asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce measures to implement the Erroll committee's report on liquor licensing.

The Government have at present no plans for further legislation in this area.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are a great many anomalies in that area and that the law is completely out of date? Does the Home Office ever intend to do anything about those anomalies and to bring the law up to date?

There is a widespread feeling that the law contains some anomalies. On the other hand, the plain fact is that there is also a good deal of concern about the extent of heavy drinking, particularly among the young. We feel that it is difficult to move forward unless there is a substantial consensus about what should be done.

I recognise the problems of alcohol abuse in a small minority, but will my right hon. Friend recognise that the present outdated laws do nothing to encourage sensible drinking and are a considerable handicap to the holiday and tourist industries? Will he at least consider a modest reform on the lines of the one recently introduced in Scottish law, which appears to be working satisfactorily?

As I have said, I recognise that there are anomalies in and criticisms of the present law. I also recognise that the results of the change in Scottish law so far have not been unsatisfactory. However, I repeat that this is an area where there are still a good many problems. We want to move ahead with as much agreement as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has given further consideration to achieving a fair distribution of the burden of the level of television receiver licence fees payable by commercial and other collective undertakings, including hotels, following his statement of 1 December.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to make a statement about his policy on television licence fees payable by hotels.

I have not completed my consideration of the issues involved, but hope soon to invite the comments of interested parties on proposals relating to the licensing of television in hotels.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he comment further, however, on the hint in his December statement that he regarded it as wrong that individual old-age pensioners and other consumers have to pay the same fee as commercial undertakings that have one licence regardless of the number of sets, and that changes would be made in such cases?

I have agreed with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade, Scotland and Wales to consult the interested parties. Matters concerning the tourist trade are involved. I hope to complete those considerations soon.

Next time licence fees are increased, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the Post Office plays the game by not ceasing the issue of stamps before the effective date and by taking account of those who, for reasons beyond their control, have been unable to pay the licence fee within a day or two of the effective date?

It was generally accepted in the House that the new licence fee would operate for a three-year period. An increase will not, therefore, arise for a considerable time. I hope that all the arrangements that I sought to make on that occasion have obviated some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If they have not, I shall look at them again.

When my right hon. Friend makes up his mind on this problem, will he bear in mind seaside resorts, where many of the hotels and holiday camps are open for only three, four or five months a year? If he decides to implement a licence fee for each room, will he ensure that such a fee is based on the number of months that such places are open?

Those are all part of the considerations that we must have in mind. We must consider whether there should be a fee for every television set in every room and how it might be paid. I am prepared to discuss those matters with all the interested parties. I take my hon. Friend's point that we must consider the tourist trade and the many people in the tourist resorts who at present are going through a difficult time.

The Home Secretary says that he proposes to consult interested parties. May we have an assurance that he will not simply consult those who have an interest in there being no licence fee for commercial undertakings? Is he aware that several million families have an interest in not subsidising commercial undertakings?

I am prepared to consider these matters. I know how the BBC feels about the matter. As representative of those who pay the licence fee to it, the BBC would like to see such a proposal come forward, as the working party showed. I shall consider all these factors. At the same time, we must be reasonably fair to the industries concerned. It must be remembered that whatever they give would not materially affect the licence fee paid by others.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he hopes to complete his review of the Shops Act 1950.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to make the statement on shop hours, which was promised in his replies to questions by the hon. Member for Flint, West, Official Report 7 May, c. 259, and Official Report 30 July, c. 464.

Our examination of the shop hour restrictions in the Shops Act 1950 is now complete and my right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement very soon.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. Is he aware that, as the Act stands, church bookstalls that sell bibles to churchgoers on Sunday are breaking the law? Will he commit himself now to introducing amending legislation to avoid such farcical situations?

I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes about bibles. I am also aware of many other oddities and anomalies in the legislation. I cannot make a commitment to introduce new legislation. The problem is lack of consensus about what should be done.

