To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of community service orders, with particular regard to their effectiveness and appropriate application.

The community service order is a sentence which should provide a realistic alternative to custody for serious offenders. Its use has more than doubled since 1979. We welcome this and would like to see a further increase in the number of community service orders made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, valuable as community service orders are, if they are breached by the offender they must be backed up and enforced by penalties more severe than community service, not less severe, otherwise they will be treated as a soft option, and an avoidable soft option at that, rather than the sensible and effective punishment that they could be?

My hon. Friend has put his finger right on the point, which it is critically important if we are to develop the use of community service orders, which are commonly held by Government and Opposition Members as well as by the general public to be effective and proper punishment. That means that anyone who is in breach of a community service order must be dealt with correctly by the courts. I assure my hon. Friend that I am conducting a survey on the imposition of community service orders and how they are carried out. If we find that there are any problems, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and I will not hesitate to act.

Does the Minister agree that, as the effectiveness of community service as a sentence has been proved over many years, the time has come to consider the length of community service orders so as to develop them as yet a further alternative to imprisonment and thus decrease the number of offenders sent to either youth custody or imprisonment?

Mr. Speaker, I crave your indulgence. May I take this opportunity to apologise to the hon. Gentleman, for I fear that he thought that in a winding-up speech three Fridays ago, in a debate on crime prevention, I slighted him.

That is a bit wide, I think.

I wanted to do it publicly. It may have been wide, but I think it was handsome.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those currently held in Her Majesty's prisons are on remand.

On 31 October about 10,570 untried or convicted unsentenced prisoners were held in prison department establishments in England and Wales.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the delay in bringing accused people to trial is not only a major aggravation of overcrowding problems in prison but, by our own high standards, a serious infringement of human rights?

I agree that having more than one fifth of the prison population unsentenced or unconvicted is wrong and is too high. That is why we are doing everything that we can to speed up the process of business in magistrates' courts, and that is why, in three police areas, I am using the power given me under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to introduce time limits on remand before the case is brought to trial.

Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the few things that mitigate the rigours of remand is the entitlement of remand prisoners to food, drink and other comforts being brought into the remand prison by relatives? Will he tell the House that he has no plans whatever to reduce the privileges of remand prisoners, which are already few enough?

We have, in our reply to the Select Committee's report, which we have published today— there is another question on the Order Paper — announced our intention to remove the special food privileges for remand prisoners. Clearly, whatever its justification at a time when food was scanty and bad, there is no justification for it today. It involves a danger of smuggling in drugs and other materials. It wastes a lot of prison officer time and its benefit to the remand population does not justify its continuance.

Will my right hon. Friend look closely at the whole concept of remand, as prisoners have an interest in spinning out their period on remand if they know that ultimately they will be convicted, because their privileges on remand are rather better than those on full imprisonment?

It is certainly true that not all the delays to which the question refers are the result of the prosecution. There are occasions when delay is caused by the defence.

Will the Home Secretary accept that removing the rights of people held on remand is no answer to the problems of and pressure on the prison service? When does he expect that prisoners on remand will cease to be kept in police stations in London and the Home Counties?

The decision that we have taken about food privileges for remand prisoners follows a recommendation to that effect from the Select Committee.

That is not an answer to all the problems.

It is not an answer to all the problems. No single measure is ever an answer to all problems, but it certainly means that prison officers will be able to use their time to the greater benefit of the regime than when they are searching food brought in for remand prisoners. The hon. Lady is perfectly correct to focus again on the mischief of remand prisoners, or indeed of any prisoners, being held in police cells. The measures now being taken in the north-west will certainly help to relieve the situation there—

When?

Shortly. But I am still concerned about the position in the south-east.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to review police manpower.

At the end of September 1987 police manpower in England and Wales was at the record level of 123,740.I am constantly considering applications from police authorities for increases in their establishments. I hope to make an announcement before the end of this month about the increase which I am able to approve for the remainder of this financial year as part of the expansion programme that I announced in May 1986.

