asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to review staffing levels in fire authorities; and if he will make a statement.

We are currently reviewing the staffing levels of the seven fire and civil defence authorities as part of the process of making and approving their establishment schemes for 1987–88. This is in accordance with the provisions of the Fire and Civil Defence Authorities (Establishment, Support Services and Management Schemes) Regulations 1985. More generally, the staffing levels in fire authorities are among the matters considered by Her Majesty's inspectors of fire services during their annual inspections of brigades. Where appropriate Her Majesty's inspectors give advice to us and to fire authorities about the effective, efficient and economic use of resources.

Is the Minister effectively announcing a cut in the staffing levels of fire authorities by not giving sufficient finance for them even to maintain their present staffing and training levels? Is he aware, for example, that south Yorkshire—an area that traditionally has had good standards — because of the present financial restrictions will be 124 fire fighters short even of his Department's own statutory levels? Why does the Minister put people at risk in that way?

There is no question of people being put at risk. In south Yorkshire, the authority will have no difficulty providing adequate cover. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, in the west midlands, an area which concerns him most intimately, expenditure for the coming year, as implied by the maximum precept, is 7·6 per cent. above last year's budget. That is substantially in excess of the rate of inflation and significantly in excess of the cost of the fire workers' pay settlement. In the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman's observations are a trifle ungenerous.

Is my hon. Friend aware that morale in the Shropshire fire service was extremely high when I visited it on Monday and that its response to the rail crash in Shropshire on Monday night was extremely efficient? Will he take this opportunity to thank employers in rural areas who enable retained part-time firemen to take time off from their business duties to help those in rural areas who do not have the full-time fire service that is available in built-up areas?

I greatly welcome what my hon. Friend said. I am sure that his visit was much appreciated by the firemen in his area. I entirely agree with what he said about retained firemen who make a significant contribution to fire cover in his area and, indeed, in my constituency of Grantham.

Is the Minister aware that we in west Yorkshire are prepared to accept staffing levels and levels of service that are laid down by his Department, but is he aware also that the Secretary of State for the Environment refuses to allow a sufficient precept level to enable the county to maintain the staffing levels and levels of services that are set by the Home Office? How does the Minister reconcile that?

We are wholly satisfied that the standard of cover in west Yorkshire is adequate for the purpose of providing an adequate fire service.

Will my hon. Friend examine the cost of council involvement in fire and civil defence authorities? In greater Manchester, for example, there are five committees, all with various sub-committees, involved in what would appear to be a service that should virtually run itself.

I shall always consider any submission that my hon. Friends care to make to me on this and related matters. In Manchester there is no problem as the expenditure increase implied by the precept is more than generous.

Apart from the fact that both west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire cannot reach the fire cover standards of the Home Office, will the Minister confirm that as part of the review there are plans to reduce the opening hours of fire stations in many areas from 24 hours to nine, and that one of them is Godstone fire station, which provides a vital service to the M25? If the cuts are implemented, they will result in serious danger to life.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Expenditure increases for 1987–88, as implied by the precepts, are in a band of 7·5 per cent. of 6·1 per cent. over the 1986–87 budget. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a particular fire station. If he requires an answer on that, he must table a specific question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in respect of each year since 1978, what were the numbers of crimes known to his Department to have been committed against persons over 60 years.

The only information I can give the hon. Member comes from a survey carried out in 1984. This suggests that, in England and Wales that year, some 13,000 people aged 60 or over were victims of violent crime, which represented 7 per cent. of the total of 182,000 such offences.

Does not the Minister understand that those figures suggest that elderly people have had seven years of misery under this Government? Many elderly people are genuinely anxious about stepping outside their homes and are afraid to go out at night. What does the Minister intend to do about that? Will he discuss the problem with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that the basics are done, that estates are properly lit, that secure locks are placed on doors and that there are decent social services to support elderly people? Unless that is done, more elderly people will live in more and more misery.