Is my right hon. Friend aware—I congratulate him on his promotion—that, after all this time, it is absurd for the Home Office to shelter behind the absence of any consensus? Is it not for the Home Office to give a lead?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.

Is the Minister assuring the House that at long last there is to be a radical amendment of the 1950 Act to get rid of the absurdities that it contains and to allow traders to trade on a Sunday? At the moment, a do-it-yourself shop cannot open on a Sunday but a garden centre can. These absurdities make a mockery of the law. Is the right hon. Gentleman assuring the House that the Home Office now intends to act?

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurance that we will act. I would, however, point out that the House will shortly debate a Bill introduced by one of my hon. Friends, and the other place will debate a Bill proposed by Baroness Trumpington. Both will give opportunities for Members of the two Houses to express their views on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent recidivism among those in prison shows any marked change over the past five years.

The distribution of receptions into prison department establishments did not change markedly with respect to previous convictions over the period 1976 to 1980. Studies of the rate of reconviction after two years of those discharged between 1973 and 1977 show some increase for borstals and detention centres but no appreciable change for young or adult prisoners.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the recidivism rate is running at about 60 per cent.? If so, does it not underline Mr. Justice May's remark that a prison sentence today is not likely to do much to reform the criminal? If so, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a strong case for the Home Office to set up an inquiry into ways in which imprisonment can be made a more effective deterrent against returning to prison.

The recidivism, or reconviction, rate after two years varies according to the age and the sex of prisoners. One of the uses and purposes of prison is to protect the public from a further offence by that prisoner, at least during the period the sentence is served. The Home Office research unit undertakes inquiries of this kind and will consider suggestions by my hon. Friend.

The question refers to the increase in recidivism over the past five years. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the increase in reconviction rates for young offenders over the past five years has been especially disturbing, not least the increase from 63 to 69 per cent. in reconviction to borstal training, from 64 to 68 per cent. in young prisoners and, most disturbing and alarming, from 59 to 68 per cent. to detention centre training? As the Criminal Justice Bill may mean that more young offenders end up in detention centres, does the Minister agree that there is perhaps a case for making statutory criteria to cover circumstances under which an offender may be sent to a detention centre?

Statutory criteria already govern the power of courts to send young offenders to detention centres. The increase in reconviction of young offenders is worrying. Without accepting the figures that the hon. Gentleman gives—I am not saying that they are not right—I agree that it is a matter of concern. There is, however, a need for a power to detain in custody young offenders who are capable of causing considerable harm to other members of the community.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the outcome of the short, sharp shock regime in detention centres.

In the light of our experience of operating the tougher regimes at New Hall and Send, last September I extended the project to two other centres. A programme to evaluate the tougher regimes pilot project in the four centres is proceeding, but the results will not be available until next year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever the pained views of the so-called experts, stern regimes of this kind have widespread public support? Will he bear that in mind in his review?

Yes. It was because the first two regimes seemed to be working well that we decided upon two further regimes. I believe that they will prove their worth.

As, under the Criminal Justice Bill, the House is asked to endorse the perpetuation of detention centres, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the new regimes at New Hall and Send were set up as long ago as April 1980? About 1, 000 boys have now come out of those institutions under the new regime. They have been out for almost a year. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore examine the reconvicion rates among those boys and give some information about how the short, sharp shock experiment is working?

Yes. I should have to compare the reconviction rates in other detention centres. I should like to bring forward the pilot project very quickly. I believe that it would prove—perhaps not for the first time—that what the Government are seeking to do is right and that the hon. Lady's criticisms are wrong.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now intends to issue a White Paper on data protection.

We hope to be able to publish a White Paper on this subject soon.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific about what he means by "soon"? Will he recognise that any body, whether an ombudsman or an authority, set up to look after data protection, must be completely independent of the Home Office, itself a major holder of data? Is he aware that the Home Office must not be seen to be judge and jury in its own cause on this issue?