In considering the announcement that my right hon. Friend will be making later in the month, will he bear in mind that the Thames Valley police force, which serves my constituency and his, has the worst ratio of police to population of any authority anywhere in the country, that its establishment is inadequate on every measurement criterion, and that to achieve the average level of establishment for comparable provincial forces it would need an increase of 780 officers? In view of that, will he accept that anything less than full approval of the authority's application for an extra 200 officers this year would be viewed by my constituents, and I suggest also by his, as completely inadequate?

The application from Thames Valley is one of the biggest that has been put forward, coming from a force which has had a bigger increase since 1979 than any other force outside London. That is not to deny the strength of the case that my hon. Friend has summarised. It clearly is a strong case. My hon. Friend will not expect me to play favourites simply because my constituency, like his, is in the area, but we are looking at the Thames Valley application alongside many others, for which many hon. Members will make strong arguments.

Why do the police forces have to wait so long for the Home Secretary to come to a decision about this? He will recall that the Thames Valley chief constable says that he is 700 men short of the realistic minimum number to police his area. He applied for the increase in June. Why is he still waiting for an answer?

Because we look at the applications several times a year, and I have to fit that into the programme of expansions that I announced in May 1986. The programme has already brought about a further increase of 1,500 in police strength in the first six months of this year. Following a long period of neglect, we are continuing the programme of my two predecessors for a steady expansion in the police forces of England and Wales, which have had a bigger share of the increase than any other part of the public sector, thus giving the priority which we said that we would give, and which the right hon. Gentleman and his Government sadly neglected.

While our record is second to none in the increased resources that we have given to the police authorities, and while some police authorities may indeed still need extra resources, are we not entitled, now that we have put the whole policing operation in this country on to a higher footing, to look to the police forces to examine their own systems of management and give us better value for money than they may have given in the past?

That is indeed very important. One of the first questions that we ask when we receive an application from a force is whether that force is "civilianising" — using civilians behind desks and computers, at about half the cost of a professional police officer. In London, for example, the programme of civilianisation now under way, with 600 new civilians to be recruited, will lead to the release of 400 police officers to professional duties on the beat.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to remove the Crown immunity of Her Majesty's prisons; and if he will make a statement.

We are not persuaded that there is anything to be gained from the removal of Crown immunity from prison establishments, as we are satisfied that the present arrangements are effective in setting and monitoring the standards required by legislation.

The Minister will no doubt recall the outbreak of salmonella at Wakefield prison in August this year. I understand that his Department has received a copy of the document resulting from the environmental health officers' investigation into the outbreak. May I ask for his comments on paragraph 5.6, which states:

"In the absence of Crown immunity there is no doubt that a failure to take immediate action to remedy the many contraventions of the Food Hygiene General Regulations 1970 would result in recommendation that legal proceedings"

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please paraphrase rather than reading?

Will we have to wait for another Stanley Royd disaster before we get some action?

I am aware of the outbreak last August. However, if the hon. Gentleman reads the whole report —as I am sure he has, and I appreciate his concern for the welfare of people in his constituency—he will see that nowhere in the report do the environmental health officers suggest that the outbreak of salmonella poisoning was caused by any problems with food preparation in the kitchens at that prison. Other remedial suggestions were put forward and have been taken account of by prison authorities. The prison was inspected independently by our environmental health officers on 25 November.

Does my hon. Friend recall that it was the present Government who removed Crown immunity from National Health Service hospitals, and that the principle has therefore been established? Has it not proved satisfactory and worked in the interests of the service? Will he reflect on what he has said and perhaps consider the question again?

I always reflect on what my hon. Friend says. I can only say that all the prison service environmental health officers are trained to the same level as local authority environmental health officers, and inspections are carried out to exactly the same high standard. It does not strike me that there is much difference between a service conducted by a group of long-established people who have given good service to the prison department, and one conducted by others who happen to be in a local authority.

Is the Minister aware that both Mr. Jim Kay, of the Prison Officers Association, and I were incredulous last week when Lord Caithness told us that conditions in British prisons, despite Crown immunity, were up to standard in regard to food hygiene, health and safety? Would he care to go on record as saying that that is the official Home Office position?

