To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were convicted of dropping litter in the past year.

In 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, 1,400 people were found guilty of offences under the Litter Act 1983.

Does my hon. Friend not think that that number makes a mockery of the Litter Act, in view of the appalling amount of litter that defaces our towns and cities? Bearing in mind that there are at least 90,000 constables in the police force, many of whom are bobbies on the beat, is it too much to expect each policeman to obtain one prosecution a year against a litter lout?

I am sympathetic to the point that my hon. Friend has made. Inevitably, the deployment of police officers is an operational matter for chief constables. I do not think that the criminal law can ever be the primary instrument for resolving this problem.

Does the Minister agree that it would be most unlikely for a prosecution to ensue if the piece of litter found was a copy of the speech by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)? Does he also agree that that speech is certainly part of the political litter of this country—

Order. That is miles wide of this question.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many people in this country believe that the United Kingdom is now the litter gutter of the world? The situation is disgusting and deplorable. Will he seek methods of reducing the litter problem of this country, if necessary by utilising the services and co-operation of those places that are sometimes partially responsible for it? I refer to food shops, pubs and other places from which food and drink are available. It is a disgrace. Will my hon. Friend attend to it?

I agree that there is far too much litter around and that it is a disgrace. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given her personal support to the Keep Britain Tidy campaign.

Essentially, the solution to the problem lies in persuading people of their personal and social obligations not to create litter.

Is the Minister aware that last month litter was deliberately strewn around St. James's park, only to be collected by a lady of pensionable years and stuffed into a black plastic bag carried by a strange old cove covered in fag ash and muttering obscenities under his breath? Can he cast any light on this bizarre incident, and have the two litter louts concerned been prosecuted?

My recollection is that the litter was picked up with considerable elegance.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently serving custodial sentences for crimes not involving violence.

About 22,000.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer shows that we are cluttering up our prisons with far too many people for whom non-custodial sentences would be appropriate? Does that not make it more difficult to ensure that the public are protected from those dangerous and violent criminals for whom sentences all too often seem to be far too short? Therefore, will he try to make a further attempt to introduce some common sense into sentencing policy?

Yes, Sir. Of the 50,000 people in prison at the moment, about 10,000 are awaiting trial, 22,000—on whom I have just reported to my hon. Friend—have committed non-violent offences, and about 18,000 have committed violent offences. I think we all agree that those in prison for violent offences not only should be there but in some cases should be there for longer than they are. We should like to reduce the numbers on remand. As regards the 22,000 in prison for non-violent offences, we want to see a wider choice for the courts. It is for the courts to decide, but for such offenders we want a wider choice of punishment outside prison in cases where the courts think that they are suitable.

Is the Home Secretary aware that on 10 April 1988 the board of visitors of Welford road prison, Leicester, published a report that was highly critical of the Home Office, and that the chairman of the board, Mr. Dennis Rice, said that Welford road prison remains afloat with a combination of miracle and luck? Is he also aware that the prison was built for 200 inmates but that it now houses, on average, 411 inmates per day? What steps does the Home Secretary propose to take to ease the crisis in the prison service in Leicester, rather than the cosmetic steps that he announced to the House on 30 March this year?

Because of our policy of open government, the reports of boards of visitors at particular prisons, which had not been published before, are now made available to the public. I am perfectly well aware that boards of visitors at many of our overcrowded local prisons are critical of the conditions that they find. They add strength to my elbow in pressing for and achieving the acceleration of the prison building programme which I announced just before Easter, which, undoubtedly, together with the other measures that are in hand, will help to relieve the pressure of which the hon. Gentleman complains.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his figures show that almost nine out of 10 14-year-olds serving detention centre orders have not committed crimes of violence? Does that not further underline the absurdity of maintaining penal custody as an option for children of that age?

My hon. Friend, whose interest in this matter I know, will welcome the fact that the number of juveniles sentenced to detention or youth custody dropped sharply from 7,700 in 1981 to 4,400 in 1986. The use of that power by the courts has been dropping, and that is quite right. Equally, there are occasions when young people, even boys of 14, commit crimes of such brutal violence, or other serious crimes, that the courts, whose decision it is, decide to send them to prison. There is an eloquent letter by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) in The Times on that subject today.