I am afraid that I cannot say more about how soon is "soon". I recognise the importance of the hon. Gentleman's second point. I put it to him that there are two aspects. One is who brings forward the legislation and any subsequent orders. The other is who is responsible for keeping the register that we envisage and for policing. Those may be different aspects. I am aware of the strong feeling in favour of an independent register.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that delay in this area has serious implications for British and European industrial interests and that there must be a free interchange of computer data?

I understand and agree with my hon. Friend's point. We have signed the convention. We are trying to push ahead as quickly as possible with the legislation that will enable us to ratify it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any review or White Paper will take into consideration the passing by British Telecom to third parties for investigative purposes of computer information on the personal records of the use of private telephone lines? Will he liaise with the Secretary of State for Industry to confirm that section 50 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 is an adequate safeguard in this respect?

I can give that assurance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be a distinction between the monitoring and scrutiny of data collected by commercial organisations for their profit and that collected by the State in the interests of national security?

Under the Council of Europe convention, certain exceptions are permitted, and they lie in the realm of national security.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the privatisation scheme of domestic services in police training establishments.

Contracts have been let for the provision by the private sector of housekeeping, catering and security services at three Home Office residential training establishments, including the police training centres at Bruche and Chantmarle, from 1 April 1982. Studies are in hand of the scope for privatisation at other Home Office residential training establishments.

Is the Minister aware of the complete opposition expressed to this policy by the 10 counties which constitute the North-Eastern police authority committee? Would it not mean a loss of yet more jobs? Are the trade unions being consulted? Is it a fact—I gather from what the Minister said that it may be—that the policy is being extended to other Home Office residential establishments? Why do not the Government abandon such nonsense and solve the real problems of the country?

The answer is because savings of a substantial order have already been identified in the three establishments to which I have referred—£300, 000 annually in those three. The trade unions and all other interested parties are being consulted. About 160 Civil Service posts are being saved in the three establishments, but in two of those the greater part of the jobs being offered by the private contractor have already been offered to existing staff. There are proposals to extend the scheme but these are in the study stage at present.

Will my hon. and learned Friend invite all those who oppose privatisation to visit Southend-on-Sea where, by a policy of privatisation, we managed to cut our rates last year and save the ratepayers £500, 000?

I should think that that would be a salutary experience for all those who oppose privatisation. They really have to explain why the taxpayer should pay for jobs that are not needed and can be carried out more economically by the private sector.

Will the Minister bear in mind, with specific reference to Southend, that as a result of the problems during the winter the wonderful scheme that was set up under a privatised system there has now run into the same sort of trouble as all local authorities encounter with their direct labour forces when they have to combat the kind of weather that we have been having? Is he aware that the private contractors have submitted to the council another massive bill that was not included in the original estimate?

That is not true.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was inviting those who opposed privatisation to pay a visit to Southend, which would be an agreeable experience for any purpose. I do not doubt that if it snows in Southend that must cause equal difficulties to those caused when it snows in Derbyshire. There is, of course, a different Member of Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are held in prisons in England and Wales for maintenance arrears.

On 30 November 1981, the latest date for which figures are available, about 180 persons were in prison department establishments in England and Wales following committal by magistrates' courts for non-payment of maintenance or affiliation orders.

Has the Minister looked with sufficient care at non-custodial alternatives to prison for maintenance defaulters, and has he considered ordering them to work in the privatised prison system?

Without prison as a last resort, many more wives and children simply will not get the money to which they are entitled unders orders that have been made. That was accepted by the Labour Government, and the present Government also believe that it is so. A very small proportion of those against whom enforcement proceedings are taken end up in prison. That is because prison represents a substantial compulsion in the end.

Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the general state of the law on maintenance? If not, does he have any alternative proposals to put before the House in the light of recent publications of the Law Commission?

Not this afternoon.

