asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the licensing laws to permit alcoholic drinks to be served on long distance motor coaches.

We have no plans to introduce such legislation.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as a result of the Transport Act 1980, the travelling public are benefiting from cheaper fares and a better service from free enterprise coach operators? Does he further accept that these coach operators are being discriminated against by not being able to provide a bar service in the way that British Rail does? Will he now give further thought to introducing legislation to remedy that situation?

I certainly accept the merits and advantages that have arisen from the Transport Act 1980. However, this point was considered by the Erroll committee on liquor licensing and it came to the conclusion that it would not be wise to do what my hon. Friend asks. The problem, of course, is the risk that the sale of alcohol could contribute to rowdiness and accidents.

Will the Minister make it clear to his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) that it is not the business of the House to bring delight to brewery companies or football hooligans? Will he also make it clear to his hon. Friend that his point about road safety is extremely relevant?

Road safety is of great importance, and I am totally against football hooligans. I do not understand, however, why we should not cheer up he brewery industry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the improvement in relations between the police and the local communities in inner Liverpool.

There is a dialogue between the police and the local community, whose support is essential if progress is to be maintained.

I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Does he accept that the work done by local policing in the community can be undermined by police actions outside inner areas? A serious incident occurred recently in im1er Liverpool and it nearly started another riot. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the bridge building done by the community police can be destroyed by such actions?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. The answer lies in the closest possible cooperation between the chief constable, chairman of the police authority and police authorities as a whole. I am pleased to note that that co-operation is improving greatly.

In view of the staggering 50 per cent. increase in burglaries in inner Liverpool and throughout Merseyside in January, does the Home Secretary agree that the time has come to reinstate the £500, 000 reduction in the Merseyside Police budget this year and to think again about the reopening of local neighbourhood police stations?

I accept that the burglaries are extremely serious. A great deal of work can be done by co-operation with the police, crime prevention measures and many other methods of assistance. The money given—first, through the Government grant and, secondly, through the rate support grant—to cater for police pay increases, and, indeed, the general importance that the Government attach to law and order, should cover all the council's demands.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of his policy towards the statement issued on 22 February by a conference of chief probation officers relating to the treatment of young offenders who may further overcrowd prisons.

We were glad to receive the chief probation officers' views on the Criminal Justice Bill. They will be taken into account as the Bill progresses.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the officers certainly have a legitimate fear that there may be a tendency, under the new measures and proposals, to impose prison sentences, thereby adding to the prison population instead of decreasing it? If so, the probation officers' duties will seem to be declining.

The chief probation officers warned against what they called "over use" of very short detention centre orders. We agree that, by definition, that would be wrong. However, I am sure that the courts will be alert to these matters.

Will the Minister of State bear in mind that chief probation officers are extremely concerned to ensure that any extension of non-custodial measures for young offenders is adequately financed? What extra financial provision will be available for the probation and after-care service following the enactment of the Criminal Justice Bill?

My right hon. Friend has already announced that provision for the equivalent of a further 150 probation officers will be made available.

Does the Minister of State recall that the fear expressed by the conference of chief probation officers—a fear shared by many other individuals and organisations—is that the new power given to the courts to impose shorter detention centre sentences will lead to an increase in the number of young boys going to those centres? If the Government do not want that to happen, will the hon. and learned Gentleman look favourably at amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which are designed to impose stricter criteria before a custodial sentence is passed?

I have in mind what was said by the chairman of the conference, Mr. Gerald Bevis. He said that if these proposals were followed through and carefully implemented they could help society to cope more effectively with the problems presented by young offenders. I agree with him. I am sure that the courts will be alert to the need to do that.

Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the object of penal policy is to curb crime and protect the public, not simply to fit people into such accommodation as may be available?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. I am sure that she will agree that the Criminal Justice Bill, now in Committee, adequately meets that requirement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the Merseyside constabulary is recruited from ethnic minorities; and how this compares with the national average.

On 31 January 1982, eight Merseyside police officers—0·17 per cent. of the force—were members of the ethnic minorities. The number in England and Wales was 343—0·29 per cent. of the total police strength.

Does the Minister of State accept that that is a pathetically small number of people from the ethnic minorities who are actually involved in policing our communities? What steps will he take to improve that position? Does he accept that, until the height restrictions are removed, many Asians who have applied to join and have been turned down will continue to be refused admission into our police forces?

