asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Parliamentary Boundary Commission to publish all its first proposals for altered parliamentary seats in England; and if he will make a statement.

It seems likely that the English Commission will publish the last of its provisional recommendations in the course of 1979. The final recommendations will be published together when all the reviews in England are complete.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Boundary Commission should make two alterations to the way in which it works? First, boundaries should be altered on the basis of the planned rise in population rather than the size of the electoral register, which is often two or three years out of date, and, secondly, we should change boundaries when English constituencies shoot above 70,000 electors rather than wait for 10 years, when the whole thing is done en bloc. Is he aware that in eastern England there are constituencies with well over 70,000 or 80,000 electors, while in Greater London there are some constituencies with well under 50,000 electors? Will he—

Order. May I appeal to the hon. Member not to make out a case, but to ask a question?

Will the Minister of State agree to instruct the Commission to do these two things?

If I may make a brief intervention in that speech—boundaries cannot be changed in a higgledy-piggledy way and Ministers have no power to instruct the Commission. On the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about the projected rise in population, it might be dangerous to act in the way that he suggests, because, on the evidence that I have seen from reports in the local government sector, projected rises in population up to between 1976 and 1980 have been erroneous in a number of cases.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the electorate of Huntingdonshire has increased from 39,000 to 93,000 since I became its Member? What is he going to do about it? Is he aware that the local government reorganisation affecting Cambridgeshire and neighbouring counties has for a long time called for a Parliamentary Boundary Commission?

The Commission is in existence and is carrying out county reviews. As to the other matter about which the right hon, and learned Gentleman is concerned, he seems, single-handed, to have increased the population in his constituency. He asks what I am going to do about it. All I can say is that I am not a surgeon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were convicted in England and Wales of drug offences and drink offences, respectively, for the last year for which complete figures are available.

The latest figures available are for 1976. In that year, 11,220 people were convicted of drugs offences and 111,884 of offences against the intoxicating liquor laws. In addition, 50,238 people were convicted of road traffic offences involving either drink or drugs.

Do not those figures and the figures given to me by the Chairman of the National Council for Alcoholism indicate that alcoholism and intoxication are now greater problems in this country than are drugs? What does the Home Office intend to do about it?

The figures for simple drunkenness fell by a small amount. The increase was in drunkenness with aggravation—drunk and disorderly cases. That is a problem that we shall study, in common with other crimes of violence.

How many cases involved the use of cannabis, which is a non-criminal offence in many parts of the world?

I am unable to say specifically how many cannabis offences are included in the statistics. My hon. Friend said that the use of cannabis was not a crime in many countries, but it is still a crime in most countries, and the decriminalisation spoken of in the United States is not intended not to make it a crime.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a breakdown of the figures would show that the toll of death and injury on the roads due to alcohol abuse is rising, especially among the young? Is he aware that road accidents account for half of all male deaths between the ages of 15 and 24, and that the largest factor in all those cases is alcohol? Does he agree, therefore, that the delay in implementing the sensible proposals of the Blennerhasset Committee is costing lives?

The statistics show the link between drinking and driving and how dangerous it is to drive after having drunk. But the Blennerhasset Report is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce measures to ensure that no appeals against conviction result in harsher sentences being issued in some courts.

This is, in effect, the position with appeals to the Court of Appeal. An appeal to the Crown Court, however, is different. It is a complete rehearing of the case, and the appropriate sentence in an individual case is, within the limits prescribed by law, a matter to be decided by the court. We have no proposal to amend the law in this respect.

Surely it is a scandal that this can happen, as in the case of Christopher Roys, the Bradford student who appealed against a fine imposed by a magistrates' court for supposedly obobstructing the police at Grunwick and was then put in gaol. If it does not apply to certain other courts, especially those used by people who have "brass" and start off at a different level, surely the system is wrong? Is it not being used as a deterrent against other people who might have been charged arising out of matters at Grunwick? Should not this anomaly be removed?