Of course, all those things are happening. Some 6,000 places on this year's community programme—with an expenditure of £40 million—are involved in providing such protection for pensioners' homes. Another scheme has been introduced allowing basic protection to be installed for under £40. There is also provision for a wide range of other assistance for the elderly. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, of course, a great deal of what he is asking for is the responsibility of local authorities. Conservative authorities, such as my authority in Wandsworth, provide such things for the elderly. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed what happened in Greenwich and Knowsley and recognise that local authorities have fallen down on their responsbilities. That is not the Government's responsibility.

Has my hon. Friend noted the recent disgraceful and appalling murder of two ladies in their 80s and 90s? Will he take note of the very strong feeling on the Conservative Benches for the reintroduction of capital punishment?

Obviously, opinions about the remedy will vary. I gather that we shall have the opportunity to debate this matter at a later date. I deplore those murders and deplore the circumstances wherein elderly people are put at risk.

Does the Minister accept that if authorities like Knowsley were given resources to protect elderly people they would dearly love to do that job?

That is a pathetic excuse. It hardly washed with the hon. Gentleman's electorate and it will not wash in here.

Is the Minister aware that the two elderly spinsters, Susan and Florence Egerton, aged 92 and 81, who were savagely and barbarically killed, lived in my constituency? Does the Minister believe that the state is sufficiently protecting its citizens? Will he pay particular regard to the initiatives that I have sent to the Home Office? Will he also pay particular regard to the way he votes on the clause for the reintroduction of capital punishment when the Criminal Justice Bill returns to the House this month?

The Government are extremely solicitous about the welfare of elderly people and everyone else in relation to violent crime. For that reason, the resources available to the police have been increased, represented by an extra 15,500 officers over the past seven years. A great deal has been done to strengthen the penalties available for violent offences and the availability of parole to violent offenders has been restricted. The spiralling growth of neighbourhood watch schemes means that people are able to protect themselves by taking a communual interest in one another's welfare. We shall continue to pursue those policies.

Are the figures that the Minister has just given duff figures in relation to Kent? Have they been doctored by the Kent constabulary? In the light of yesterday's news that someone else has come forward to reaffirm that the clear-up figures in Kent were doctored, what action do the Government intend to take or is the issue again to be dumped?

I am not sure what tenuous link this has with the main question. The Police Complaints Authority is investigating the matter and I can say nothing more.

I share the abhorrence expressed by my hon. Friends at the murders of the two people concerned but, does my hon. Friend appreciate that many of us do not believe that the return of capital punishment is the answer?

Yes, and I am one of them.

Does the Minister appreciate that behind the ever-rising crime figures are literally millions of elderly people living in terror behind their front doors, especially in inner city areas? Will he reconsider making crime prevention grants available to help those at risk and those with most to fear so as better to ensure their safety?

I have already detailed the enormous amount of work that the Government are doing through development of the community programme and through issuing advice to the elderly about basic security methods that cost under £40 to employ. I appreciate that as part of its policy of trying to bribe the electorate with their own money the Labour party has come up with a scheme for home security grants, but there is no sign of how it would be able to afford it, and one suspects that there is no prospect of its coming about.

Does my hon. Friend think that the over-60s would be better protected if the police were placed under the political control of councillors such as Bernie Grant and starved of resources as they were last time the Labour party was in power?

My hon. and learned Friend is, as always, quite right.

Order. I regret that the next question to be answered today, through a printer's error, which I have asked to be investigated, has been left off the Order Paper. It is in the name of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and I ask him to read out the text before the Minister replies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions his Department has had with the Prison Officers Association on fresh start; and if he will make a statement.

Officials have had extensive discussions with representatives of the Prison Officers Association about fresh start in recent months. I myself had a constructive meeting with the national chairman and the general secretary of the association last Monday, when I was able to welcome the national executive committee's recent decision to allow branches to co-operate with development exercises under way in prisons. I hope to announce shortly a revised offer to all the trade unions concerned, as a basis for an agreed implementation of fresh start.