We accept that the numbers are too low. A national group is examining the problem. We are conducting a recruiting campaign in both the ethnic and national press.

Is it not essential to have the highest possible standards of recruiting to the police force? Therefore, percentages for certain minorities are not of prime importance.

We should like the percentage of members of the ethnic minorities to be increased. We do not believe in quotas. However, I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. We want the best possible policemen. Happily, the standard of recruits to the police force is improving.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any additional support from Home Office funds is made available to police forces when they are involved in the extra expense of hijack situations at airports.

The costs of police operations, including additional costs arising from exceptional commitments, are shared between central Government and local authorities, and qualify for 50 per cent. police grant in the usual way. I have no power to make any additional financial contribution.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people—in fact, almost everyone in the country—were extremely pleased about what the police did in the recent highjacking incident at Stansted? They did a first-class job. Since such incidents could take place at airports in other parts of the country, because they are an international hazard, should not the costs be borne by the Government instead of being shared between local authorities, particularly as there has been a considerable increase in local authority costs in this instance?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the work of the Essex police at Stansted. The response by the Government and the police to terrorist operations has, I hope, been sufficiently positive and determined to deter those who may think of carrying out such activities in future. I trust that the problem will not arise, because we have shown such a firm response. When it does arise, the costs are normally shared. If it became more frequent we should have to consider the matter. I am convinced, however, that a determined response will deter people from taking such action.

I pay tribute to the work of the Essex police on this occasion. Is there any truth in the report that, as far as possible, highjacked aircraft are to be diverted to Stansted? Would it not, therefore, be right to make an additional move to assist the Essex county council if there are any further highjackings?

It would be wrong of me, in answer to particular questions, to disclose any of the plans that we may have to deal with the problems that might arise. I certainly do not intend to do that.

Is there not something seriously wrong in principle when a local authority has to bear a share of the costs when the choice of airport may have been made for national security reasons?

I shall not go into the matter, for security reasons. It is equally important to say to my hon. Friend, whose constituency was involved, that the Essex police performed their task in a successful and remarkable manner. We are all extremely grateful to them. I hope that the problem will not arise again, because of the success of that action.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received, pursuant to his study into the recommendations of the Royal Commission on gambling, in connection with the maximum prizes for gaming machines in public houses.

We have received representations from right hon. and hon. Members, from the National Union of Licensed Victuallers and from registered clubs.

Why has the Government's response so far on this matter been so mean and negative? Does my right hon. Friend really believe that to increase the jackpot on gaming machines in public houses to a modest £10 will somehow turn London into a Las Vegas?

London would still be some way off Las Vegas in those circumstances. The Royal Commission recommended that maximum prizes in pubs should be the same as in amusement arcades. The basis of the policy has always been that there is some difference between places to which there is unrestricted access and places where it is possible to control access through membership.

Is there not an argument for equating the prizes with those obtainable in licensed clubs? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that pubs had a particularly bad year in 1981 and that they will be hit hard by the tax on beer and spirits? Does he agree that, unless an element of equality is brought in, many public houses, which could remain open if this reform came in, will close?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument, which has been stressed by the licensed victuallers. We take the view that there is a difference in the means of control available as between clubs and pubs. However, we are considering the whole matter in the context of whether there is to be future gambling legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of the computing services for which his Department is responsible; and for what purposes they are used.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of the computing services for which his Department is responsible; and for what purposes they are used.

The Estimates for this financial year provide £7·8 million for the police national computer and some £6 million, excluding staff costs and overheads, for other computer systems for which the Home Office is directly responsible. These include staff records, pay and accounts, the production of statistics, and support for the work of the immigration and nationality and prison departments.

What about the MI5 £20 million computer in Mount Street, Mayfair, which, although technically operated by the MOD, is actually under the control of the Secretary of State? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a legitimate subject for scrutiny in Parliament if one computer under the control of the Government has access to every other computer, including computers in the DHSS and the Inland Revenue, and thus to every individual citizen? Will the new White Paper on data protection say anything about the MI5 computer, about which there has been so much publicity? The Home Secretary should say something.

We hope to publish a White Paper on data protection shortly. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. I must make it clear, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, that it is not the Government's practice to comment on questions about the operations of the security services.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as 1984 looms nearer the Government, who were elected on a ticket of freedom for all, are spending £20 million on a computer in Mayfair to snoop on millions of innocent people, when at the same time they tell us constantly that they cannot find the same slick computing expertise to churn out information to enable old-age pensions to be paid in less than six months? Why do the Government not turn their attention to that instead of concentrating on security matters?