My noble Friend Lord Caithness had the opportunity last week to see the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. They were told quite clearly that the Home Office view is that to provide food to a reasonable standard is a very important part of providing a good prison regime. That is what the Home Office consistently tries to do, and that includes and involves all related environmental health issues.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with members of the broadcasting authorities to discuss violence in television.

At a meeting on 29 September the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA made it clear to my right hon. Friend that the broadcasting authorities share the public concern on this issue and are taking further action to tighten up the enforcement of programme standards. This includes, a more selective approach to material produced abroad and improved arrangements for checking and reviewing programmes.

Will my hon. Friend state from the Dispatch Box the absolutely unequivocal truth about the connection between what people see on television and how they behave, because that is now clearly established? Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the violent television programmes are of foreign, and in particular United States, origin? Will he bring that fact to the attention of the IBA and the BBC?

Personally, I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend recently announced the setting up of the Broadcasting Standards Council. It will not be a regulatory body, but it could conduct research into precisely that point — the connection between violence shown on the television screen and violence in the real world outside.

In the Chancellor's Autumn Statement: he said that there would be substantial additional resources for the police. I wonder whether the Home Secretary could tell me when we may see—

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking about the broadcasting authorities, which is the subject of Question 5?

When my hon. Friend met the broadcasting authorities, was he able to suggest to them that if the proceedings of this House were to be televised, those who are charged with the duty of curbing violence on television would face an even more impossible task than that which they so manifestly fail to carry out already?

I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity. He is an expert on broadcasting, and doubtless he will make that point in any future debate on televising the proceedings of the House.

I suspect that the House will want to take this matter more seriously than does the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). Does the Minister agree that it would be quite proper to request the BBC to change its decision to start showing the three-part series "The Marksman", which was withdrawn immediately after the violence at Hungerford? The pain and distress that would be caused by that film, which I understand concerns a character who goes round blowing people apart in order to get what he considers to be vengeance, would hit immediately those families in Hungerford and elsewhere who have been involved in shooting incidents.

I understand very clearly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He will appreciate that it is not the job of Ministers to second-guess the decisions of the broadcasting authorities with regard to the interpretation of their statutory obligations regarding programming, but I have no doubt that the broadcasting authorities will bear very carefully in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to amend the Obscene Publications Act; and if he will make a statement.

We shall ask Parliament, as promised in our manifesto, to remove from the Obscene Publications Act 1959 the exemption for broadcasting.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his response. Is he aware that there is widespread concern in the country that at the moment the Obscene Publications Act applies only to the written word? Should not urgent consideration be given to extending it to the visual media, particularly bearing in mind the amount of violence on television, from which many criminals get their ideas, since violent crime is essentially imitative?

I should make the point to my hon. Friend that the Obscene Publications Act is by no means a dead letter. Between 1980 and 1986 there were nearly 1,800 convictions for offences under the Act. We intend to remove the broadcasting exemption and incorporate it into the Broadcasting Bill, which we shall bring before Parliament as soon as we can. Unfortunately, that will not be during this Session but we shall do it as soon as we can.

When the Minister produces this exemption, will he bear in mind the number of occasions when the Prime Minister appears on television supporting the building of Trident at a cost of £11 billion, which involves a threat of mass extermination of millions of men, women and children—

Order. The hon. Gentleman might have been more in order on the last question, not on this one.

Murder is obscene.

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the rules are.

The hon. Gentleman's remarks remind us that the extreme Left is alive and kicking. It is doubtless that sort of remark that the broadcasting authorities will have to think about when deciding about the televising of Parliament.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer to the main question about the extension of the Obscene Publications Act will be welcomed in my constituency, where it is considered essential? When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the BBC and IBA, will he remind them that Mr. Michael Grade — who seems to straddle both organisations — was recently converted to the extension of the Obscence Publications Act, and will he recommend that the authorities should support what my right hon. Friend is doing in the House?