If the Minister is serious about wanting to keep more non-violent offenders out of prison, why is there so much emphasis, in all the rhetoric coming from himself and his Government colleagues, on the punishment of offenders? When will the Government realise that the only way to deal with overcrowding in our prisons and the rates of reoffending is to break the cycle of crime by keeping people out of prison unless they are a real danger to society?

The hon. Lady's question illustrates the basic weakness in the Labour party's approach to the matter. There is a strong human instinct, which Labour Members had better recognise, that when people have offended by doing harm or damage, or by effecting brutality on other people, they should be "punished". That is the word that they use. [Interruption.] That is what the hon. Lady is complaining about, unless there was a slip of the tongue. I am saying that for non-violent offenders I want to create for the courts a range of punishments, not all of which will involve imprisonment.

My right hon. Friend will know that those who commence their sentences at Rollestone temporary prison camp on Salisbury plain are mostly category C prisoners. Will he undertake to give special attention to monitoring the scheme, which will involve the use of a Home Office prison governor, but with custody being in the hands of the military—all three forces—to ensure that that management system works effectively?

I think that it will, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest. As he knows, the Rollestone camp will reopen fairly soon until late autumn. I am confident that the mixture of a prison governor responsible to me, and, this time, with some help from the Army, will be as fruitful as it was in 1981.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now able to announce whether he proposes to seek to amend the law concerning the accessibility of gaming machines to children and young persons; and if he will make a statement.

Not yet. I refer the hon. Member to the statement which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, made during discussion of a proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill in Committee on 24 March. We are examining the various reports and other work that we commissioned into the subject last year and all the other material that we have been sent by those interested. We shall make our views known as soon as we are ready to do so, which we hope will be before the summer recess.

I am sure that the Minister is as worried as I am about the increasing addiction and the devastation that that causes to parents, particularly in tourist areas such as mine, which have many such units and many applications coming in for more. I understand that the Minister has had the reports for some considerable time. Will he say how long they have been in his possession? At present, operators have a voluntary code banning those under 18. Does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to consider amending that code and imposing a statutory ban, at least up to the age of 18, if not up to the age of 21?

I appreciate the anxiety of hon. Members who, like the hon. Gentleman, represent tourist areas. However, he will know that opinion is divided on whether it is right to introduce further regulations on fruit machines in amusement arcades. We have not had the reports for very long. We are now studying them very closely, and, as I said, we shall inform the House of our conclusions, we hope, before the summer recess.

Will my hon. Friend consider the difference between amusement arcades run in holiday camps or other controlled areas, where children often have their families with them, and arcades in towns or on sea fronts, to which children can go without their parents' permission or knowledge? It would be very much appreciated if action could be taken, even before the end of the summer recess, as a number of town councils are worried about the growth in the number of children going into the arcades and then finding themselves in the courts.

My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the points being studied. We need to make a distinction between seaside towns, for example—where only a few fruit machines are available and to which families should be allowed, or, indeed, encouraged to go with all their children—we do not want to be killjoys—and those areas that are devoted to fruit machines, where the possibility of addiction is even greater.

In answer to my hon. Friend's last point, local authorities have considerable powers at present. The Home Office proposes to produce model byelaws for them. I do not think that we shall be able to produce our conclusions before the summer recess.

Is the Minister aware that many local authorities, mine included, are sick and tired of objecting to developments such as amusements arcades and having their objections overridden by the Department of the Environment? May I remind him that it is nearly three months since I sent to his Department a report produced by Parents of Young Gamblers? His Department told me that it would see me and a representative of that organisation, before it reached its conclusions, to discuss parents' real fears. When is that meeting likely to take place?

I understand that the hon. Lady is to have a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I shall certainly check with him as to when it will be. I know that the report that the hon. Lady sent in has been carefully studied.