I welcome the Home Secretary's reply, but the fact that he is revising his proposals is surely ample evidence that the original proposals were not good enough for what he is attempting to persuade the prison officers to accept? If fresh start is to have any success, is he aware that there must be substantial increases in staffing levels in prisons and a realistic pay settlement without the conditions that fresh start sought to impose?

We have proposed to revise our offer in the light of the discussions that we have had with the unions concerned, including the POA. I hope that that will lead to agreed implementation, which is crucial. More staff will continue to be required, but we must get away from the present system, which relies far too much on overtime and, as we know, means that about 15 per cent. of the money that Parliament votes for the running of prisons is wasted. With the fresh start proposals, we shall be able to put together a reformed prison service with much more reasonable practices and much better terms of service for all those who work within it.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that prison officers carry out a difficult job, often in difficult circumstances. Does he agree that he went to the nub of the problem when he talked about overtime? Will he try to ensure that in the new deal which I hope will be negotiated prison officers will not lose pay as overtime is phased out and the new pay arrangements are introduced? That is important. Unless that assurance can be given, there will be continuing difficulty.

Obviously, one of the features of the package must be an understanding about take-home pay as overtime is reduced. To return my hon. Friend's compliment, that is exactly the nub of the negotiations. When we put the revised offer to the POA—I hope that that will take place shortly—I hope that it will recognise the valiant efforts that we have made to meet the points put to me by the POA and by my hon.Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning recent irregular attempts to gain entry to the United Kingdom, particularly by persons who destroyed their passports en route.

I have received various representations on this issue from Members of the House, from the general public, and from organisations involved in refugee matters in this country.

Is not the destruction of passports a clear sign of bad faith on the part or such people? Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many of my constituents will have misgivings about the measures that he is introducing? It is not that they do not want them, but they cannot understand why I hey have taken so long.

The simple answer is that the situation has got much worse in the past year or two. There have been more irregular movements and forged documents, and more abusive applications. To use the language of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there were 150,000 irregular movements in Europe in 1985–86. In Belgium, where the UNHCR decides who are refugees and who are not, its advice cannot be accused of being biased. It had no fewer than 7,500 applications for refugee status and granted only 52. In this country, in February alone, 233 applications were made at the ports for refugee status, 185 by people with false documents.

Has the Minister had any second thoughts on the revised procedures that he outlined recently on the basis of the serious criticisms made of those revised procedures by people with long experience of trying to help those trying to seek political asylum in this country?

We made it plain that people claiming asylum must have no expectation that their cases are bound to be referred to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. The present arrangements do not involve reference in all cases. That is quite clear from my letter to Lord Avebury of I August 1983, and in future there will be cases where early removal will be essential and no reference will be made. There will be a meeting with UKIAS, but it will not be possible to spell out all the circumstances in which reference will not be made, so intending claimants will have no legitimate expectation that their cases will be heard.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into the allegation that I have sent to him that photographs are removed from British visitors' passports sold in post offices when the gum is still wet and later replaced by photographs of other persons? Will he see what can be done to stop this?

I invite my hon. Friend to let me have full details of that allegation. I will certainly look at that with all care and expedition.

Does the Minister believe that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service or the British Refugee Council would connive in facilitating the entry of irregular visitors?

All I know is that a few days had elapsed before an order was made by a court and two weeks had elapsed by the time that my right hon. Friend made his statement in this House. There is no doubt whatsoever that by the time that my right hon. Friend made his statement we were caught in what many people might describe as a legal morass. Goodness knows how long it would have taken us to extricate ourselves from it.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people consider it ludicrous that those who seek to enter our country by deception should have access to UKIAS, a body funded by the British taxpayer, which can then help them in persisting in their deception?

I have made it absolutely plain where we stand on this matter. The present arrangements do not involve the reference of all cases to UKIAS. There are bound to be circumstances and cases where, in the interests of firm immigration control, it will not be right to refer cases.