A custodial sentence for a maintenance defaulter may have been accepted by the Labour Government, but it is not accepted by the present Labour Opposition. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that we are progressing in our thinking in moving from custodial sentences to non-custodial sentences, and that we are not, like the present Government, living in the past? I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider his answer. It costs £7, 000 a year to keep somebody in prison. The prisons are vastly overcrowded, and it is time that maintenance defaulters were not kept in custody.

I guess that 25 million women in this country would be interested to know that the present Labour Opposition, as distinct from the Labour Government, do not think it right that there should be the final sanction of prison. Already the courts have to be satisfied that the default was due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay. If the Labour Party is moving away from its previous position, that will be a matter of great interest and dismay to many women.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the revenue from licences issued for citizens band radio.

Just over £1 million by 31 December 1981.

In congratulating my right hon. Friend on his appointment to the Privy Council, may I say that I hope that he will not think it churlish if I suggest that it is not entirely due to his work on citizens band radio. We were very grateful for his giving freedom of the air to citizens band practitioners, but will he agree that the revenue figure he has just announced would be greatly increased if the licence did not restrict the user to the frequency chosen by the Home Office, which renders its use illegal in all other countries of Europe and takes no account of the many pre-existing users of the AM frequency who, if they all transferred to his chosen frequency, would cause it to be grossly overcrowded?

I am not quite sure how to take my hon. Friend's congratulations, but I thank him for his remarks. If we went down the path of legalising AM, which is what seems to be implied in his question, there might be more licence revenue, but there would be a great deal of additional interference. The problem in this area is interference with television sets and essential services, and we do not believe that that is tolerable.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Post Office is trying hard enough to track down the people operating illegal sets, which are causing interference and making life hell for their neighbours?

I think that the Post Office is trying hard, but there is still excessive interference. I am happy to note that there was a considerable drop between September and December. I hope that that will continue now that a legal service is available, but we are likely to have to bring in new and tighter legislation.

Is it true that only 100, 000 licences have been issued? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Trade to discover how many FM sets have been imported over the last six months, to see whether there is any correlation? Will he reconsider the cost of a licence, which at £10 exceeds what many reasonable people feel to be a sensible figure?

I do not think that 100, 000 licences in the two months of November and December is a bad or disappointing figure.

Will the Minister consider the meanness of his right hon. Friend concerning concessionary television licences and take steps to provide concessionary CB licences for those to whom his right hon. Friend will not give a concessionary television licence?

I do not think that television licences are covered by this subject and I doubt whether there are many old-age pensioners who would want CB licences.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population on 1 January 1982 in England and Wales.

About 40, 800, following the normal seasonal reduction during December.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the annual reports of the prison boards of visitors? If so, does he read them often? Is he aware that they refer to the enormous problems that overcrowding is causing in our prisons? As it now costs over £7, 000 a year to keep a person in prison, when will the Home Secretary start to take out of our prison system many of the people who should never have been put there in the first place? Does he agree that the removal of such people would begin to lead to a constructive development in the prison system?

Of course I see the reports by the boards of visitors. If the hon. Gentleman had been present at our debate yesterday and on previous occasions he would have heard some of the proposals for the prison service and what we seek to do about the prisons. I claim that this Government have done more about improving prisons, about prison building and many other matters than has been done for a long time. The number of people in prison at the end of 1979 was almost exactly the same as it is today. There has been no substantial increase in numbers compared with the numbers in previous years under Labour Governments.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the public are concerned about our stand on law and order? In spite of it being difficult for prison officers to manage with overcrowding, is it not perhaps a bonus that it is uncomfortable in prison? Does not that, perhaps, dampen the enthusiasm of people who may be inclined to commit crimes?

Of course the British people are concerned about the rise in crime, as are people all over the world. The British people are extremely concerned about violent crime in particular. Of course it is necessary for people who commit many such crimes to receive custodial sentences—and some should receive long custodial sentences. That is the purpose of the prisons. It is the purpose of some of my proposals to start a proper prison building programme and to spend money on maintaining and improving existing prisons.