In answer to the hon. Lady's first point, the planning issues are separate, as I am sure she knows. They deal with environmental issues. The Home Office considers licensing issues, and it is about those that we shall report to the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the latest trends in crime in Greater London.

I welcome the fall in recorded crime in the Metropolitan police district in 1987, when 4 per cent. fewer notifiable offences were recorded than in 1986.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this very welcome decline is due to the fact that we have more bobbies on the beat and that neighbourhood watch is working in London? Does he also agree that we should commend the efforts of the. Metropolitan police and congratulate them, not snipe at them as some hon. Members do?

I agree with all my hon. Friend's points. It is notable that in the last year the number of hours spent on street duty by uniformed police officers was almost 10 per cent. up on the year before. That is the equivalent of 300 more police officers on the street each day.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the position would be even better and further improved if hundreds of Metropolitan police officers did not have to spend their time as temporary gaolers? When will that situation end?

The hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency outside London, will welcome the reductions in crime also in Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the west midlands. The hon. Gentleman is right when he talks about using police officers as temporary gaolers. It is a lousy use of police officers to control people who ought to be in prison. That was because of an overflow, which, unfortunately, was necessary for the reasons that I set out in my statement on 30 March. The numbers are now declining from about 1,500 a each night to about 1,100 each night. The numbers are still far too high, but, as the measures that I announced on 30 March come into effect, they will further decline.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the problems of persistent prostitution in Greater London and now recognise that it was a mistake to take away from the courts the right to gaol women convicted of persistent prostitution? Is he aware that in Wolverhampton it is plain that fining these women is no deterrent at all? However reluctantly, he will have to recognise that it may be necessary to imprison some of them.

I shall be very reluctant to go down the road suggested by my hon. Friend. If he would send me the facts and figures as far as they are available for Wolverhampton, I shall look into them.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the great disquiet in London caused by the policy that the Metropolitan police describe as crime screening, which results in many crimes not even being investigated? As the police authority for London, can he say whether he approves of that scheme and how it will affect the clear-up rate in London? Can he also say how many London burglaries and thefts, now running at more than 500,000 a year, will not be investigated in future because of the screening?

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the London and national clear-up rates have improved, and the rate of burglaries in London and elsewhere has declined.

The answer to his specific question is yes. Crime screening is a method of focusing the detecting resources of the police and enabling them to target those crimes that offer the best prospects for successful detection. I support the Commissioner in his operation of that scheme.

As a means of reducing the level of crime still further, will my right hon. Friend consider the reactivation of a modern system of stocks as being a particularly appropriate punishment for dealing with vandalism, graffiti artists and some forms of football hooliganism? Will he confirm that this punishment is still on the statute book and that, it is just a question of the courts taking advantage of it.

In answer to a previous question I expounded the idea of improving ways of punishing people in the community outside prison. I am not quite sure that we in the Home Office have got quite as far as reinventing stocks.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now announce the date of his White Paper on the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.

I hope to lay a White Paper before Parliament in June, but I cannot yet give a more precise commitment.

When the Home Secretary lays the White Paper before the House, will he tell us whether the new official secrets policy will lead to the reopening of the Wormhoudt massacre file, and therefore, it is hoped bringing to account the former Nazi officer, Wilhelm Mohnke of Hamburg, whose address I have supplied to him, having obtained it from the publication World War II Investigator?

Does the Home Secretary accept that the massacre of over 80 unarmed members of the Royal Warwickshire regiment, which happened in 1940, happened as though it was yesterday for the survivors, like my constituent 81-year-old Reg West? Mr. West and the other survivors are still seeking justice for themselves and for their fallen comrades. We owe it to them.

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice that he was going to raise that point, and I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, whose records these are. My right hon. Friend has asked me to make it clear that the relevant material, which is in the custody of his Department, is being rigorously re-examined to see whether there is any information which could provide a basis for the kind of action for which the hon. Gentleman is pressing.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether, with his Cabinet colleagues, he has concluded that judicial review is a good idea in his intended reform of the Official Secrets Act, or whether he is still committed to the 1979 idea of a ministerial certificate that something is secret?