There are a number of misconceptions in my hon. Friend's supplementary question. First, the Court of Appeal is not a rich man's alternative route to appeal. The Court of Appeal deals with cases on the basis of facts already heard. An appeal to the Crown Court from a magistrates' court, which is the sole method of appeal from magistrates' courts, is by way of a rehearing. All the facts are canvassed again and all the evidence is reheard, so that it is, in effect, a new trial. All I would say is that the court that retries the case should have powers, within the limits prescribed for the offence, to impose an appropriate sentence.

Is it not the case that the decision by a past Parliament to remove from the Court of Appeal the power to increase a sentence has resulted in far too many people appealing on cases without merit, with the result that people who have genuine merit in their appeals have to wait far too long before they are heard?

Who can judge which case is without merit? That is a purely subjective judgment. All I can say, as someone who looks at wrongful conviction cases, is that it seems to me that everyone who is convicted believes that he ought to have been successful in his appeal.

Will my hon. Friend undertake to have a special look at the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which has caused a great deal of disturbance? The youngster who has been sentenced to gaol could have his whole life and career affected by this extraordinary turn of events, which reaches far beyond the immediate situation at Grunwick. Will my hon. Friend give that undertaking?

As I have said, Ministers do not interfere with what is a matter for judicial decision alone. Therefore. I shall not comment upon an individual case. But I have made it quite clear that there is no proposal to give the Court of Appeal powers to increase a sentence.

Does the Minister of State agree that it is contrary to the tradition of English law and English legal practice to increase sentences when there is an appeal against conviction, because there is a need for certainty in those matters? As the hon. Gentleman knows, judges tend to vary in their views on certain cases. A man should not risk different sentences before two different tribunals.

What the hon. and learned Gentleman has said would be more accurate if the matter did not proceed by way of a new trial. What one has in the Crown Court is an appeal that is a complete rehearing of the case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the rise in juvenile crime.

The Government share the concern expressed in many quarters about the level and seriousness of juvenile crime; but in fact in 1975 there was a 5 per cent. decrease in the number of juveniles found guilty of or cautioned for indictable offences per 100,000 of the population in the age group, followed by a 4 per cent. decrease in 1976.

Does the Minister not fel that in this sphere magistrates should have rather more say and social workers rather less? If we had more bobbies on the beat, would not that be a good deterrent? If so, will he bear in mind that in London we are to have fewer?

The cause of juvenile crime is a more subtle and complicated question than can be answered by a mere cry that the magistrates should have more powers. After all, there is no evidence that a more restrictive environment checks juvenile crime.

We should be pleased to note the slight reduction in the last two years. Will my hon. Friend encourage magistrates to use the community service orders that have worked successfully where they have been applied by the courts? Does he agree that the community service order is a better alternative than remanding juvenile delinquents to borstal or to other forms of detention?

I always encourage the use of non-custodial dispositions where they seem appropriate.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen British Rail's recent report on vandalism and the reference to the extent of vandalism by children of 7, 8 and 9 years of age? Does he not think that there is room for a change in our law, which prevents youngsters of those ages from being brought before the courts unless they are found to have deprived home backgrounds?

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 years. It is already lower than in most Continental countries. I do not think that it would be the wish of the House to reduce it further.

The Minister talks about a "mere cry" that the magistrates should have more power. Is he treating this matter correctly? Is he not aware of the growing concern that magistrates lack the ability to imprison young offenders where appropriate? Is he prepared to consider changes in the law to meet this genuine and growing concern?

The hon. Gentleman should use his words correctly. There is no power to imprison juveniles at all. What we are talking about is a small minority of hard-core juveniles. I favour non-custodial rather than custodial dispositions, so that those who can be turned away from a life of crime by constructive means at that age may be so turned away.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the continued use of birching as a punishment in the Isle of Man.

Pending the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, in a current case, this remains a domestic matter for consideration by the Isle of Man Government.

If the Isle of Man Government will not take action on this practice, will my right hon. Friend initiate action in the House?

