amendments of the penalties available to magistrates' courts for unlawful possession of cannabis.

Is the hon. Lady confirming that, to clear up the confusion that has existed under the Misuse of Drugs Act, it is proposed that the possession of small amounts of cannabis should in future be legal? Will she further confirm that the Home Office has no plans to legislate along the lines of recent liberalising legislation in the United States on the use of cannabis?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that under the proposed amendment the penalties for the possession or use of cannabis will be reduced in that the period of imprisonment will be reduced to three months and the fine will be increased to £500. At present, there is a maximum period of imprisonment on summary conviction of six months and/or a maximum fine of £400. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, as he may know, the amendment was defeated in another place. The Government are now seriously considering arguments for removing the power to imprison for a first offence and are taking the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the good advice that was given some years ago by the Wootton Committee? Will she ensure that its advice is followed even at this late date?

I can only repeat that the Government are considering the matter. Obviously, they will take into consideration the Wootton Report.

Will the hon. Lady bear in mind always when thinking of liberalising the law in this regard that the pod of cannabis is considered to be highly dangerous and that it is only the leaf that is not? Does she consider it highly undesirable that an article should have appeared recently suggesting that cannabis is no more harmful than a pint of Newcastle brown ale?

At one time I was a member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of the points he has made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding that the various changes she has announced are likely to take place in the near future, the law relating to cannabis will continue to be in a mess and that the sooner it is repealed and cannabis is allowed to be sold in tobacconists' shops under the same licence as that permitting the sale of tobacco, the better it will be for everyone concerned? Such a course would save a lot of money and save the police a lot of work.

I think that my hon. Friend has gone to the extreme of the argument, but we have noted what he has said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for dealing with football hooliganism; and if he will make a statement.

This is a subject to which I and my colleagues have given a good deal of recent attention together with representatives of chief constables and the football organisations. I propose to hold a further meeting soon to review the position. However, it would be unrealistic not to accept that there are clear limits to what can be done nationally. What really matters is effective operational co-operation at local level. Here the necessary measures to deal with hooliganism are being taken by police forces with the fullest co-operation of football clubs and organisations, supporters' organisations and transport undertakings.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the position is getting steadily worse on match days and that my constituents have to barricade doors and windows, keep the young and old off the streets and make good the damage that these louts leave behind? It is no good pussyfooting around. Fines will not do. A tougher line must be taken by magistrates. I ask my right hon. Friend to advise them accordingly.

Magistrates must make up their own minds. I think that getting involved with the magistrates in the way suggested would be a bad thing. Perhaps the House in general will not know of the problems that my hon. Friend brought to my notice through a delegation the other day. I thought that I had seen a great deal of this problem, but around the Derby County ground there has taken place the most incredible hooliganism. The chief constable is concerned about it and is trying to do something about it.

Is not one proposal that the Home Secretary should extend the number of attendance centres that are available, so that those who behave in this way can in future be required to spend their Saturday afternoons at an attendance centre rather than a football match?

I think that is right. We have 60 junior attendance centres. I think that that is the way to proceed. Some of the cases that have been brought to my notice by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) deserve far more than an attendance centre. What has happened in one small part around the Derby County ground is quite incredible.

Many of us have been keen followers of the sport of football over many years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that on football hooliganism there are indications of mistaken thinking, especially relating to the possibility of the flogging of offenders and the possibility of mistaken identity, which cannot help the situation in any way whatsoever? Is not this seriously a matter not only for the police and club officials but for soccer enthusiasts as a whole? The encaging of youngsters in football grounds is an absurd situation into which we are running, yet that goes on in the present setting. The bulk of supporters do not lend a proper hand.

The problem of mistaken identity could arise anywhere, but there has been a change in hooliganism at football matches over the years and it is extremely worrying to ordinary people who attend matches.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent contact he has had with representatives of ethnic minority communities in the United Kingdom.

As the Minister with special responsibilities for race relations matters, I have in recent months, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, met a large number of such representatives, both during visits to different areas of the country and at the Home Office. My right hon. Friend, in addition to contact through correspondence, has himself met representatives of local minority groups from time to time and hopes to extend personal contacts of this kind as his other commitments allow.

Will the Minister consult representatives of ethnic minority communities about the positive recommendations of the recent Select Committee report and undertake to ensure that there is a full debate in the House as soon as possible, because the recommendations are worthy of full discussion very soon?

I have discussed the question of West Indian teenages and young people with minority community leaders already, but I shall certainly redouble that in the light of the report that I have just received. On the question of a debate, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be responsible for that but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's words to his attention.

When the Minister meets the ethnic groups, will he discuss with them the very serious and growing problem of overstaying, and the possibility of introducing some form of internal check to prevent overstaying? If he is not prepared to introduce such checks, what other measures is he prepared to take?

The Home Office is looking at the question of overstaying, as my right hon. Friend promised would be done. However, members of minority communities to whom I have spoken are certainly as conscious as anyone of the damage to race relations that overstaying does.

In any reassessment of the community relations situation, will my hon. Friend ensure that consideration is given to the areas in which there is a great need for a presence? Will he look at the Liverpool situation, for instance, where there is an intended movement away of part of the CRE offices?

I understand what my hon. Friend has said. Along with other Liverpool Members, he has written to me about the proposed regional structure of the CRE. I have drawn this to the attention of the chairman. As a regional Member myself, I shall press him on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations with the police on their outstanding pay claim.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the situation in regard to police pay negotiations with the Police Federation.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met representatives of the Police Federations for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland who constitute the Staff Side of Committee C of the Police Council on 7th March and requested them to return to the Police Council to settle their claim. A meeting of the Police Council took place on 15th March. The representatives of the Police Federation for Scotland attended but the representatives of the Federations for England and Wales and Northern Ireland refused the invitation. Sir John Nightingale, the Chairman of the Police Council, has undertaken to examine with the Police Federations and other interested parties means of settling the dispute. One meeting has already taken place and another has been arranged. I very much hope that these discussions will lead to a resolution of these difficult issues at a time when other organisations are putting their minds to phase 3.