My hon. Friend will have to await the White Paper for elucidation of that and other points, but I hope that he will not have long to wait.

Does the Ministry of Defence still think that it has all the relevant records?

The hon. Gentleman must address that matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

When my right hon. Friend reviews the Official Secrets Act, he must obviously investigate the case of the SS general in detail, because it involves the murder of British troops. However, does he agree that we must not start a witch hunt against Germans living in this country? In my constituency, a number of former German prisoners of war have already been the subject of abuse. Does he agree that it is important that we do not start that kind of witch hunt?

As I understand it, in the case about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) is concerned, there is no jurisdiction in this country. It would be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in the light of the examination about which I have already told the hon. Gentleman, to consider whether any representations should be made to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. That is where the matter lies.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any guidance has been given to police forces on the subject of AIDS in relation to the arrest of suspects.

Guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers in 1985 included advice on the precautions to be taken against the risks of infection from contaminated blood and sharp objects, such as syringes.

Does the Minister believe that those guidelines should be reinforced or strengthened, particularly in view of an arrest which took place in my constituency recently, which has resulted in an action for damages by a police officer, somewhat mischievously, against an arrested suspect?

This is clearly a serious matter and the Home Office, in conjunction with the DHSS, is drafting further guidance. That further guidance is the subject of discussions with the ACPO and other staff associations.

What compensation will be available to a police constable who might be attacked by a sufferer from AIDS and might himself therefore contract the disease?

I am glad to say that, so far as I am aware, no officer has contracted AIDS as a result of his duty, but if an officer did contract AIDS as a result of his duty, I understand that he would be covered by the normal sickness provisions within the force.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage the average sentence for crimes of violence increased between 1980 and 1987.

Between 1980 and 1986 Crown court sentences increased by 12 per cent. for offences of violence committed by men over 21. Within that, sentences for robbery increased by 21 per cent. and for rape by 27 per cent. The Criminal Justice Bill, as my hon. Friend knows, will give the Attorney-General power to refer over-lenient sentences for serious offences to the Court of Appeal, which will be able, for the first time, to increase the sentence.

I welcome those figures and the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill to allow the prosecution the right of appeal over over-lenient, sentences. However, earlier this year in my constituency, totally unprovoked, two young men so badly beat up a cyclist that he suffered a broken rib and lost the use of a kidney. Is there not a strong case, given the fact that these people were fined only £200, for mandatory prison sentences for those who commit acts of violence that mean that people's health is permanently impaired?

If the House had to start calculating minimum sentences, of imprisonment or otherwise, for particular offences, we would have to take into account the greatest conceivable number of mitigating circumstances, such as where the provocation had been greatest. If we once had to go down that road, we would establish minima that were so low that our constituents would wonder what was going on. It must be sensible to establish a maximum, and to increase the maximum where that seems necessary, and then, within that, to let the court get on with assessing, as best it can, the right sentence for the particular case, but with the proviso, which is important, as my hon. Friend has recognised, in the Criminal Justice Bill that the Attorney-General should be able to refer to the Court of Appeal cases involving violence where he thinks that the decision of the court has been over-lenient.

Is the Home Secretary aware that south Yorkshire's crime rate continues to hit new peaks, not only in violence, but in sex attacks, burglaries and robberies? The chief constable, in his latest report to his county authority, claimed an improvement in an already creditable detection rate, but the general assessment is of a need for more equipment and manpower, which his 1987 approvals did not even begin to match.

The hon. Member's question is a symptom of the extraordinary turnround in the attitude of some, although not all, Labour Members to the expansion of the police forces. We have been consistent in favouring and putting into practice a steady expansion of the police forces. For the current year I have an allocation agreed under the expansion programme for 500 extra police officers. Before long we shall announce that allocation for this year, and also before long we shall have to consider the further development of the right kind of manpower levels for the police forces of England and Wales after the present expansion programme is ended.

Would there not be many fewer crimes of violence if violent men had to fear the penalty of death?

That is a matter to which my hon. and learned Friend will be able to return when we deal with the new clause which I expect to be tabled for the Report stage on the Criminal Justice Bill.