I thank my hon. Friend for that support. I have noted what he said about the conversion of Mr. Michael Grade to this point of view. There is a general wish among Conservative Members to remove the exemption for broadcasting authorities from the Obscene Publications Act as soon as we can.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consideration of the third report of the Home Affairs Committee on the state and use of prisons; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's reply is published today.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his rapid response to my question. For the benefit of those who have not yet read it, and in the interests of prisoners, staff and potential victims of future crime, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is pointless building more prisons without doing something about the conditions of existing ones? Bearing in mind that the Committee recommend the phasing out of Crown immunity, and bearing in mind also the earlier answer of the Minister of State today, is it not an appalling contribution to the rule of law that the Government should wish to evade responsibility for legal requirements?

My hon. Friend has already answered the point about Crown immunity. We are interested in making progress, not only to multiply prison places — I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman — but in particular to introduce modern sanitation where there is none today. We are pressing ahead with that and we have had substantial sums of money from the Treasury for that purpose. It is not a whit advanced by removing Crown immunity or by a minimum code of standards.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that prison officers' representatives and management at Northeye prison welcome the principle of Fresh Start, but say that it cannot properly be put into practice until the agreed staffing levels are met?

We are recruiting a substantial number of extra prison staff this year — 750 — to meet the Fresh Start reforms. Fresh Start involves each establishment working out new and more sensible ways of doing its job. That requires an adjustment and is bound to produce a certain amount of controversy. We are currently evaluating manpower requirements.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on what action he intends to take in regard to those living in the United Kingdom who are alleged to have committed Nazi crimes in the last war.

We are urgently considering the policy and legal implications of documents provided by the Simon Wiesenthal centre. I hope to be able to announce our conclusions soon.

I appreciate what the Home Secretary has just said, but would it not be quite wrong if those held responsible for the most monstrous Nazi war crimes were allowed to get away scot-free because they happened to be living in the United Kingdom? Therefore, is not the real choice for the Government that of changing the law on extradition, as we have been urging on the Irish Government on another matter, or allowing legal proceedings to take place in this country?

The truth is that we have no jurisdiction as things stand over crimes, however serious, committed overseas by individuals who were not British citizens at that time, nor is there, under present arrangements or likely arrangements, a possibility of extradition; nor can there be any thorough further investigation without jurisdiction. We have to decide whether we should assert jurisdiction by a change in the law, and if so how that should be defined. That is far from easy. The ethical and legal considerations are very serious and do not all point in the same way. We are considering how to proceed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however much we detest the perpetrators of war crimes, we should not institute extraordinary legal changes to enable mere allegations to be pursued?

The difficulty is that it is hard to pursue beyond the stage of mere allegations when there is no jurisdiction. There is certainly no question of creating crimes or offences retrospectively. It is a question of the width of our jurisdiction over crimes that are recognised by everyone as crimes.

When massive evidence is accruing about crimes committed during the war as in the case of Gecas in Edinburgh, will we tolerate a situation where a trial needs to take place to let us all know whether the crimes have been committed, or will we leave a man like that and apparently 16 others in this country and do nothing about them after all that we think they have done?

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not listened to the exchanges over the past two minutes. I have set out the considerations and the options that we are considering.

Will my right hon. Friend please be extremely wary on this issue and take note of the fact that the supporters of this particular proposal are motivated, not by justice, but by the demands of propaganda? Will he also be aware of the fact that many of his hon. Friends would be extremely concerned if he were to pursue such legislation, which would, in effect, be retrospective?

The question is how we deal with extremely serious allegations. I do not want to repeat myself, in case I get the balance slightly different, but I have set out deliberately all the considerations. We must be very cautious about this, because the considerations either way are very serious. As soon as we have reached a conclusion we shall let the House know.

If the Home Secretary announces jurisdictional changes in due course, will he also consider the necessity of announcing specific funds so that proper police investigations can be carried out into the allegations that have been made?

Any change would certainly produce costs. There is no doubt about that. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman or anyone else would think that that consideration should be decisive.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the degree to which autocrime features in the overall crime statistics; and what steps his Department is taking to combat this problem.