I refuse to comment on the hon. Gentleman's usually extravagant remarks. I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price).

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, even allowing for proper data protection safeguards, the file matching and cross-referencing facilities of mainframe computers can be invaluable in the investigation of major crimes and would, for example, have greatly assisted the police in the Yorkshire ripper case?

That is certainly true of all criminal work. I hope that those hon. Members who constantly ask questions about crime will be the first to say that they want to deal with crime and that they will support the police in doing so.

Surely it is a matter of genuine public concern that the non-accountable Department that is embarking on massive computerisation already has access to other Government Department's records. Is this not a step in the direction of a police State? Is the right hon. Gentleman not participating in it by giving a carefully worded answer that is designed to block questions for at least three months in the House and, therefore, to evade democratic accountability?

I have not found it possible, as Home Secretary, to evade democratic accountability, especially in recent days. I do not accept some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have nothing to add to my earlier reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members feel that the Government's White Paper on computer protection is long overdue for commerce, industry and individuals? Does he appreciate that many people throughout the country feel that their privacy is under threat because of the lack of data protection in the United Kingdom compared with the protection that exists in other European countries?

I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my hon. Friend when the White Paper on data protection is published, which will be very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage the number of crimes of violence made known to the police has altered over the past 10 years.

About 100, 000 offences of violence against the person were recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1981, which was just over twice as many as in 1971.

In view of the increasing rise in crimes of violence, despite the welcome increase in police numbers, and the suffering of victims, are the Government willing to reconsider with an open mind the introduction of stronger deterrents as a means of curbing crime—even for a trial period—including the introduction of capital punishment, corporal punishment and mandatory sentences?

There is to be a debate on the introduction of corporal punishment in Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill. I am looking forward to that debate with keen anticipation. One reads that the House may have a similar opportunity in respect of capital punishment.

Does the Minister agree that neither capital nor corporal punishment has ever been an effective deterrent? Does he accept that the real cause of the increase in serious crime is the Government's economic policy and the failure of the Metropolitan Police, for example, to catch criminals? Is he aware that they cleared up fewer crimes last year than in 1972 or in any year when the Labour Government were in office? Surely that raises serious questions about the policy and practices of the Metropolitan Police, their inability to obtain the confidence of the public and, therefore, the information on which they rely for catching and convicting criminals?

I do not want to anticipate my powerful speech on corporal punishment in Committee. However, I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman yet again—I have been doing so for two months in Committee—on what he says about the Metropolitan Police, who face enormously complex, often dangerous, and difficult tasks. I believe that they deserve the support of the House and the community, not endless criticism.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield of 2 March, Official Report, column 82, he is satisfied that the projected increase in police strength in England and Wales is sufficient to deal with the recent increase in crimes of all categories, and particularly with regard to street crimes and disturbances in the inner city areas; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current strength of the police forces in England; and how this figure compares with three years before.

Yes, Sir. At the end of January the total strength of the police service in England and Wales was 119, 508. This is an increase of 9, 562 compared with January 1979. This gain, with the further increase in police strength already provided for in the next 12 months, gives chief officers of police more officers than ever before to carry out the many tasks that we expect from our police service.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response. Is he aware that violent crime against the person is now as important an issue in people's minds as unemployment? Does he agree that the increase in violent crime, including the setting up of vigilante groups within our inner city areas, is extremely serious? Will he say what further example the House can give to ensure that the courts are able to mete out sentences to fit the serious crimes that are being committed?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I support him in his anxiety about the increase in crime, especially burglaries and street crimes, which are serious and which must be tackled by the House, the police service, the Government and the whole community. Only by a concerted effort shall we succeed against these crimes. For the benefit of those who seem to think that there is something wrong in having a strong police service, I should add that the first priority is to have a strong police service. When the service is strong, it is necessary to make it effective. That is important, and the Government have directed a great deal of effort towards that end. I do not accept that vigilantes have a place in our society. Those who want to help can join the special constabulary. There are many important tasks that they can carry out. The House has the right to provide the power for judges and magistrates to impose appropriate sentences.