Does the Home Secretary recall the statement on 2 December by the prison and borstal governors, who said that if compulsory cell sharing and slopping out were abolished and decent minimum standards provided, not only for prisoners but for prison staff, the prison population would have to be reduced to 32, 000? Will the Home Secretary, therefore, look favourably on amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill aimed at introducing either supervised release or conditional release, both of which would reduce the prison population substantially?

Such matters can be argued during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. I have made my position and my doubts about supervised release very clear and they will be made clear again during proceedings on that Bill. The prison system is there to serve the interests of the whole criminal justice system and not, as some people seem to think occasionally, the reverse. The prison system ensures that custodial sentences are available for people who need to be in prison for the protection of British citizens. That is a very important factor when considering the prison system.

Will my right hon. Friend explain or amplify a remark that he made earlier? Why is there a seasonal reduction in the prison population at Christmas?

Traditionally that has always been so. Traditonally there is also a sharp rise in the prison population during November. Last year that sharp rise did not occur. It is too early, therefore, to make any predictions about the future or about whether the fact that the prison population has decreased considerably from the high level of last summer is a trend resulting from shorter sentences. Nobody can tell at present and I make no predictions. The trend is about the same as it has been for several years.

The Home Secretary said that the prisons must accommodate people who need to be there for the protection of other citizens. Is he aware that that is common ground across the Floor of the House and throughout the country? Is he aware that the dispute is about who needs to be in prison to provide that protection? If the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman proposed yesterday does become law he will be able to release from prison vagrants, the mentally inadequate, women convicted of soliciting and habitual drunks. Does he intend to release such people or does he think that their imprisonment is necessary for the safety of other people?

We have taken various steps in relation to drunks, for example. I have taken steps recently, following the Private Member's Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), to see whether we can get drunks out of prison. I am keen to take such categories of people out of prison, but we must remember a matter that has been laboured, that eventually persistent fine defaulters must be put in prison. Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I should like the other categories of prisoners which he mentioned to be removed from prison, but he would be the first to agree that, even if they were removed, the reduction in the prison population would be extremely small.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes of violence were made known to the police in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and by what percentage this total differs from the comparable total five years previously.

The number of offences of violence against the person recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1980 was 97, 000–37 per cent. more than the corresponding figure in 1975. For the more serious offences, those of wounding or other act endangering life, the number recorded in 1980 was about the same as in 1975.

In view of the worrying increase in violent crime and the need to impose adequate penalties, may we have a clear assurance that the Minister will not seek to use the six-month amnesty powers in the Criminal Justice Bill to provide for the early release of people convicted of violent crime? Does he agree that there is not much point in urging courts to send rapists and others to prison if the Criminal Justice Bill is to be used to let them out?

Yes. I say that without any equivocation. Clause 26 of the Criminal Justice Bill provides fallback powers in the event of the prison population, for one reason or another, becoming unmanageable. Such powers could be exercised only with the approval of Parliament and under the close control of Parliament. My right hon. Friend has no intention of using the powers for the release of violent prisoners.

Can the Minister explain what he means by a crime of violence? Does it include mugging? Does it include the case reported on the radio this morning of a young married mother in Toxteth who was set about by a gang of thugs—vicious brutes—who held a knife over her baby and threatened to slash the baby's face unless she handed over her money? Is that a crime of violence?

Yes.

If Her Majesty's Government do not intend to introduce either capital punishment or corporal punishment for crimes of violence, which most people in the country want, how can they convince the public that their lesser measures are successful, in the light of the figures that we have just been given?

The question of capital punishment is one for the House and it pronounced upon it in 1979. The opportunity for the House to do that was promised in our manifesto. The Government are deeply concerned about the rise in crime, as is the country. The rise in violent crime in particular causes us anxiety. We must all consider how best to proceed to provide protection for our citizens.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether street crime has increased in Brixton since the ending of the riots; and if so, by what extent.