Are not the majority of over-lenient sentences for crimes of violence passed by lay magistrates? Should this not be met by much better training in sentencing policy and practice for lay magistrates?

I am not sure that I agree with that. We are fortunate not only in the dedication of our lay magistrates but in their increasing skill and professionalism.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to assist other parts of the country to follow the joint initiative of the Avon and Somerset constabulary and the West of England Society of Chartered Accountants, under which members of the society provide their expertise free to the police to assist in fraud investigations.

We warmly welcome initiatives such as this, where the police and the community act together against crime. I am sure that the help given by accountants in the fight against serious fraud in Avon and Somerset will be invaluable. I understand that a similar scheme also exists in the Metropolitan police and that co-operation in other force areas is under discussion. This is highly commendable.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, however valuable the training given to fraud squad officers in the investigation in particular financial fraud, it will never match the professional experience gained by solicitors, accountants and so on who are dealing with financial records every day? Will he therefore encourage the spread of the scheme and possibly involve the professions in training for this aspect of police officers' work?

I would be pleased to see a spread of this kind of scheme in appropriate circumstances. It is important not to under-estimate the high skills acquired by police officers specialising in this work.

Have not members of the Society of Chartered Accountants, on a number of occasions, pointed to the difficulties that arise when attempts are made to bring prosecutions for fraud against major defence contractors? As the law department of the City of London polytechnic has offered to carry out research into this sector, drawing on the experience of many of our European partners, will the Minister take up that offer, and even help with the funding of that research exercise, because the taxpayer would benefit immeasurably?

Before replying in detail to a question of that kind I should like to have clearer notice of the offer in question.

Will my hon. Friend also consider whether the kind of expertise that chartered acoountants can provide could usefully be made available to the Crown Prosecution Service? Often, investigations need an overall view to be taken before the case is sent to court. Such involvement could improve the number of prosecutions that result in findings of guilt in the Crown court.

My hon. Friend makes a very serious and useful suggestion. It was considerations of that kind that caused the Government to bring forward the concept of the serious fraud office, which employ accountants.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of any correlation between the recently published statistics on crime levels and reduction in the percentage of young people in the population.

Evidence suggests that population changes make a relatively small contribution to changes in recorded crime and known offending. The peak age for offending is 15 and our crime prevention initiatives are in a large part directed at juvenile offending. I shall, for example, expect to see some of the schemes under the safer cities programme specifically for young people.

I am grateful for that reply. There have been encouraging changes in the crime figures, which will be welcome in all quarters of the House, but in those categories that predominantly involve young people there have been some severe increases. There has been a 9 per cent. increase in robbery, a 12 per cent. increase in sexual offences, and a 13 per cent. increase in crimes of violence against the person.

As there will be a decrease of one quarter in the number of 16 to 19-year-olds in the population in five years, and by omitting demographic changes, the statistics are as meaningless as unemployment figures that are not seasonally related. The value of future crime figures will be obscured unless they are related to demographic changes. Will the Minister give an assurance that future published crime statistics will relate as closely as possible to demographic changes?

It is typical of the Opposition to question the figures. When crime increases, it is said to be all the fault of the Government. When there are signs of a better trend, it is said that they are all to do with demography—[Interruption.] That is the point that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was seeking to make and it is a completely bogus one—[Interruption.]

Order.

If the hon. Gentleman will study the research, he will notice that what I have said is true. The impact of demography, either when the figures are up or when they are down, is very slight.

In view of the heavier sentences that my right hon. Friend said had been passed in recent years, and in view of the increase in the number of violent crimes, has he come to any conclusion about the deterrent effect of giving heavier sentences for crimes of violence? Does not the situation also reflect upon his prison programme, in view of the overcrowding that exists? Is there any deterrent effect in heavier sentencing?

Yes, I believe that there certainly is a deterrent effect in giving heavier sentences for violent crimes. That is part of the answer, just as the increase in the number of police is part of the answer. However, my hon. Friend's question, like the original question asked by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), goes further back, to matters that influence the lapse of juveniles into crime. They lead us on to other matters that we ought constantly to discuss, such as the role of teachers, the media and parents.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the appointment of women prison officers to high security male prisons; and if he will make a statement.