Thefts of and from vehicles represent some 25 per cent, of all recorded offences. Most car crime is either avoidable or preventable. We have made determined efforts to get that message across to motorists and manufacturers. Last week the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention decided to establish a widely representative working group on car crime which will review the subject and produce recommendations before this time next year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. Does he recall that autocrime is now one of the fastest growing crimes in this country, if not the fastest? Is he further aware of the amount of police time currently spent investigating those crimes? Will he therefore contact again the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in an endeavour to persuade it to make cars and vehicles generally more secure than is currently the case? Will he also have discussions with the insurers to persuade them to give lower premiums to car owners who adequately protect their vehicles?

My hon. Friend is quite right. It seems to be a British disease not to lock cars when leaving them. About 20 per cent, of stolen cars seem to be left unlocked by motorists. That means that the police spend up to 1 million man hours a year investigating car-related crime, and that time could be spent investigating more serious crimes.

Now that Thames Valley police have admitted that they have one of the highest rates of reported crime per officer in the whole of the south of England, and now that the Minister himself has admitted that there has been a long period of neglect, is it not time that the Home Secretary responded positively to the demands for the 700 additional policemen needed to deal with crimes in the Thames Valley area? Is not Ministers' indifference to those demands disgraceful in the context of escalating crime in the Thames valley?

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is not aware —he cannot have been listening carefully enough—that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was referring to the long and sustained period of neglect of the police by the last Labour Administration. Here are some of the guilty men on the Opposition Front Bench.

Given the mobility of the criminal today, what new initiatives is the Home Office taking to ensure that women are free to walk without fear of abuse and rape—[Interruption.]

Order.

What will be done to ensure that women can walk freely—[Interruption.]—without—

Order. The hon. Member must not persist when I rise. This question is about autocrime.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the present legal restrictions on the possession and use of firearms; and if he will make a statement.

We have received some 900 letters from right hon. and hon. Members, and over 4,500 from members of the public, including secretaries of rifle and pistol clubs. We have also received correspondence from shooting organisations, police and local authority representatives and a number of other bodies with an interest in the review of firearms controls. Although many, but not all, shooting interests oppose some of the proposals that we have announced, they seem otherwise to have been well received generally.

Yesterday the Home Secretary told the House that he saw no reason for clamping down on the sale of legitimate items by mail order. Will the Minister tell the House which potentially lethal weapons he thinks can be legitimately sold by mail order and what steps the Government intend to take to ensure that such weapons do not find their way into the hands of individuals who may cause a threat to public order?

The important thing is to get the controls themselves right, and that we have done. Mail order is simply a technique for selling, and there is no particular reason for tackling a particular technique.

Is the Minister aware that since the White Paper was published yesterday many Norfolk farmers and legitimate sportsmen have contacted me to express their concern about the legitimate use of guns in their sport? Will the Minister undertake that their sporting freedom will not be impaired?

We have very much in mind the legitimate interests of the shooting community. That is why we introduced the checks. When we come to consider the meaning of "good reason" in the context of shotgun control, we shall give such guidance as will protect the legitimate interests of my hon. Friend's constituents.

On the basis of the number of legally held guns and stolen legally held guns used to commit murders in the past few years, how many lives does the Minister expect his proposals to save, and on what authority does he base any such estimate?

We are in the business of reducing risk. That is what this country expects of us.

Is my hon. Friend aware that all those who use guns legally will be delighted with the way in which our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has struck such an excellent balance on these difficult proposals? Does he agree that it is very much his Department's duty to monitor the proposals carefully— in particular their effect on gun clubs?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer is yes, Sir.

On 26 October the hon. Gentleman expressly ruled out the application of the good reason criteria to shotguns. Is that not now Government policy?

The right hon. Gentleman was not listening on 26 October. I expressly ruled out section 1 control. The present proposals are different.

Will my hon. Friend explain why he has decided to omit from his review the function of proof houses? Will he explain why proof houses, which were successfully privatised in the 17th century, and, to the mystery of gunmakers, are still relevant to the debate, should be excluded from any kind of control, when every gun in the country has to be proofed in one of the two houses in Birmingham and London?

For present purposes we are looking at the Firearms Act 1968. My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point about proof houses, and I look forward to discussing the matter with him.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) men and (b) women have been charged with and convicted of shoplifting during the most recent 12 months for which records are available.

In 1986, 48,188 men and 25,157 women were proceeded against for theft from shops, and 42,142 men and 22,092 women were found guilty of such an offence.