I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that it is not possible separately to identify those recorded crimes which occurred in the street. Figures are available, however, for incidents of stealing involving offences of the type that are most likely to occur in the street. The total number of such offences recorded in the Brixton police division was about one-fifth higher in the first six months following the April disturbances than in the corresponding period in 1980.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the public in Brixton and other parts of the country that the law will be applied with equal vigour and force and the citizens protected with equal vigour and force in all parts of the country, whatever the social sensitivities, whatever the cultural backgrounds and whatever the racial backgrounds that exist? Does he agree that if that were not the case nothing could be more damaging to the prospects of good race relations?

I entirely agree with that, and I should like to add only that the purpose of closer collaboration between local communities, local councils and the police must be to protect citizens and, therefore, to assist the proper policing of those areas. That is the purpose of the discussions and it should be understood to be so.

As one who was at the meeting mentioned by the Home Secretary, may I pay tribute to the efforts that he has made to get effective police-community liaison in Lambeth? May I assure him that the Opposition are deeply concerned about street crime, but add that we do not go along with the implication of the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to the effect that for the police to seek better liaison with local communities is an alternative to dealing with crime? To us it is an essential part of an effective crime prevention policy.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the meeting and to him and his colleagues from the area for the help that they have given to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself in arranging the meeting. I confirm that it is the purpose of all such meetings and contacts between the police and the community to ensure that we afford proper protection to our citizens. That must mean proper policing of the area.

In relation to Brixton and Lord Scarman's report, will the Home Secretary repudiate the words of Mr. James Jardine yesterday to the effect that the police will refuse to operate the central recommendation of the Scarman report that racist behaviour should normally be a ground for dismissal?

It is not part of my job to go round repudiating this person or that. I regard my job as being to press forward with the various improvements that Lord Scarman proposed, as I have done in discussions with the community and in many other ways. I wish to take advantage of Lord Scarman's report to improve relations between the police and the community, always bearing in mind the need to protect our citizens.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pensioners are exempt from paying the full television licence; how many pay the full charge; and if he will make a statement.

It is estimated that about 500, 000 pensioners qualify for the special 5p old persons' home licence, and about 4½ million households comprising one or two pensioners pay the full licence fee. For the reasons given during the debate on 16 December, I have no plans to introduce concessions for pensioners generally.

Is the Home Secretary not aware that there is a clear anomaly between the 500, 000 pensioners who get a 5p licence, those who get assistance from a number of local authorities, and the rest who have to pay the full licence fee? The Government stole 90p a week from pensioners by not raising the pension in line with inflation, and that is just about equivalent to the cost of a television licence. I hope that the Home Secretary is not coming along—

Order. I hope to call another question.

I am just practising from this new seat.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked enough questions.

It is not for me to comment on the hon. Gentleman's new seat or the reasons for his move. We debated the matter in December and I have nothing further to add.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the inquiry by Lord Belstead into the procedure for complaints against the police will be completed.

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State chaired a working group of the Police Advisory Board, the report of which is to be considered at a meeting of the board on 26 January. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has since begun an inquiry into police complaints and related matters and I shall wish to take into account its report before bringing forward proposals for change.

Is the Home Secretary aware that many people will be pleased that the board is meeting on 26 January to make a report, but will regret that the Home Secretary seems to be using the Select Committee as an excuse to put off the introduction of legislation? Is it not time that we got fresh legislation on police complaints before the House?

That is a classic example of how one cannot do right. If I had produced legislation while the Select Committee was considering the matter, the hon. Gentleman and the House would say that I had treated the Committee in a most disgraceful way, and was disregarding Parliament and paying no attention to it. Because I act in the opposite way, I am told that I ought to bring forward legislation. I believe that what I am doing is the right way of proceeding.

Will the Secretary of State reassure the House by saying that, at least provisionally, he is clear in his mind that in future there ought to be an independent element in the investigation of complaints and not only in their determination?