Is not the Home Secretary aware that the police feel that their dedication to duty is taken for granted and that it is a weightless factor in negotiations, notwithstanding the social contract? Is he also aware that the police feel that the Home Secretary has broken faith with them and that all they have got from the Prime Minister is a promise of jam tomorrow and a lecture on the economy? In view of the state of the economy, the rise in unemployment and the current inflation rate, does not the Home Secretary realise the importance of the police having faith in him and the Government?

All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that in 1975, when pay policy started, I was present in the Cabinet when the police were given 30 per cent. instead of £6. That was done on the basis that the police needed special attention. Anyone who says the contrary to that is flying in the face of the facts. They were given special attention. What has been wrong since I have been Home Secretary is that people have not attended the proper negotiating machinery. How one negotiates when people are not sitting around the table is something that eludes me.

rose—

I ought perhaps to alert the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) that his Question is being answered with this one.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still open to the Police Federation to go back to the joint negotiating body to discuss ways of changing the negotiating procedure and talk about some adjustment to fringe benefits?

That is so. However, I understand the problem of the Police Federation and the negotiating machinery, but apart from discussing the 5 per cent., £2·50 and a maximum of £4 a week we have discussed three forward commitments with it—all marginal, I accept—and other matters concerning widows of police officers who died in service, and commutation. We have promised a review of police negotiating machinery, including the constitution of the Police Federation.

Mr. Aitken.

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.

The local authorities, which pay a substantial part of the money for police pay, are not amused by the attitude of some that they should be left out of negotiations that are laid down by statute. The people of the local authorities belong not to one political party but to many. I have to take into account the statutory arrangements. I have said that I understand the position of the Police Federation, but I want to find a means of negotiating. Things are happening now in that respect, but negotiation there must be.

The House knows of my interest in this subject. We are now facing a very serious situation. Will the Home Secretary accept that there is not much time left before the moderate leaders of the Police Federation are replaced by those who would follow the bad example of other occupations and perhaps take industrial action in order to pursue this claim? Will the right hon. Gentleman bend his mind above all else to avoiding what would be a disaster for the nation if that were to happen? He can settle the matter, and I believe that he ought to do so.

The hon. Member, who is involved in these discussions, says that I can settle the matter. By that he means, I suppose, that I should break the pay policy. If he does not mean that, let us negotiate. Then one can negotiate within pay policy, but that is not being done at the moment except at the fringes. I am happy to help in any way I can, but I cannot ignore the local authorities, which have a statutory part to play.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further considerations had been given to proposals to reduce the prison population.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his similar Question on 18th November last and to what was said by my right hon. Friend during the Supply Day debate on 27th January and by myself in replying to the debate on prisons on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) on Friday 18th March.

Will my hon. Friend consider some sort of radical alternative to imprisonment? In view of his encouragement earlier on the question of community service orders, will he consider their extension in future, since it now costs up to £100 a week—about £5,000 a year—to keep someone in prison and there should be a more positive way in which people who have committed crimes against society can repay their debts by doing something constructive?

Of course, we are always willing to consider non-custodial sentences. What I have said shows that. But I ask my hon. Friend not to fall into the trap of believing that non-custodial methods of treatment are available free. They themselves cost money and the prisons will still demand a substantial amount of expenditure, unless we get the prison population down so low that we can actually close a prison or two.

Will the Minister accept that an alternative to imprisonment is to deprive the offender of his liberty at the weekends by means of attendance centres, for instance? However, whereas, as his right hon. Friend said just now, there are 60 attendance centres for juniors, there are only two for older offenders. Will he reconsider the Home Office attitude to extending this system for older offenders?

The phasing out of attendance centres for the older prisoners is known, but we are extending other forms of non-custodial treatment because we believe that the prison population is too high and that non-custodial methods will better rehabilitate the majority of criminals.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the possibility of requiring suitable offenders to become blood donors as part of the repayment of their debt to society.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister reconsider that answer, or at least consider this suggestion as an alternative under community service order projects?

No. The voluntary donation of blood is the principle upon which the National Transfusion Service has been based, and it is a principle that we would hot wish to change. However, I notice that the latter-day Portia has reversed "The Merchant of Venice". The Original Portia wanted flesh without blood: the hon. Lady wants blood without flesh.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow migrant workers to vote in local elections after a suitable qualifying period of residence.

None at present.

Is the Minister aware of the healthy increase in worker mobility in the Community in recent years, and will he ensure that the Home Office does not fall behind events yet again?

The hon. Gentleman will know that a working party was set up by the Heads of Government in December 1974 to make proposals on this very subject. We are awaiting its proposals. We shall then study them and see how they can be incorporated in legislation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a daft Question. Would it not even come to the point of considering how much blood should be given according to the type of crime committed?

Wrong Question, Bob.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what review of sentencing policy is now taking place; and by whom.

The Advisory Council on the Penal System is currently reviewing the general structure and level of maximum sentences of imprisonment available to the courts; and, as I indicated in my speech in the debate on prisons on 18th March, the Home Office keeps under review the sentencing powers of the courts and the use made of them in relation to available penal resources.

Will my hon. Friend consider the experience of Holland, where all but the most serious offenders are treated within the community with the help of volunteers from the community and where the crime rate has not increased?

We shall certainly look at all the examples. As I have said, we are anxious to adopt the most appropriate forms of non-custodial sentence where those will give genuine benefits to the population.