Bearing in mind that many of those who were found guilty had pleaded guilty and that, of those who pleaded innocent, a majority were acquitted, will the Minister accept that there is a great risk of innocent people in self-service stores being prosecuted for shoplifting through mere forgetfulness and carelessness? As such a risk is at its height during the present Christmas shopping period, will he warn shoppers to take great care so that they do not spend Christmas in fear? Will he also advise those who are responsible for prosecuting to be especially careful about how they deal with the elderly and the ill in such matters?

I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's long-standing interest in the subject. Theft is theft. If people are found guilty of theft, they must be punished for theft. People can be found guilty only if the prosecution is able to prove dishonesty. The Attorney-General's guidelines to the police tell them how to handle elderly, confused or forgetful people.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will hold an inquiry into the management of Risley remand centre in the light of recent deaths at the centre.

No, but as I said in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 1 December, Risley is to be inspected next year by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons, and we shall be studying his report with particular care. Each such incident is carefully analysed to see whether there are any lessons to be learnt.

Is the Minister aware that the deaths of Audrey Bergman, James Armstrong and Evan Evans took place in a short period between 25 July and 27 August? Does he know that all of them were depressed and that the two male prisoners had obviously tried earlier to take their lives? Will he ask his colleague the Secretary of State to agree to an early meeting with me and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who has a constituency interest, so that we may express in more depth the case for a public inquiry? Such a public inquiry would help to relieve the parents'suffering and also help to relieve public disquiet over Risley.

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to him in the last day or so offering a meeting between my noble Friend Lord Caithness, who is the Minister with responsibility for prisons, and himself and the hon. Member for Caernarfon.

Is the Minister aware that, a month before his death, Evan Evans had written to Caernarfon saying that he intended to take his own life? Is he further aware that his girl friend had written to prison authorities telling them of the danger of suicide, and that they lost the letter? In the circumstances, surely there should be a public inquiry as a matter of urgency, so that there will be no further incidents of that sort? Will he pass on the message to his right hon. Friend about the meeting with the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and myself? The matter must be pursued at the highest level.

These matters can be looked into when the hon. Gentlemen call on my noble Friend Lord Caithness to discuss the issue. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that guidelines on the prevention of suicide in prisons and remand centres were laid down only in March this year by the prison department.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a decision on the applications he has received from Nottinghamshire police authority regarding the strengthening of the county constabulary.

My right hon. Friend expects to reach a decision before the end of the month.

Is the Minister aware that earlier his hon. Friend the Minister of State made certain allegations about the decline of the police service under the previous Labour Government? Will he support Nottinghamshire county council, which is a Labour-controlled county council, in its plea for more police officers so that we can reduce the 35 per cent, increase in crime in Nottingham that has taken place under the law and order Government since 1979?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will be glad to know that since 1979 the total manpower available to the police service has increased by 19,000. On the second part of his question, he will also be glad to know that since 1979 the constabulary to which he has referred has had an increase of 114 in terms of new establishment.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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 departing later today for Copenhagen to attend the European Council.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Ministers have admitted that, on the introduction of the poll tax in 1990, slightly more households will lose than will gain, but that people living in the gainer households number 14·2 million, whereas adults living in loser households number 18·8 million in England alone? Where is the majority support for that idea? Is it in the Cabinet of gainers, or in the country of losers?

As a way of paying for local government the community charge will expand the base of payment to people who do not pay at present, but who we feel should contribute to paying for local government when they benefit enormously from the services that local government provides. We all pay income tax and VAT —[Interruption.] Most people pay income tax, but not all. All pay value added tax, and some pay rates as well, but rates have far too narrow a base.

During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend ensure that if Post Office workers go on strike the Government will immediately suspend the Post Office's monopoly in order to avoid suffering to millions of people in the build-up to Christmas, the time of good will?

If need be, we shall suspend the monopoly of the Post Office. I understand that a meeting is continuing this afternoon between the unions and management. I hope that they will reach a sensible settlement, because to attempt to go on strike at this time of the year would be totally and utterly cruel to business, which relies on the postal service at this time of the year, and totally heartless to all the people who make contact with one another by Christmas cards and presents.