I should like to say "Yes" and I should like equally to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that it would be appropriate for me to start again. I intend to bring forward legislation as soon as we can get agreement and, if possible, through the Select Committee. I want to get legislation on the subject and to carry forward the proposals that the hon. Gentleman has put to me.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it is six months since the disturbances in Liverpool, and that there is every sign that tensions are growing in the city again? What action will be taken to reduce the high level of unemployment, running at nearly 50 per cent. in my constituency, and what can be done to restore the £23½ million of Government funds that have been lost to Liverpool city council in the past two years?

Substantial progress has been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his task force in securing the co-operation of private companies to help him in redeveloping the inner city. I understand that commercial business training centres have been set up, sponsored by the financial institutions and Unilever, in Liverpool, Birkenhead and Huyton. More than 11, 000 YOP traineeships have been made available by local industry. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take up the question of rate support grant allocations with my right hon. Friend.

Has my right hon. Friend had time during her busy day to read the remarks reportedly made by the magistrate at Highbury court to a teacher—Miss Puttock—who was attempting to bring an action for assault against a parent? She was told that she could expect to be similarly assaulted at least six times in the next 20 years. Does not my right hon. Friend think that that is disgraceful and that the remarks should be withdrawn immediately, otherwise the whole system of school discipline will be undermined?

I saw the report to which my hon. Friend refers. Frankly, I found it so utterly astonishing, as did my hon. Friend, that I thought that the first thing to do was to find out the facts. The Lord Chancellor's Department has therefore sent officials to seek to find out precisely what was said, and I think that we should withhold comment until we find out.

Has the right hon. Lady had a chance of raising with the Cabinet the question that she raised in her new year broadcast, when she said that she had only been restrained from adopting tougher measures of public expenditure by her colleagues and Parliament? Will she specify to us some of those measures and the effect that she thinks they would have had on the level of unemployment?

The right hon. Gentleman asked a similar question last week, and I will give him the same answer that I gave last week. If one wants more capital expenditure, as a number of us do, it can be obtained only by restraining current expenditure and, in particular, by ensuring that more and more money does not go to increased pay awards in the public sector for the same amount of work. Otherwise, the only way to get extra capital expenditure is to increase tax or the interest rate on borrowing, neither of which is desirable.

It is true that I put the same question to the Prime Minister on Tuesday, but I did not get an answer and I have not had one yet. The right hon. Lady suggested that there were tougher expenditure cuts that she would like to have introduced. Is she really suggesting that the non-introduction of them is the cause of our economic difficulties? If she had cuts in mind, what were they?

I have just mentioned one. It is absolutely vital to keep down pay in the public sector, otherwise more money goes to the public sector for the same amount of work—money that could easily go to ordering equipment and capital goods to create more, not fewer, jobs.

With regard to the recent report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the Royal Bank of Scotland, does the Prime Minister appreciate that there are wide and respected sections of Scottish commercial opinion that are gravely worried about the content, calibre and recommendations of the report, and which believe that it should have been rejected by the Government because of the damage that its implementation will do nationally for Scotland and internationally for the United Kingdom?

I am well aware that there are differing views about the report. As I pointed out to the House on Tuesday, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission itself differed on its recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has made his decision, and it must stand. I therefore make it absolutely clear that this decision is not a precedent for anything else. It refers only to this application and must not be taken as applying to any other similar applications in Scotland or elsewhere. It is unique to this application. I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, but we need competition and the benefit from it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 January.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

In the course of her busy day—to coin a phrase—will the Prime Minister reconsider her Government's plan to raise council house rents compulsorily by £2·50 a week, in addition to two previous increases? While it may seem nothing to the eight millionaires in the Cabinet—[Interruption]. There were 10, but the right hon. Lady got rid of two. Is she aware that for most of the 6 million council house tenants and their families it means going without something else and that it can bring heartbreak and domestic tragedy to them?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we took office council house rents met only 47 per cent. of council housing costs. That meant that 53 per cent. had to be found from elsewhere, and a great deal from rates, which also fall on all householders. It seems reasonable that those who are in council houses should pay a reasonable rent, and I am sure that most of them would not wish to rely on others to meet subsidised rents. Housing rents have indeed been raised, but at present they do not constitute more than 10 or 11 per cent. of average earnings.