The Minister of State said some minutes ago that the situation had become much worse over the past two years. Does he not recognise that that is because the situation in Sri Lanka has become much worse in the past two years? Did he not see the report in yesterday morning's London Daily News, which reported that 60 British mercenaries recruited by KMS, many of them ex-SAS officers, have resigned from training the Sri Lankan army—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into that. This question is about passports destroyed en route to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker—

Order. There is a later question on that point.

Mr. Speaker, several times in the Minister of State's replies he referred to Tamils at Heathrow. The question arises—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must complete his question and make it relevant to Question No. 3.

The reason why people have destroyed passports when trying to enter this country, given the worsening situation in Sri Lanka, was evidenced by the fact that those 60 ex-SAS mercenaries, none of them soft, resigned because—

Order. Mr. Waddington.

The hon. Gentleman obviously does not have the faintest idea how refugees arrive in this country. The vast majority of people who apply for refugee status in this country have been here for a long time. They entered this country as visitors or students and then decided that they did not want to go back to their own countries or they are people who have made applications to our posts abroad. In the case of Sri Lankans, applications are actually made at our high commission at Colombo into which any Tamil can walk and outside of which only one policeman stands. It is the most natural thing in the world for a genuine refugee to go to the nearest safe place and not travel three quarters of the way around the world.

My right hon. and learned Friend receives many representations from Opposition Members. Can he tell us how many he has received about the inhumanity of the Sri Lankan regime which—

Order. That question is also wide of the destruction of passports.

How many representations has my right hon. and learned Friend received about conditions in Sri Lanka?

I cannot answer that question now, but if my hon. Friend tables a question to that effect, I shall do my best to answer it. I can tell him, however, that my postbag has been heavy during the past week or two with letters from constituents and others saying that it is about time that the Government did something about evident abuse.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking legislation to impose minimum sentences for certain crimes; and if he will make a statement.

I have received such representations from some hon. Members and members of the public, but we believe that minimum sentences would hinder the courts' ability to take account of the widely varying circumstances of particular cases.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the depth of public concern about the present statistics for England and Wales for 1985, which show that the average sentence served in prison by people guilty of murder is 10 years, by those guilty of manslaughter 21 months, by those guilty of rape 20 months, and those guilty of wounding five months? How can we convince the general public that we really intend to crack down on the perpetrators of these terrible crimes if the sentences given in court are reduced to such minimal periods in prison?

My hon. Friend will know that there is a lot going on in the direction which he seeks. He will know that this Parliament has increased the maximum sentences available to courts for a range of violent offences such as attempted rape and now, in the Criminal Justice Bill, the possession of firearms for the purpose of crime. He will know the system of guideline judgments and he may well have seen the figures that have recently been published, which show how the sentences for rape have increased since the Lord Chief Justice gave his guidelines in the Billam sentences.

Since Saunders and Co. of Guinness fame make the Great Train Robbers look like petty thieves, will the Home Secretary ensure that the real crooks—the financial crooks—get a minimum of 30 years in gaol, or is this too sensitive a subject for the Tory party? Do the Government protect their own kind?

One of the distinguishing features of the Government's programme is the attention that we have paid to serious fraud. If the hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Committee considering the Criminal Justice Bill, he would have seen how we have pressed forward stricter measures and how they have been greeted tepidly, and sometimes with resistance, by the Opposition Front Bench.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in Britain are worried about violent crime and that we want mandatory minimum sentences for some of the more revolting crimes?

I know that there is a feeling to that effect, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider that, if Parliament set about trying to work out minimum sentences which would apply in all cases, however much there were mitigating circumstances, we would either turn up a figure which was so low — because it would have to take account of every conceivable mitigating circumstances—that our constituents would think we had gone dotty, or we would pitch on a higher figure, which would mean that people would start to be acquitted when there were mitigating circumstances even though they had committed a serious offence. I do not think that we want either of those things to happen.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that senior police officers, when questioned about what is the most effective deterrent to crime, do not talk about sentencing but about the certainty of being caught? They have told me that again and again, and as recently as last weekend. That being so, when will the Government take action to increase the clear-up rate from its record low level of 35 per cent. to which it has sunk by 17 per cent. since the Government came to office? What is the use to talking about sentences when, under the Tory Government, two out of three criminals get away with their crime?