I welcome the increase in police strength of 9, 000, which I understand includes an increase of over 3, 000 in the Metropolitan Police force. May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that that is resulting, and will continue to result, in more policemen patrolling our city streets? Does he agree that that is the best way to get the co-operation and confidence of the public, which is an essential element in tackling the rising crime rate?

First, it is the Government's job, which they have fully carried out, to provide the planned additions for the recruitment of police officers in the numbers and of the quality that are needed. Secondly, it is for the police to be thoroughly effective in carrying out their task by using all the equipment that the Government provide. I trust that in carrying out their task they will receive the full help, advice and moral support of the entire community.

Despite the Home Secretary's very real efforts, the Government have been unable to fulfil their election promise to reduce the level of crime. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the best way of reducing the crime rate is not by wild talk about more violent punishment but by getting the police out on the streets among the people?

I agree entirely that that is the task. I understand the anxieties that are expressed and I fully appreciate the problems. It can be said that the issue is one for the community as a whole. There are many problems—parental discipline, discipline in schools and many other aspects—which contribute to the rising crime rate. The police cannot do it all on their own.

As well as the Government's success in recruiting and increasing the police force, which is important, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's continued support of the police has been a major factor in sustaining their morale?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I hope it can be said that this support will be forthcoming from all sections of our community. Some people are more ready to criticise than to support the police in difficult circumstances.

Will the Home Secretary find time to read early-day motion 351? Does he agree that, although we are spending more on police numbers, electronic aids, two-way radios, cars, helicopters, computers and God knows what else, we have more crime now than we have ever had in our history? Will the Home Secretary examine why that should be so?

The police and the community as a whole need to examine these facts. There are many reasons for them, but no excuses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many personnel under his command took part in the operation at Stansted airport on 27–28 February.

Five officials from my Department took part in the operation at Stansted airport.

Was not the quality of the overall command of this successful operation very important? Does my right hon. Friend understand that some of those behind him, I suspect a number, are becoming incresingly resentful—particularly those of us who have served under him, sometimes in difficult situations—at suggestions that in the conduct of this operation, or in the general fight against crime, he is other than a man of great firmness and determination?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps I should say to those who are quite entitled to criticise me that I have always believed that in public life policies are more important than personalities.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his part in this successful operation. Does he agree that it was a national operation at the expense of a county that has fared badly in terms of rate support? Would Her Majesty's Government give some more consideration to the possibility of helping local authorities who are fortuitously subjected to the cost?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I gave answers earlier to the effect that I hoped that, by our resolute response to these incidents, we should not have more. If we do, I shall consider what my hon. Friend said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to amend regulation 22(1) of the Representation of the people Regulations 1974.

No, Sir.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that one consequence of this regulation, and I am glad to hear that it is not to be amended, is that in any constituency where the Liberal and Social Democratic parties agree to support a common parliamentary candidate only the party of that candidate is entitled to receive free copies of the electoral register, while the other party loses all entitlement to free registers for any purpose whatsoever?

As I understand it, the relevant article of the regulation is geared to candidates and not to parties. The Liberals and the SDP will have to sort it out themselves. They may be able to manage that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce new measures to combat the rising level of violent crime.

The Government have already increased the strength of the police service to a record level. The full benefit of this will be felt as new officers are trained and become fully effective. But police effectiveness also depends upon the active support and cooperation of the local communities. I am taking steps to encourage and develop this.

At a time when one of our citizens falls victim to a violent crime every five minutes of the day and night, the public are massively reassured that my right hon. Friend is spearheading the campaign against these appalling crimes. Does he agree that, instinctively, people up and down the country believe that we should be considering new and further measures to abate this appalling increase in crime? Will he reassure the public that he will bring these measures forward if he feels they are necessary, whatever institutions outside the country may consider?

I accept what my hon. Friend has said about the great concern of the country, and I understand that. At the same time, it is fair to point out what the Government are doing, with the wide range of penalties available to the judges and magistrates in the Criminal Justice Bill, and what we are doing about prison building and maintenance to ensure that all those whom the judges and magistrates decide to imprison should have places there. That is crucial to the criminal justice system. There are a wide range of penalties available. The Criminal Justice Bill is widely supported in the party as carrying out our manifesto commitment, is another step in the right direction, and is therefore the right thing for us to do.