No representations have been received other than from my hon. Friend. Since the beginning of this year a total of about 77 women prison officers have been posted into local and dispersal prisons and new male establishments. This innovation has proved highly successful.

I welcome the appointment of female warders to high security prisons, so that they can search the female visitors, but does my hon. Friend understand that, although these warders cannot carry out the duties of male warders in high security prisons, they count against the manpower approved strength of those prisons? Does he agree that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is about as relevant to the need to keep international terrorists secured under lock and key as my Aunt Fanny?

I regret that I am not acquainted with my hon. Friend's relatives, so I cannot comment on the last part of his question.

Female prison officers can perform most roles as effectively as male officers, including that of physical restraint. Moreover, their presence can frequently serve to defuse tension. It is perfectly true, however, that the deployment of female prison officers is a new policy, and because of that and the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend I intend to review the matter in 12 months' time.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to bring the number of prison officers up to establishment in maximum security prisons; and if he will make a statement.

Further staff will continue to be allocated to dispersal prisons as they become available from training courses in the light of operational need.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware, however, that there is a school of thought that holds that if Gartree prison had not been 31 prison officers under establishment at the time of the helicopter escape last January those two prisoners would not have escaped? Bearing in mind the intense responsibility of maximum security gaols, will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to ensuring that their staffing levels are up to scratch?

My hon. Friend's concern is understandable. I am aware that there is such a school of thought. My hon. Friend will know, however, that it is not borne out by the report that I received on that escape from the deputy director general of the prison service. Nevertheless, by 1 April the difference at Gartree to which my hon. Friend refers had been reduced to 14, and I am glad to be able to tell him that a further nine staff are to be allocated to the prison by the end of May.

Can the Home Secretary confirm that newly built wings in top security prisons are this day standing empty because of the lack of an adequate number of prison officers? How can prison officers combat the violence, petty crime and drug abuse on which the chief inspector of prisons comments in his latest report when officer levels in too many prisons are still well below the establishment levels agreed in the Fresh Start proposals?

The hon. Gentleman should know two things. First, the expansion of the prison service has proceeded faster than the expansion of the prison population. Secondly, whereas this year we need about 600 new prison officers to deal with wastage, we are recruiting 1,960–1,360 more than are required for wastage.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average delay in processing application for British passports; and if he will make a statement.

The time taken to deal with straightforward non-urgent passport applications at the five largest passport offices ranges between 13 working days at Liverpool and 54 working days at London. Urgent applications are given priority at all offices, and strenuous efforts are being made to meet every applicant's travel needs.

I announced on 31 March a number of special measures to reduce the delays, in advance of computerisation of the passport-issuing system, which should help to avoid similar problems arising in the future.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the majority of my constituents seem to be waiting for two months, which is causing some considerable inconvenience? As the delay seems to be a constant two months, and is not getting better or worse, could he not draft in some temporary staff to reduce the backlog and reduce the delay to about three to four weeks? Finally, will my hon. Friend please thank the staff in his private office for the help and courtesy that they have given me on every occasion when I have contacted them?

I thank my hon. Friend very much for his kind comments, which I shall pass forward. Because of the great increase in the demand for new passports, we took the decision two years ago to computerize—a process which starts with the Glasgow office in July. Since the beginning of this year we have recruited over 200 more staff, permanent and casual, to the passport offices—another 34 alone on a casual basis in the London office last week.

Is the Minister aware that, from his annual report, this increase in demand for passports could have been predicted as far back as 1985? Why has the Minister not taken appropriate action before now to prevent this administrative shambles? He has had plenty of time to deal with the problem. Is he aware that, because of the chaos at Lunar house and now at Petty France, the stench of administrative incompetence is emanating strongly from the departments for which he is administratively responsible?