It would be better to wait and see what happens. The matter will eventually come back to me to consider. I feel strongly about corporal punishment, but wider issues are involved.

Is not the effect of the United Kingdom's adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights to alter the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man in respect of the internal affairs of the Isle of Man?

I do not think, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that this case alters our relationship. At the end of the day that relationship is a convention between ourselves and the Isle of Man. Our relationship is governed, if that is the right word, by convention. What we decide at the end of the day is our own business.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he personally is opposed to this barbaric business or agrees with it?

I said at the beginning that, with my responsibilities in this country, I am against it.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the people of the Isle of Man know best how to deal with this problem and that they have been very successful in maintaining law and order there? Should we not, therefore, leave the decision to them?

I do not want to be drawn. I just make the obvious remark that one could take a small area of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of a size comparable to that of the Isle of Man and find that the amount of crime in that area in which there is no corporal punishment is less than that in the Isle of Man. This subject is much better left until the Court reports.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often he met the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in 1977.

I met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on 19 occasions during 1977. I last met him yesterday and have no immediate plans for a further meeting.

Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Commissioner the present strength of the Metropolitan Police, which is numerically no higher than it was 50 years ago and is smaller as a proportion of the national police force? Will he confirm that at present there is a net outflow from the Metropolitan Police, whilst other forces are having less difficulty in obtaining recruits? Does not this indicate that there is an urgent need for a special approach to recruiting to the Metropolitan Police?

The Edmund-Davies Committee is meeting and discussing a wide variety of matters, and I imagine that that is one of them. I think that it would be better to wait and see what the committee suggests. I simply observe that there are differences of view between the forces in the provinces and the Metropolitan forces on this matter. Therefore, I would rather wait until I receive the report. Then we can look at the wider issues.

On how many of those occasions in 1977 and this year did my right hon. Friend discuss the National Front march in Lewisham and its aftermath? Does he agree, in retrospect, that the Commissioner made an error of judgment in not applying to have that march banned? Has my right hon. Friend completed his review of the legal position? Can he announce any future legislation to tighten up the Public Order Act?

I begin with the Public Order Act and the wider aspects resulting from its amendment by the Race Relations Act. I have talked to the chief officers concerned, and it is emerging that there could be some tightening up, if that is the right expression. My own view is that it would not make much difference to the situation, if one is simply considering the Public Order Act. I have discussed the matter with the Commissioner at my regular meetings with him, and on a much more day-to-day basis my Department discusses these matters with Scotland Yard.

When the Home Secretary next meets Commissioner McNee will he discuss with him the official policy, which is to allow the local Press to have access to police logs of reported crimes in local stations so that, for example, automatic Press publicity can be given to burglaries and other such crimes without consulting the people affected?

I shall look into that. It had not been brought to my notice.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the Commissioner's attention to the Fisher Report on the Confait case and the comments in the report that some of the rules and directions in the Judges' Rules did not seem to be known by police officers? Will he encourage the Commissioner to ensure that every constable in the Metropolitan force is aware of those rules and directions?

I shall certainly do that. There is a later Question on which the matter more specifically arises. The Com missioner has read the report and is taking steps accordingly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I agree with him when he says that there are great dangers in banning marches by one organisation and not regarding what many other organisations may do at the same time? Provocation in these matters is very dangerous, but the right to march must be preserved, and the law should be preserved. That is the job of the Metropolitan Commissioner.

That is so, but the law was drawn up in 1936, as a result of the then Fascist marches—the Mosley marches in the East End of London—and it follows that there must be occasions on which Parliament would think it right to ban a march. Otherwise, there is no point in having the law. Marches have been banned on a number of occasions. There is a difficult judgment to make in all this. I am saying that within the Metropolitan area a judgment on one march, simply on the basis of the preservation of law and order, would have ramifications for all marches. The Commissioner must take that into account in making his recommendation to me.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans for the non-custodial treatment of mentally disturbed persons at present in prison owing to the lack of alternative facilities.