Does the Home Secretary accept that all of us are opposed to the rise in crime and that all of us seek to diminish it by effective policing? The dispute is about what is the nature of effective policing. Where community policing has been tried, as it has in Handsworth, it has cut the crime rate on the streets. That is why so many of us are supporting community policing, not because it is soft but because it is effective.

I find that the constant remarks about community policing are becoming something that seems to be bedevilling our policing system. What we want to see is effective policing, which means harnessing the support, encouragement and help of the local community from which any police service springs.

While no one has done more than my right hon. Friend to improve the numbers and the morale of the police service, may I ask what he is doing further to help in respect of the greater powers recommended by the Royal Commission, the longer training recommended by Lord Scarman and the greater standardisation of equipment, particularly radio equipment, which in too many cases is incompatible between one force and another?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said at the beginning of his supplementary question. As for the other measures, I hope to be able to bring forward proposals that will implement some part of the plans of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure dealing with police powers. I note his other points. We are making progress on training in all forces and encouraging the provision of the right equipment.

Is the Home Secretary satisfied with the deployment and tactics of police forces, particularly in inner cities? Does he agree that if police authorities had the right to discuss such matters with chief constables in places such as Greater Manchester, that in turn would lead to a more visible police force on the street, which would be a far greater deterrent to crime than the unhealthy blood lust shown by some of his more eccentric supporters?

I certainly believe in the police having the help and advice of the community they serve, through discussions with their police authorities. That is part of the business of the Police Act 1964. If that is to be successful that is what must be done, and I am encouraging it in all police forces.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the standards of accommodation available for prison officers and their families.

Yes, Sir, in general, but improvements still need to be made. Revised standards for prison department married quarters were agreed in 1972 and applied to all quarters purchased or built after that date.

Bearing in mind the fulfilment of an election pledge to build and renovate mote prisons, which is something that should be welcome in all parts of the House, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to remove the artificial and administrative obstructions that prevent prison officers from becoming home owners?

I assure my hon. Friend that staff are given considerable freedom of choice as to whether they provide their own private accommodation, draw housing allowance or occupy a rent-free official quarter. This is as a result of a policy that the Government introduced in August 1979.

When the Minister is thinking about accomodation for prison officers and their families, which all hon. Members want to see improved, will he also consider the appalling accommodation that exists for prisoners? Does he agree that a shortage of accommodation for prisoners breeds crime and that an improvement here is the first demand that should be made upon him?

As the House well knows, the Government are bringing in a substantial new prison building programme. This is the first time that this has happened for many decades.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities currently exist for exchanges of information between the national police computer and other computerised information storage and retrieval systems; and whether he will make a statement.

The police national computer receives from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre particulars of vehicles and their keepers and of people disqualified from driving. It notifies the centre, in a similar manner, of vehicles reported to have been stolen.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the House has not yet heard a comprehensive statement of what is stored in the computerised files of the national police computer? Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the need for the public to have access to the storage systems, does he agree that some kind of inspection should be made on behalf of the public to verify that this is the only information being stored?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is. I shall consider what he says.

Will the Home Secretary explain how petrol stations are able to gain details of people's driving records through information left on slips when credit card sales are made? I know that this has happened.

The Home Secretary today seems to have many responsibilities. I doubt whether the matter to which my hon. Friend's question relates falls within them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the time scale for the proposed extension to Her Majesty's prison Armley; and if he will make a statement.

We hope to purchase land from the Leeds city council in 1982–83. Progress after that is dependent upon negotiations for a smaller parcel of land in private ownership, and then upon the granting of the necessary planning clearances for the construction of an extension to be built on the newly acquired land.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he undertake to look into the possibility of speeding up the programme, bearing in mind the appalling conditions that at present exist in Armley prison? Is he aware that juveniles and young people have, on occasions, to be held in custody at the prison until they are placed in other accommodation? Will he undertake to publish and make available to interested people in the area the report of the commission that investigated conditions in prisons, which began, I think, as the Pearce Commission, although Pearce has since died? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make it available as soon as possible?

I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's description of the quality of conditions in Leeds prison. The document to which he refers will be published. I shall arrange for the hon. Gentleman to be notified as soon as a Government decision about the purchase of land has been made and I shall keep him informed of progress at intervals thereafter.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the time scale between a decision to build a new prison or provide a major extension and the completion of the work is very long? Is he aware that some action should be taken to shorten the period, as this would help the Government's policy?