The right hon. Gentleman has failed to notice that the question is about violent crime. He will be glad to hear because he does not seem to know — [Interruption.] My hon. Friend's supplementary was about violent crime, and the clear-up rates are much higher for crimes of violence. They are 73 per cent. for violence and 72 per cent. for sexual offences, and in all the circumstances those are reasonable achievements by the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will review the law relating to incitement to crimes of violence in the light of the publication of magazines and manuals giving explicit instructions on methods of attacking and killing human beings, copies of which have been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

Extending the law on incitement would be difficult. I understand that one of the publications that my hon. Friend has in mind has been referred by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is considering it.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a real difficulty in an increasingly violent age if manuals and magazines such as those have a wide circulation and fall into the hands of irresponsible young people? His answer is not good enough.

My answer simply tells my hon. Friend what the present state of the law is. It would be premature to judge that law as inadequate while the most offensive of those magazines are still being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Does the Minister intend to take any steps against a book entitled "The Poor Man's James Bond" which is on widespread sale in London and which not only tells people how to commit acts of violence but encourages them to do so? As it is an imported book, could not the Customs Consolidation Act be used against it?

I will look into what the hon. Gentleman says.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there are a number of these weapons of death, martial arts magazines and especially magazines promoting crossbows, which definitely encourage people to take the law into their own hands? Will he do everything possible to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth. Drake (Miss Fookes) has said? We must outlaw such magazines and stop people being violent and being tempted to use glamorous weapons, which are really used by cowards.

I am afraid that I cannot add anything to what I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes).

Will the Minister look again at the proposal that we put to Conservative Members on a number of occasions saying that there should be a standing committee in the Home Office to make recommendations on this type of thing? It is precisely because this matter is difficult to legislate on that the Government are in a mess. As long as they have policies which undermine the social fabric they will continue to have a high and rising rate of crime and threats of violent crime. If we are to get round that, we need some sort of licensing system. The Home Secretary could set up something today to look at that.

The Government are not in a mess. We have applied the law and will consider, once the Director of Public Prosecutions has had the opportunity to consider those matters, whether anything further needs to be done.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for which financial year he proposes to authorise the construction of a new police station in Oakham, following the application in that regard by the Leicestershire police authority.

All being well, we hope to be able to give the Police Authority approval next year to start this project in 1991–92.

I am grateful for the answer and I hope that all will be well. Is my hon. Friend aware of the bad state of that building in which policemen and civilians are working very hard? If there is the slightest doubt about all being well, will he come with me to have a look at the station so that we can get it right in the queue of priorities?

My hon. Friend's constituents would wish to pay credit to the way in which he has argued this cause. He will know that considerable works are going on in Leicestershire at the moment. Phase 1 of the force headquarters is under way and a sub-divisional headquarters is currently under construction. More generally, in 1986–87 the capital allocation on police buildings in England and Wales was up in real terms by 70 per cent. over the 1979–80 allocation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Tamils have applied for and how many have been granted, political asylum or refugee status, since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

Statistics are kept by nationality, rather than by ethnic origin. In 1983, 380 Sri Lankans applied for asylum. None was granted refugee status under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention or asylum, but 13 were allowed leave to remain on exceptional grounds. In 1984, 548 applied, two were granted refugee status, none asylum and 31 exceptional leave to remain. In 1985, 2,032 Sri Lankans applied, 33 were granted refugee status and 907 exceptional leave to remain. Final figures for 1986 are not yet available. Provisional estimates for 1986 show that in the course of that year about 1,300 Sri Lankans have applied for asylum, five have been granted refugee status and approximately 1,600 have been granted exceptional leave to remain. Since July 1984, there has been no distinction made between the grant of "political asylum" and "refugee status".