I do not think that it would be appropriate to provide for the treatment, in a non-custodial setting, of mentally disordered offenders whom the courts have decided to sentence to imprisonment rather than, for example, place on probation. But we are concerned about the number of mentally disordered people in prison, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services are considering what can be done to improve the situation.

As it costs at least £78 a week to keep each prisoner, would not the money be better spent on setting up suitable establishments, and quickly?

That is one of the simplistic accounting procedures that appeal to me, as I have a poor grasp of arithmetic, but the fact is that unless we make enough room in a prison to close it down, we effect no saving on the prison budget, whilst increasing public expenditure elsewhere. I am interested to note that the hon. Lady is making yet another special case for increasing public expenditure whilst advocating decreasing public expenditure in general.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation in British prisons is becoming extremely dangerous as a result of the very high incidence of mentally disordered people who should be in hospital rather than in prison, but who cannot be in hospital because the judges cannot send them to Rampton and Broadmoor, as those establishments are too full? Is it not time that we acted on the Butler Report, with the full consent of the House, and told the Treasury that money should be available for some kind of establishment where such people can be kept safely but out of the normal mental hospital?

No precise estimate of the numbers involved can be given, but in the opinion of prison medical officers there are hundreds of such prisoners. As for the Butler Report, and particularly the question of secure units, the Government are very concerned about the slow progress being made, but for once that cannot be laid at the Treasury's door.

Is the Minister aware that in Brixton Prison, for example, there are numerous mentally disturbed prisoners for whom the appropriate treatment is most certainly not in Her Majesty's Prisons? Is not the resistance of certain trade unions and the Health Service to providing adequate facilities for such prisoners the real restraint on dealing with them properly?

I would make two points. First, Brixton is a remand prison, and therefore one would expect dispositions about mental health to be made at the trial. Secondly, problems arise on the question whether hospitals have the appropriate facilities and whether the offenders are treatable. There are some cases of mental disturbance which are not treatable in the present state of modern science. It is that rather than blind trade union resistance, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, that causes the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that magistrates' courts have adequate facilities at their disposal to enable them to deal with offences involving hooliganism and vandalism.

Yes, Sir. The courts have a wide range of sentencing options available to them in such cases.

Is the Minister aware that there is growing dissatisfaction among magistrates at the lack of options open to them in dealing with these types of offender? Attendance centres have been set up. Why are there about 60 for those under 17 and only two for those between 17 and 21, in view of the hon. Gentleman's desire to encourage non-custodial options? Will he do something urgently to put that matter right and provide more of these cheap and effective means of dealing non-custodially with hooligans and vandals?

Junior attendance centres number 61. One more has recently been opened, and further centres are to be opened, The problem about senior attendance centres is that the advisory council that looked into the matter thought that it was an inappropriate type of disposition for people of that age, and the Government agree. Nevertheless, as magistrates believe that there is some value in the existing tool, I have deferred the closure of those attendance centres. As for other methods of non-custodial disposition, we are pressing on quickly with the extension of community service orders.

Is it not the case that although magistrates have adequate facilities at their disposal they are not making use of those facilities and in many cases are imposing inadequate sentences?

As my hon. Friend will know, decisions in individual cases are for the magistrates. However, the Court of Appeal gave some guidance last week about the seriousness with which it views this category of case. I hope that hon. Members will study that guidance.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that magistrates receive sufficient feedback on the effect of the sentences that they impose on juveniles who are found guilty of crimes, or are they merely left to impose various sentences from within the short range at their disposal with not the slightest idea which are the most effective in which circumstances?

The problem in any penal policy is to monitor and assess accurately the effectiveness of any particular disposition. I have no doubt that in many cases magistrates suffer from an absence of information on their disposition. One of the measures is the incidence of re-offence.

Will the Minister of State tell us why senior attendance centres are not appropriate?

I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the advisory council report for more detail. The sort of regime that is successful for young people does not have an effect at the senior range. What is appropriate for juniors would be wholly inappropriate for seniors.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to combat the increase in crimes of violence committed in the cities of the United Kingdom.