I accept completely what my hon. Friend says about the time scale. It derives, as my hon. Friend will know, to a great extent, from planning decisions and procedures, which nowadays are very jealously observed and insisted upon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that the police have adequate powers to deal with crimes of violence.

I still have under active consideration the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, which recommends a number of changes in the powers of the police to deal with all forms of crime.

I accept that my right hon. Friend has done much to improve the morale and the numbers of the police. Will he encourage chief constables not to hesitate to use large numbers of police when this becomes necessary?

That is an operational matter for chief constables. They know very well that they have my fullest support in operations that they believe to be right to deal effectively with crime.

Does not the Home Secretary believe, in relation to crimes of violence, that it is necessary to get the statistics right? Does he think it is fair that the Metropolitan Police should insist on using ethnic statistics for muggings but should refuse point blank to collect that information on anything else, particularly when people whom they stop and search in the streets are later acquitted or the charges are not proceeded with?

There were a great many rumours and a great many allegations before the statistics were published. I believe that the truth is far better than rumour or allegation. It was right for the Metropolitan Police to publish the truth in their statistics. The truth helps to make leaders of any community realise that they should help and assist the police in isolating the small minority of criminals in their midst who cause all the trouble.

In view of the disgraceful scenes of hooliganism and violence at Wembley last weekend, and also at other football matches, will the Home Secretary consider discussing with police authorities the searching of crowds going to the grounds, on the lines of the successful example instituted in Scotland last year?

The police obviously have a duty to deal with these problems as best they can. These incidents are serious. I am very worried about football hooliganism, as is my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. I shall certainly have discussions to see whether we can improve our procedures.

Order. I shall call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman to conclude and allow one extra minute for Prime Minister's questions.

I revert to the statistics on which the Home Secretary was questioned. Was the right hon. Gentleman, as the police authority for London, consulted before the statistics were published? Or does he regard this as an operational matter?

I knew that the statistics were to be published. I agreed that they should be published, for the reason that I have given.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 March.

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 have further meetings later today, including one with a delegation from the Afghanistan support committee. This evening I shall attend a State banquet given by His Majesty the Sultan of Oman.

Will the Prime Minister, in the course of her busy day, reflect on the compassion shown to her by thousands of people when her son was feared lost in the desert? Will she now respond by showing similar compassion to the millions of sons and daughters who are out of work and lost in the jungle of her economic policy? Will she respond? Will she stop these crocodile tears and the hypocrisy of pretending to care for the unemployed while pushing another 300, 000 people out of work? [Interruption.] Will she say to her son Mark—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question.

rose—

Order. We try to deal with ourselves in this place and leave our families out of it.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. He is taking up time. He cannot put a whole string of questions.

I am not certain what the question was. I think that the hon. Gentleman was asking that there should be more work for those who are seeking work. It requires a good deal more than sympathy to provide the requisite jobs. It requires people who have some idea, not only of how to speak about it, but of how to set up a business that will produce things that people will buy. We could do with far more of those people. We do not find enough of them among Opposition Members.

In view of the threat made to the Ulster people by the new Eire Prime Minister—whose words will encourage the IRA to commit further atrocities, such as the vile slaughter of an 11-year-old schoolboy this week—will the Prime Minister make it clear to Mr. Haughey that. Northern Ireland is, and will remain, an integral part of the United Kingdom, that there will be no more secret talks at any level and that there will be no parliamentary tier? Will the Prime Minister take tougher measures against the Provisional IRA, which receives considerable sums of money from the United States, where Noraid was yesterday organising a parade for St. Patrick's Day to "get the Brits out"? Yet St. Patrick—

Order. That is enough to be going on with.

First, Northern Ireland is, of course, part of the United Kingdom and the guarantee remains absolutely clear. Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. That can be changed only through this House, and not by any other means whatsoever.

I revert to an answer given by the right hon. Lady a day or two ago on the important question of her attendance at the special session of the United Nations meeting on disarmament in June. In view of the rapidly intensefying nuclear arms race, we are eager that that special session should be a success. We are glad that the right hon. Lady is responding to our invitation to go to the meeting. When will she present to the House and the country the disarmament proposals that she intends to take to that conference? Did President Reagan consult her before he turned down, without any consideration, the proposals made by President Brezhnev? Is it not a good idea to consider such proposals before they are rejected?