Is the Cabinet currently considering again the Trident missile project? If so, can the Prime Minister confirm that the estimated costs have now greatly exceeded the figure of £5 billion that was originally reported to the House? If that is so, will the Cabinet take on board the fact that, in addition to the re-motoring of Polaris, that is bound to have a distorting effect on public expenditure in general, and on the conventional defence budget in particular?

We took a decision to go for Trident. The question now is whether we should take a decision to go for an even more advanced Trident. So far, no further decision has been taken. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said, the expenditure of this money secures a far greater degree of deterrence than expenditure of the same amount of money on ordinary conventional armaments. My right hon. Friend has frequently used that argument at this Dispatch Box. The expenditure would be roughly the same as for the Tornado programme.

Reverting to the case of the woman teacher, will my right hon. Friend confirm that any such proposition, if corroborated, is wholly contradictory to the principle of the rule of law? Drawing on her previous distinguished practice at the Bar—

Annie's Bar.

—and her recollections thereof, will she confirm, for the comfort and reassurance of the teaching profession, that a citizen in such circumstances is not left without remedy, because it is possible to make a direct application to the Divisional Court for a writ of mandamus to compel a hearing?

I obviously cannot improve on my right hon. and learned Friend's legal maxims. I am making no comment on that proposition—on its truth or otherwise. I can only say that any such proposition would be wholly and utterly repugnant to British law. Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law and anyone who flouts it must be brought to justice.

May I refer the Prime Minister to her two answers relating to Highbury magistrates' court, which is in my constituency? The incident about which there have been complaints also took place in my constituency. It was an extraordinary incident. When the Lord Chancellor investigates it, will he also take into account the overall record of decisions of Highbury magistrates' court? It has a curious record, particularly in granting legal aid.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is rightly finding out all the facts. I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider her approach to the rail dispute? I understand her reluctance to indulge in "beer and sandwiches" industrial relations, but does she not consider that there comes a time in an industrial relations dispute when she could use her personal influence to try to relieve the British people of their suffering? Will she intervene?

No, I shall not intervene. ACAS remains fully engaged in discussions with the unions concerned and with British Rail. It is vital that we have an efficient and flourishing railway industry. The Government have allocated about £930 million in external financing for the railways this year, but in an efficient industry we must expect to have modern practices and reduce overmanning. It must be galling for some of those industries—such as the steel industry in the North-East—which have reduced their overmanning and become efficient to find that their products cannot be moved by British Rail because the drivers will not similarly update their working practices.

Will my right hon. Friend also find time now to commend the ingenuity, determination and relative good temper with which many people have managed to travel into London in spite of the rail strike—including, incidentally, a gratifyingly high proportion of civil servants and other public employees? Does she not agree that many of those people are unlikely freely to return to rail travel unless the strike ends soon? Is it not a fact that the longer the strike goes on, the more chance the ASLEF membership has of cutting its own throat?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the longer the strike goes on the more business British Railways will lose. The strike will put other people's jobs in jeopardy in British Rail, as it is already affecting other people in other industries. I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating people on the way in which they have grappled with the strike and managed to get into London, starting very early. Perhaps I should also congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the arrangements that they made for parking in the Metropolis.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to study the incredible case of the bugging of a public telephone kiosk in my constituency? Is she aware that the two men who were caught red-handed planting the device in the kiosk were travelling in a car on the protected list of the Home Office? Will she therefore arrange for an inquiry into the matter and for a statement to be made in the House?

I do not make any statements about these matters, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.