I have already announced increased expenditure on law and order services to support the police with whom rests the immediate responsibility for preventing and detecting crime. The Government will continue to ensure that adequate powers are available to the courts.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important deterrents is detection? Further, does he agree that the morale of the police at present, especially because of their pay, has meant that they are disastrously undermanned, with the result that the citizens of many cities, including Birmingham, fear to walk the streets at night and are not being adequately protected by us?

I am sure that detection is a major factor. I advise the hon. Gentleman—I have done so since I have been Home Secretary—to read around on the subject. It is not only a matter of detection. It is not only a matter of the penalties that are provided. For example, I found that in Soviet Russia there is far less crime than in America. That did not turn me into a Communist, or make me a Friedman capitalist, but it made me realise that there is more to this subject than we sometimes think.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether the Merseyside police force is under strength, by how much it is under strength, and what activities are being undertaken to bring it up to strength?

I do not have the Merseyside figures with me. I can say that police forces are under strength. Much depends on what is meant by "establishment" Pay is undoubtedly a factor in recruitment. In some parts of the country it is extremely difficult to recruit whatever remuneration is offered. I hope that we shall consider these matters more widely in the discussions that will take place in the next couple of years about the role of the police and recruitment. People are not rushing to join the police.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it was wise of his predecessor to reduce from eight weeks to six weeks the time normally spent by offenders in detention centres when they are in the appropriate age bracket?

That is a judgment on the period of a fortnight. In the discussions that have taken place on a wider front, I see no reason to believe that this decision was a mistake. The error that we all make—I put myself in this category—is to try to find a single solution to the problem. We shall never do so. There is a collection of answers, which goes across a wide spectrum.

In considering the causes, will my right hon. Friend turn to the effect that television is having on young people, especially where, night after night, we are getting a surfeit of violence in the programmes?

One of my responsibilities, as my hon. Friend knows, lies with television and broadcasting. There have been a number of interesting reports. However, the answers that they offer are conflicting. There is one school of thought that takes the view that violence shown on television gets it out of one's system. The other school of thought believes that one learns from it. I do not know the answer. When I manage to watch television in the evening, my feeling is that an enormous amount of violence takes place, and I feel that that must be a factor.

The right hon. Gentleman said that an increase in police pay would not automatically result in more police on the beat. That may be true, but is not the other side of the case equally dangerous and true, namely, that a lack of increase in pay is resulting in fewer police on the beat all the time? When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to get the report of Lord Edmund-Davies's Committee?

I cannot say when I shall get it, but I want a report that will stand the test of time. The 1961 Report did that. My predecessor has been referred to. In the statutory policy of a couple of years ago an arrangement was specially made with the police that they received a 30 per cent. pay increase when others had far less. My predecessor argued to the Cabinet that that was vital to the police, and he was right, but that did not solve the problem of law and order. All that I am arguing is that I do not think that it will do so next time, either.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to seek to amend the race relations legislation in the light of the speech of Lord Scarman to the Minority Rights Group on the temporary nature of the Race Relations Act.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us read his weekend speech with the greatest interest, especi ally the part that stated that we cannot prosecute or legislate racialism out of existence? In these circumstances, would it not be wise for the Government to keep an eye on the continuing effectiveness of the Race Relations Acts and to ensure that they are a help rather than a hindrance to good race relations?

If the hon. Gentleman had read my full speech—I do not blame him for not doing so, as the extracts that appear are necessarily brief—he would realise that I do not find any substitute for a good Race Relations Act to secure equality of treatment. In so far as it is necessary to have an Act—I believe that it is, to secure equality of treatment for the minority communities—I am determined to make the Act as effective as possible.

Is it not odd that a distinguished judge of Lord Scarman's stature should have made the mistake of thinking that appropriate sections of the Race Relations Act had anything to do with positive discrimination, in the American sense? All that they do is allow the Government to provide for special need rather than give any act of discrimination to anybody.