Will the Minister reflect on his earlier answer about UKIAS and the British Refugee Council in relation to the Tamils and refugee status? Does he accept that the task of those bodies, as would be mine, whatever our individual views about the present law may be, is to determine which applications are acceptable under our present conditions? Therefore, will he accept the bona fides of UKIAS and the BRC to assist in determining that? There is no case not to refer to those bodies in due course those who wish to come. There should be some form of appeal against the capricious action of his officials.

I do not think that my officials are ever guilty of capricious action. Our refugee unit in the Home Office has always had the confidence of UNHCR and with good reason. I see the hon. Gentleman's point and I have already made it plain that I shall discuss all these matters with UKIAS. However, I must repeat that there are bound to be occasions when, in the interests of immigration control it will be necessary to take prompt action and it will not be possible to refer to UKIAS.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the public will fully understand the high numbers that he has just given to the House of those being allowed to stay in the country under the heading of "exceptional leave to remain"? Is he satisfied that there is a proper distinction between applications being granted for refugee status and the large numbers being granted under another heading? Will he do anything about that?

We have done something about it. The explanation for the high figures is that prior to the introduction of the visa requirement in the summer of 1985 there was a big influx of people from Sri Lanka. That was a reason for the introduction of the visa requirement. During the past 12 months or so we have had to deal with all those people who came here, particularly in May 1985, and that is the explanation of the high figures.

After his earlier statements in the House will the Minister retain his office if any of the famous 64 Tamils is eventually allowed to stay in Britain?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he will consider these cases afresh and that is precisely what he will do.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the police building programme in Lancashire.

We have received letters from seven hon. Members including one from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) in support of representations made by Lancashire county council about a start date for a new sub-divisional headquarters at Leyland and the number of minor police building projects approved for 1987–88.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the delay in the construction of the new Leyland police station to 1989–90 although it was originally planned in 1982? Is he further aware that Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary described the Leyland police station as the worst building in the county and urged something to be done about it at the earliest opportunity? Will he give me an assurance that something will be done to ensure that the police work in proper, modern conditions?

My hon. Friend is a formidable advocate of his constituents' interests. We accept the need for a new police building at Leyland and we have given the county council approval to plan it. We hope that later this year, all being well, we shall be able to offer a start date for Leyland in 1990–91.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are now specifically allocated to drugs work; and how this compares with 1979, 1982 and 1985.

By April of this year, a total of 1,157 police officers will he serving in force drugs squads, drugs wings of regional crime squads and the national drugs intelligence unit. On 31 December 1985, 833 officers were serving in force drugs squads and the national drugs intelligence unit. On 31 December 1983 the equivalent figure was 600. Force drugs squads were first established in every force in 1983 and information for earlier years is not availble.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the increase in police officers specifically dedicated to the fight against drugs has been very widely welcomed? Can he tell the House how the increase in police officers has affected the number of drug seizures? Can he confirm that the Government will continue to place emphasis on the fight against drug demand as well as drug suppliers?

Yes, indeed we will. Last year, if police and the custom figures are taken together, there were record numbers of people arrested for trafficking in drugs. I know we would all like to congratulate the police on making, a few weeks ago, the largest single seizure of cocaine in this country—34 kilos in one seizure alone.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offficial engagements for Thursday 5 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 this House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with a delegation from the National Pensioners' Convention.

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that throughout the whole of our recorded history, Britain has never experienced such an increase in crime as has occurred since she was first elected to office on the platform of law and order? Is she further aware that the intensity of crime — which does seem to match the Conservative party's commitment to greed—is now at such a level that millions of our people, many of them elderly, have to live with gnawing anxiety as well as the financial hardship that they have experienced during the Prime Minister's tenure of office?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, crime has been steadily rising, not only in this country but throughout the western world. That makes it all the more important for Governments to do what this Government have done — provided more police, better equipment, and supported them and the courts in their difficult decisions.

Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy schedule today to consider the news that at least three Labour-controlled borough councils are planning to increase their rates by 50 per cent.? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that this will provide a substantial burden —[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Lady's question must be related to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

I did preface my question by saying that it was connected with the schedule of the Prime Minister's diary today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this will prove to be a substantial burden, particularly for small businesses, which will definitely result in a loss of jobs?

Yes. That is one further piece of evidence that Labour is the high-tax party. I agree with my hon. Friend that high rates make it very difficult for small businesses to prosper in those areas and therefore affect the prospects for jobs.

Is the Prime Minister aware that because she broke the link between pension rises and average earnings, pensioner couples in Britain are now £11·40 a week worse off and single pensioners are now £7·20 a week worse off than they would have been if she had maintained the link? Will she restore that link since it is so obvious that some of the poorest people in Britain have been seriously deprived as a consequence of her policies? Or does she think that those people, desperately needing every penny that they can get, can afford to go on losing hundreds of pounds a year?

No, we will not restore the link to average earnings. We undertook that we would price-relate pensions and we have. Pensions have gone ahead faster than the increase in prices. If the right hon. Gentleman takes a true comparison he should compare the standard of living of pensioners today with the standard of living of pensioners as a whole during the lifetime of the Labour Government. The fact is that between 1979 and 1985 the average weekly net income of pensioners has risen by 18 per cent. in real terms, more than twice the increase for the population as a whole. When one compares that with the record of the Labour Government one finds that it is an average increase of 2·7 per cent. a year compared with 0.6 per cent. a year between 1974 and 1979.

The Prime Minister know very well that the first set of figures that she quoted is attributable almost entirely to the inclusion of the state earnings-related pension scheme. She has a real cheek, as an individual and as the Prime Minister, in seeking to destroy that scheme. Is it not the case that with the losses sustained by pensioners as a result of breaking the link, the record of the Labour Government of a real terms increase of 20 per cent. compares favourably with the increase under the right hon. Lady of 4·5 per cent.? Will she not do her duty to the pensioners of Britain instead of letting the Chancellor give away money in a fortnight's time to people who do not need it when there are people in real need in this country?

What the right hon. Gentleman wants is for pensioners to have no income other than that which they get from the state. That is what he wants, basic pension and SERPS. I have given him the true figure for the standard of living. He says that it is totally related to SERPS. It is not. About 4 million people now have occupational pensions which on average nearly double the basic state pension. Many of them own their own homes. Pensioners' incomes from savings have increased by 7·3 per cent. per year in real terms. This is the real standard of living of pensioners, and it is far better than it was in his time.

If the Prime Minister believes all that will she answer two points? First, if she thinks that people should be independent of the state, why is that under her Government 2 million more pensioners have to rely on supplementary benefit because they have been pushed farther down into poverty? Secondly, if she really believes that pensioners are better off, why does she not go to them and ask them if they can afford to lose £11 a week because she has broken the link with earnings?

The right hon. Gentleman is not getting it right. There is a basic pension in this country and there must be a second pension. Part of it is either the supplementary earnings-related pension from the state, or an occupational pension. Some pensioners have savings, some have houses and some have other sources of income. Which of the figures that I have given him does the right hon. Gentleman challenge?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her visit to Moscow will bring reassurance throughout the free world because of her standing as a leader, and a leader who can negotiate from strength?

I hope that we shall show in Moscow that this Government are prepared not only to stand up for freedom of speech, but, in action and words, for defence policy.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for the Environment advised the young homeless in London to go somewhere else to find a home. Does that not contradict the advice given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that they should leave their homes to find a job? What advice does she give to the young jobless and homeless other than perpetual travel?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a considerable number of council houses are empty all over the country. Indeed, in England 112,000 houses and flats are empty, of which 27,000 have been empty for more than a year. The Government have taken many steps to tackle homelessness. We have allocated the Housing Corporation an additional £20 million next year for a scheme under which housing associations can combine 30 per cent. grant from private finance to provide more accommodation for rent. The Government will also give local authorities the power to provide financial assistance to the private sector—up to 30 per cent.—for the cost of a new scheme to encourage the provision of rented housing. We have offered £4 million to the Department of the Environment's estate action programme to bring empty and run-down council homes back into use. That is to try to tackle the problem of homelessness. The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there are over 1 million more homes in this country than there were in the lifetime of the Government that his party supported.