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the precise date on which I shall be going to the United Nations. The opening session takes some days, and it is during the opening session that the statements are made. I hope to be there during that time. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that before President Brezhnev made his statement, which froze substantial Soviet superiority on all the SS20s, there was a very important statement by President Reagan, which included the zero option.

We welcomed President Reagan's statement when it was made. We believe that if that proposal were translated into a full-scale zero option, we might make some progress. Does not the right hon. Lady recall that the first occasion on which President Brezhnev proposed a holding-up of the establishment of the SS20s was, according to her Government, back in the autumn of 1979? On reflection, would it not have been much better had proper negotiations taken place then, before many of those SS20s were established?

President Reagan's suggestion was the zero option. President Brezhnev's response was to keep all the SS20s but not to increase them. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman should address his advice to President Brezhnev, because it takes two to agree to a zero option.

Why did the right hon. Lady and her Government refuse to negotiate on these matters before many of those SS20s were established?

I take it that the right hon. Gentleman approves a zero option and will urge—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] How can this country negotiate on the SS20s? The SALT negotiations were between the United States and the Soviet Union. I am interested in whether the right hon. Gentleman is really interested in a zero option, in which case he will put his pressures on President Brezhnev.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning, during the Committee proceedings of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Bill, not one member of the Opposition Front Bench put in an appearance—

Order. It is not customary to refer to a Committee before it has reported.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarks made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when he linked the rise in crime to the rise in unemployment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"?]—were typically unhelpful and misleading? Is she aware that figures released yesterday show that crime in Bedfordshire has risen by 30 per cent. and is committed mainly by children under 16? Is it not, therefore, about time that this House reintroduced corporal punishment?

As far as I am aware, the crime statistics in no way show a simple correlation between unemployment and crime. I must tell my hon. Friend that I do not think that corporal punishment will return to this country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 March.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider what additional assistance should be given to the victims of violent crime, in particular by the provision of telephones and intruder alarm systems for people of pensionable age? Does she accept that in a constituency such as my own, where there is 45 per cent. unemployment, and when in January there was a 50 per cent. increase in burglary, this is clearly a case of the devil finding mischief for idle hands?

I made that self-same point on Tuesday during Question Time. As to telephones for the victims of violent crime, if the people are elderly and on supplementary benefit, special provisions could possibly be made. I am not aware of any wider telephone aid to those people, but if the hon. Gentleman has any special proposals, perhaps he will put them forward.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the valiant efforts of the Home Secretary, to which I and my hon. Friends pay tribute—

Take your knife out of his back.

—the causes of crime are deep-seated and various and include subjects such as the family, the school, the Church, television and many others? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether we need to take action on these fronts as well as on the criminal law?

I entirely agree that the causes of crime are very deep. If self-discipline breaks down in part of society or throughout society, it is extremely difficult to deal with some of the problems that we are now seeing. It is also vital for all citizens to stand staunchly behind the police in carrying out their duty of upholding the law.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 18 March.

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

Will the right hon. Lady explain why for each year since she has become Prime Minister the number of serious crimes in England and Wales has increased, whereas when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was Prime Minister the number of serious crimes declined in 1977, 1978 and into 1979?

I think— [Interruption.]—that the hon. Gentleman will find that the annual number of murders was at its greatest during the time of the last Government. I was trying to find the appropriate table, but am unable to do so.

As a matter of simple statistical fact, is it not the case that serious offences recorded by the police—violence against the person, burglary, robbery, theft, handling stolen goods and criminal damage—declined each year during the time that I was Prime Minister, and has gone up each year since? Is it not further the case that, despite what the right hon. Lady said in her election speeches, neither she nor I have any influence at all on those statistics?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his last comment, which is obviously correct. [Interruption.] No, I have not got the number of murders. May I just make this one point? [Interruption.] No, I am sorry, I cannot reinforce what I said about the number of murders. I was thinking, in fact, about something else. [Interruption.] I will, therefore. give the House the relevant statistic of which I was thinking. Although it was not all murders, it was the number of police deaths while on duty, which is an extremely important statistic, and which, equally, I do not think has anything to do with the Government.

Why quote it?

Because I am having other statistics quoted at me.

Hon. Members do not have a right to shout a person down if they do not like what they are hearing. All this is mining Prime Minister's Question Time. Does the Prime Minister wish to continue?

I had made the point fsufficiently. What has happened has made a triviality of something that is extremely serious.