Nothing in the Race Relations Act provides for positive discrimination in the sense that my hon. Friend mentions. I agree that it allows for special treatment to fulfil special need, and I believe that that is vital.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people believe, in the light of experience, that race relations legislation is harmful to human relations and contrary to British traditions of fair play, and that the sooner it is repealed the better?

I believe that it is not race relations legislation that is causing an upset in relations but irresponsible statements, for electoral gain, that are made from time to time without any regard to the facts.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) about legislating racialism out of existence was short-sighted—as if anyone were to ask "Can you legislate dishonesty out of existence?" That has never been a basis for not having legislation, for example, against theft or robbery with violence. Does my hon. Friend further agree that what is required is not so much amending legislation but the keen conviction of every judge in court that he will not act against the law but will implement it? If a judge can interpret "One down and a million to go" as not an incitement to violence, are we not ready to conclude that that judge will never interpret anything as incitement to violence?

Race relations legislation goes a great deal wider than the one section that deals with criminal incitement. I am concerned with the whole of race relations legislation. The context in which I said that we could not legislate racialism out of existence was that race relations legislation is necessary but must be operated with determination and commitment by all sections of the community. I only wish that there were a little more on the Opposition Benches.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to assess the overall cost of the recent strike action by the Fire Brigades Union.

No, Sir. It will be some time before the extra costs arising from the provision of Service assistance to fire authorities can be fully assessed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cost—obviously substantial—will demonstrate the value of the fire service to the community? Is it not disgraceful that the Conservative leader of the Norfolk County Council, addressing the County Council Association, should have spoken in a hostile and offensive fashion about the negotiations and the agreement that has been reached? Would it be as well for the Home Department to advise local authorities which are threatening to cut down on fire services that that would be a dangerous and hazardous procedure?

It would be premature for me to attempt to estimate the total cost of the burden that will fall on fire authorities. They will have to pay Ministry of Defence costs, which do not include the pay of Service men. All costs, apart from pay, will have to be included. At this stage I cannot say what that will mean.

The Minister referred to Ministry of Defence costs. Were there not in fact savings to the Government by employing under-paid troops to do the firemen's work, with no overtime pay for it?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has posed a completely different question. I am sure that everyone appreciates the work done by the troops during the firemen's dispute. I cannot estimate the cost.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Tory-controlled Derbyshire County Council decided over the weekend to cut fire cover for all household hereditaments from two pumps to one pump at every fire? Should not the Home Department intervene to alert not only Derbyshire County Council ratepayers but, more importantly, the bigoted Tory-controlled council which is proposing to act in such a dilatory fashion?

Certain standards are set by the Home Department to which fire authorities must adhere. It is for each fire authority to conform to those standards in the best way that it can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

I meet Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary frequently but have no immediate arrangement to do so.

Is it not a scandal that many of my elderly constituents should be genuinely afraid to go out at night? Does the Home Secretary agree—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. Does the Home Secretary agree that the only way to check violence on the streets is to increase the numbers of policemen on beat patrol?

The Labour Government are, in real terms, spending £250 million more than the Conservative Administration spent. There is another £50 million in the pipeline now. There are now 7,474 more policemen than under the Conservative Administration. I have here a recruitment figure for 1976 of about 1,000 more for the Metropolitan Police. We are doing very well, and very much better than the Conservative Government did.

Nevertheless, will the Home Secretary discuss with the Chief Inspector of Constabulary the deep anxieties of every senior police officer in the land not merely at the decline in the numbers of male recruits to the force and the difficulty of retaining experienced police officers but at the filling up of establishments with women police officers who, though admirable and efficient in every other way, are a cause of anxiety when they have to be sent out on patrol in high-risk areas?

I note the hon. Gentleman's feeling that women have their place in the home.

Nonsense.