The hon. Gentleman's comment is a very unfair slander on the work of the trade union staff side at Clive house and Lunar house. Because of the great increase in demand, we took the decision about two years ago to computerise. The computer programme starts in Glasgow in July and, we hope, will be completed by the end of 1989. Many of the delays which we are experiencing, and which I very much regret, will then be overcome. We are looking at the possibility of giving the passport offices executive agency status. That, too, should improve the management structure and make the responsibilities clearer.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 April.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable rise in the number of operations to transplant organs, especially kidneys? May I suggest that we need to move to a form of required request legislation as the only way of dramatically increasing the availability of organs for transplant, thus countering increasing waiting lists?

I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. We are committed to trying to increase the numbers of operations with transplant organs. The form of required request by doctors to relatives, for which my hon. Friend asks, was referred to a committee of the royal medical colleges, which recently considered it. The committee did not recommend legislating for it. My hon. Friend can understand the emotional problems caused in asking relatives for permission. We are pursuing a number of the recommendations for alternative approaches.

Does the Prime Minister think it morally right for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries to take over a profitable brewery in my constituency, in a development area in west Cumberland, and throve more than 40 people out of work? Does the right hon. Lady think it right that the free market gives companies the right to treat my constituents in that way? Why, when I went to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry prior to the takeover, did he refuse to intervene when I warned him that these jobs would be lost in my profitable brewery?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that a takeover either qualifies for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and he knows the procedure well, or it does not. It seems that in this case it did not qualify. The hon. Gentleman is aware also that there must be rationalisation and redundancies from time to time to keep undertakings profitable and competitive into the future. The hon. Gentleman and I would hope that, whatever happens, people are treated well when that occurs.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the reign of Queen Anne—[Interruption.]—when there was a national lottery of which the then Archbishop of Canterbury was a patron? In the event of a hospitals lottery, will an invitation be extended to Dr. Runcie?

To answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I do not recall those days. With regard to the National Hospital Trust's proposed National Health Service lottery, it appears to be a private matter and, as far as we can make out, it seems to be legal. If it raises extra money for the Health Service, that will be a very good thing. Of course, DHSS Ministers will not seek to recover any money forthcoming from the trust by adjusting health authority cash limits—it will be extra money. What the trust wishes to do and whom it wishes to join its numbers is a matter for itself.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 April.

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

The Prime Minister will be aware of the tragic occurrence late yesterday afternoon when a Phantom aircraft of 43 Squadron flying from RAF Leuchars in my constituency was lost. I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to join me in expressing sympathy to the families of the missing crewmen. I understand that the wreckage of the Phantom aircraft was found by a Wessex aircraft of 222 Squadron flying a search and rescue operation.

Since 1956 more than 2,000 such operations have been flown from RAF Leuchars—57 of them this year—and more than 2,000 lives have been saved. In the light of that, will the Prime Minister confirm that there is no risk, or even likelihood, that search and rescue operations will be withdrawn from RAF Leuchars?

I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in expressing sympathy to the relatives of those two young men who lost their lives when the Phantom crashed into the sea yesterday.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is conducting a review of the air sea rescue services. When he has completed that review, of course he will report his conclusions to the House and to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

To ask the Prime Minister of she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend commend the wisdom and courage of the Government of Kuwait? Does she agree that those Governments who fail to learn the lesson that terrorism must be resisted at any cost expose their own citizens and all of us to the most appalling risks?

Yes, I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I think it is excellent that the 17 prisoners are still in gaol in Kuwait. It is a policy that we urged upon the Government of Kuwait—not to give in to any blackmail involving hijacking. Various countries have accepted obligations when hijacks occur. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be raising the implications of hijacks with his European colleagues in the Foreign Affairs Council next week. We have also been in touch with our Summit Seven partners to propose further discussions in that forum. Thirdly, our delegation to the International Civil Aviation Organisation will be raising the matter of hijacking and the question of what action to take.

Will the Prime Minister take time this afternoon to dissociate herself from the disgraceful remarks of her right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) in his outrageous attack on the front-line states, which she visited recently, and which we understand she will visit again? Will she respond to the profound moral challenge from Archbishop Tutu and at last recognise that the only way forward for non-violent change in South Africa is the immediate implementation of comprehensive sanctions?