As to the criticism in The Times today about the state of the British Army, will my right hon. Friend agree that, while real problems remain in equipping all three of our services and the conventional threat to NATO continues to grow, it is the massive increase in resources that we have made available in the last seven years that has enabled the Army, through pay and equipment, to continue to meet that threat professionally? Anybody who advocates, or even contemplates, putting the defence of this country in the hands of any or all of the Opposition parties needs their head examined.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party does not have an effective defence policy for Britain. The Government have spent a total of £2,000 million more in real terms on the Army than if expenditure had been left at its 1978–79 level. We are carrying out a massive re-equipment programme for the Army, including main new battle tanks, new armoured personnel carriers, new artillery, defence missiles and new communications equipment. Furthermore, the Government have also implemented in full —[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House not to shout in this manner.

The Government have also implemented, in full, eight successive reports on service pay from the armed forces pay review body, with phasing for only a matter of months in just two of those years. That is an excellent record.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 March 1987.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is investigating the implementation of the 1981 Education Act, which deals with children who have special needs? Is she aware that, despite the valiant and superb attempts of teachers and local authorities to implement the Act, the experts tell us that, because of the total lack of Government funding, the Act is failing? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, instead of paying lip service to the needs of those children, who are blind, deaf or mentally and physically handicapped, direct her Chancellor in his Budget speech to transfer the tax hand-outs from the rich to those children who are in need of the extra money?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is for local authorities to decide how they disburse their moneys. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that spending per pupil is up by 19 per cent. in real terms in the lifetime of this Parliament, and that the pupil-teacher ratio is far better than ever it was. There are more teachers, they have fewer pupils and there is more money spent on each pupil. Beyond that, it is for local authorities to decide how they disburse the moneys available.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 March 1987.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some 10 minutes ago.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today in her busy schedule to consider the prospects of a large rate increase that are facing my constituency? Last year, we suffered a rate increase of 26 per cent., imposed by the Labour-controlled county council. The Liberals wanted a 24 per cent. increase. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a rise such as this will only damage householders, depress job prospects in Derbyshire and do great harm to old-age pensioners, about whom the Opposition seem to care so much ? Will she reaffirm her Government's intention to abolish the present rating sys tern?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the increase that has been made by Derbyshire county council is indefensible. Derbyshire county council's rate is already 25 per cent. above the average for shire counties, and a further 26 per cent. increase on top of that must mean that it is planning a further massive spending increase, which will damage small businesses, at the expense of ratepayers in that area. I assure my hon. Friend that during the first Parliament after the election we shall be introducing our rates reform Bill for England and Wales.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time in her busy day actually to read the letter on pay limitation in The Times today from Lord Morpeth, in which he announces that he is resigning his commission to protest against the Government's cuts in the Army, Navy and Air Force and says, inter alia, as they say in Grantham :

"Vehicles breaking down—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote please.

—in which he says that vehicles breaking down cannot be replaced, that the efficiency of the finest volunteer fighting force in NATO is being impaired and that vehicles purchased in the 1960s will still be being used at the turn of the century? Instead of giving the Army nothing but her excuses to fight with, will the Prime Minister send a message to Lord Morpeth saying — "Hang on. Labour's coming"—[Interruption.]

Order. We had better just hear the end of this.

Instead of cutting the conventional forces to buy Trident, Labour will build up our conventional strength so that a conflict does not escalate into a nuclear conflict straight away.

The Labour party-does not have a defence policy worthy of the name for this country. The conclusion to be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's question is how very much worse things would have been had the Labour party been in power. It would have spent £2 billion less in real terms on the Army than we have and it would never, never have honoured all the pay increases from the armed forces pay review body, which we have. It should be thanking its lucky stars and the voters that they voted this Government into power.