There are more policewomen now. It is idle to pretend that there are not problems in certain areas. I discussed this matter yesterday with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. We need to wait and see the result of Lord Edmund-Davies's Committee. I take full account of the proper needs of law and order. There are certain jobs that women cannot do and we would be foolish to ignore that fact, but in the modern world women who can do the jobs that men do ought to be able to get those jobs irrespective of their sex.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have asked for and got extra police on patrol in Walton, but at the same time constituents have complained that their children have been harassed because of those extra police? Will he try to explain to Conservative Members that it is not a simple matter to deal with this situation?

I agree that it is not a simple matter to deal with this situation.

Will the Home Secretary think again about the extraordinarily complacent statement that he made about things getting better?

Declare your interest.

Is it not a fact—

Declare your interest.

Order. It is not necessary for an hon. Member to declare an interest every Question Time when it has already been declared.

I declare and am proud to proclaim my interest in this matter. Will the Home Secretary think again about the extraordinarily complacent statement that he made, namely, that matters of law and order are getting better? Does he not recognise that there is vastly more crime and violence and that considerably more policemen are leaving the service? There is a national problem. Will he stop being complacent, and try to deal with it?

The hon. Gentleman overdoes what he says for his own reasons. I was answering a question about recruitment, and I gave the figures. The hon. Gentleman has a vested interest in making political capital out of police pay.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time I think I heard you say that it was the convention in the House not to declare an interest during Question Time if it had been declared previously. I may be quite wrong, but it has always been my impression that the convention was not to declare an interest during Question Time. The addition of the words "if it has been declared before" seems very important. Perhaps now or on a subsequent occasion you could give us your guidance as to the exact position.

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in his interpretation.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

I met representatives of the CBI when I took the chair at a meeting of the NEDC yesterday. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many employers, trade unionists and Labour Members are pleased with his firm stance, so far, on the temporary employment subsidy? In view of the intransigence of the European Commission on this issue and its wish to see TES replaced, for certain sensitive industries, by a less acceptable scheme, does he agree that we need a high-level political initiative to ensure that the temporary employment subsidy remains and is passed on to other workers in sensitive industries in the rest of the Community?

I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend pursues this important matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made a considered statement on the matter in the debate on Monday. As for future negotiations, I shall consider with my right hon. Friend whether the matter should be raised to a political level, but that time has not yet arrived. Our major objective is to preserve these jobs.

Has the Prime Minister discussed with the CBI or with the NEDC how many jobs are threatened by his blacklist policy, or does he still maintain that it is a figment of the imagination?

This matter was not raised by representatives of the CBI when I met them yesterday, and I did not raise it. In view of the small number of companies that have been referred to in the newspapers, out of the 600,000 companies that are active, it was probably thought not worth while to discuss it at that point.

The Prime Minister admits that there is a black list. What is the authority for that black list, in view of the fact that there is a non-statutory incomes policy?

I did not admit that there was a black list. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Lady puts words into my mouth. All that is completely and fully known is that there is a group of firms to which this matter has been put. Representatives of the Conservative Front Bench are apparently engaged in a dispute with the Department of Trade about that matter.

The Prime Minister has given his usual slippery reply. [Interruption.] Is there or is there not a black list, and how many firms are on it?

I did not discuss this matter with the CBI. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If the right hon. Lady wants an answer to that question, there is a perfectly good way of getting it. She can table a Question to the Secretary of State for Trade or, if she would not be satisfied with a reply from him, there is the usual convention of putting a specific Question to me by notice. I shall then be very happy to give her any figures that exist on this matter.

Has my right hon. Friend yet discussed with the CBI the recent pamphlet entitled "Britain means Business", which indicates that the Confederation wants substantial cuts in public expenditure amounting to 38 per cent. of GDP by 1981–1982, including massive reductions in housing and transport subsidies? Will he say what that would mean in increased rents and fares, not forgetting increased employment?

I would not like to give figures offhand, without preparation, but I notice that there has been this demand for a reduction in the standard rate of tax. If the Opposition policy of abolishing rates were carried out, we would find not a reduction in the rate of tax but a substantial increase.