I read my right hon. Friend's speech in full. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has done the same. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that economic freedom and political freedom are indivisible and he said to South Africa:

"So you have a hard choice before you. The very economic success that your political system seeks to preserve will before long be destroyed by the policies you are following to preserve your political system."

He made it quite clear that each and every person has equal rights to consideration, and he really made it very clear to South Africa that we detest apartheid as a system.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 April.

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

As today is the 40th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, a country which has had turbulent times throughout its existence and which has often acted as a democratic refuge for people who have been persecuted elsewhere in the world, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all the people of Israel on their achievements, and will she also join me in hoping that it will not be another 40 years before a peace settlement is found for the middle east that recognises the right of Israel to exist?

I readily join my hon. Friend in congratulating Israel on its 40th anniversary. Israel's achievements in that period have been remarkable. I agree with him that that makes it all the more important that those who built the nation should now help to build peace with security for all countries in the region.

I support the Prime Minister's last reply.

May I point out to her that a 73-year-old widow in my constituency has lost all her housing benefit because she owns a house that she has been trying unsuccessfully to sell for 20 months? Out of a total income of £41·67 a week she now has to find a rent for her pensioner flat of £32·74. Can the Prime Minister tell me and my constituent how that old lady can live on less than £10 a week?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a number of cases, where there is lapse of time between when a house is put on the market and when it can be sold. There used to be a provision to cover that gap. Unfortunately, it was not properly used. Therefore, the rules were changed. If there is any difficulty in that particular case, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be taking it up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

But there is difficulty in that particular case. That is why I took it up with the DHSS, and that is why it replied that this lady

"will still be entitled to a Retirement Pension of £41·67 a week. I am sorry that I have been unable to alleviate …"

—I leave out the lady's name because I do not want publicity for her—

"anxieties."

I shall show that reply to any hon. Member on the Conservative Benches who wishes to see it, but I am sure that they have received similar correspondence. As the regulations would be properly used if changes were made, to take the Prime Minister's point, again I ask her to change the regulations so as to lift people such as my constituent and thousands like her out of the anxiety, the fear and the poverty into which the changes have now plunged them.

No. The reason why I said, "If there is any difficulty" is perfectly plain, and I shall explain it to the right hon. Gentleman. If a person has an asset such as a house which is on the market, it should not be difficult to raise money in the form of a loan from the bank on the strength—[Interruption.] If a person has a very considerable asset such as a house, it should not be difficult to raise a modest loan on the valuation of that asset.

The Prime Minister does not live in the real world. The house of which I speak cannot be sold, and has not been sold for 20 months. Can the Prime Minister recommend which building society or what source of credit would enable my constituent to raise an additional mortgage at 73 years of age to provide her with the kind of sum that would enable her so to supplement her income in order to live a civilised life?

It would be a loan on the security of an asset, which is a perfectly well understood transaction, and usually provided for by the banks of this country.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 April.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports recently that the Scottish TUC is to mount a campaign of opposition and boycotting of the Government's new programme for training the long-term unemployed, a matter which I understand will be voted on by committees of the English TUC next week? Will she condemn the wholly negative approach of the Scottish TUC, which, if supported by the English TUC, would be a major threat to the training opportunities for some 60,000 unemployed people?

I saw the report about the Scottish TUC, to the effect that it is objecting to the new training programme. I think that it would be absolutely disgraceful if any union objected to helping a person to get training—the very training that he may need to help him to secure one of the many jobs available for skilled people—especially as the unions are part of the Manpower Services Commission, which approved that programme. I hope that the unions will support the programme in the end.

Will the Prime Minister inform the House how she regards the old and disabled couple in my constituency who have no assets to sell and whose rent is being increased from £1·66 to £35 a week, because of the housing benefit cut? Will she please explain to them how they will live from now on?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have said that detailed cases should be taken up with my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is aware that even after the changes more money is being spent on housing benefit in real terms than in 1979, and still every two households are having to support not only themselves, but keep a third. The amount of money spent on housing benefit is greater by a good deal than in 1979.