Before the pay review body considers nurses' pay and the important question of regrading, and in view of the serious shortages in many of the specialties of nursing, will the Prime Minister now give an undertaking that, this time, the Government will fund the whole of the nurses' pay award and any costs that result from regrading?

The restructuring proposals are not yet ready to go to the review body. If they are agreed they will, of course, go to the review body, which did not exist under the previous Labour Government. When the proposals come from the review body, we shall consider them in the usual way and consider also the financial arrangements for any proposals that may be made. In the meantime, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, next year in the United Kingdom there will be an increase in resources of about £1·1 billion for the National Health Service.

In view of the scale of anxiety and indeed of the crisis in the supply of nurses in many areas, and in view of the fact that the health authorities simply do not have the money to fund a regrading or any significant award, will the Prime Minister take the unusual step this year of giving guidance to that pay body and ensuring that when it does make an award there really is money to pay the nurses? Does she not realise that it would be both stupid and cruel to ask the health authorities to pay the nurses' award out of cuts and closures in hospitals wards?

I will prejudge neither the evidence to the review body nor what it says as a consequence. We stand very much on our record on the Health Service and the 64,000 more nurses that we now have. In the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency the increase in Health Service funding was 6 per cent, in real terms over the whole period of the last Labour Government, whereas it has risen by 20 per cent, under us. So Gwent will be very pleased.

Does the Prime Minister not realise yet that neither nurses nor patients are interested in the past, but are interested in the future? [Interruption.] The jeering from the Tory Benches is only further evidence of the fact that, by going private, they manifest total ignorance of what the nurses and patients feel. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the awards are to be funded properly, or are to be paid for out of further closures?

I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman. The trouble is that he does not listen. But let me say that the last thing that nurses want is to be back under a Labour Government, to have their pay cut.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to write to the Leader of the Opposition and invite him, on behalf of his constituents, to seek to ensure that in the forthcoming contest for the leadership of the miner's union the vote is carried out—[Interruption.]

Order. That is not a part of the Prime Minister's responsibility.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will arrange for the early release of non-classified records in relation to the Westland affair.

No. All records relating to Westland will be dealt with in the normal way in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Acts.

Did Mr. Charles Powell really fail to inform his Prime Minister of the role of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

As I have told the House and the hon. Gentleman on many occasions, I have nothing to add to the many statements and speeches that I have made in detail on this whole matter. Nothing to add.

Does my right hon. Friend think that there is any relationship between the obsessions of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) with the Westland affair, the Belgrano and various other matters, and the fact that, of all the Labour candidates in Scotland at the general election, he had one of the worst results?

Order. That has nothing to do with this question, which is about the Westland affair.

When the Prime Minister set up the inquiry, did she know that it was an official leak?

I have already said that I have nothing further to add to the detailed statements and speeches which have gone into great detail and which have been given to the House. There is nothing further to add to those statements.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when evidence on Westland was given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I had the honour to be Chairman at the time, there was never at any time any qualification about the standard of the information given, nor did we find any withheld?

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to explain her reasons for believing that, under electricity privatisation, the free market should not be allowed to decide whether a new generation of nuclear power stations would be a viable proposition?

I believe that that point has already been dealt with in extenso by the Sizewell inquiry. As well as being a viable proposition, other matters are also involved. Obviously one wants electricity power stations generated on different bases, some from coal, some from gas, some from oil and some from nuclear power. That is much the wisest course of action.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, today, she takes with her to Copenhagen the good wishes of everyone on the Conservative Benches? It is crucial for the interests of farming communities as well as taxpayers and consumers that some sense is brought to the European Community budget.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall be going to Copenhagen for what will undoubtedly be a very difficult meeting, but it is vital that we address, and attempt to solve, with determination, the question of surplus agricultural products, the question of sound financial discipline and, of course, that we maintain our Fontainebleau abatement, which has served this country very well.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will take steps to seek to alter the current practice of Ministers at Question Time reading from prepared briefs.

I refer my hon. Friend — the hon. Gentleman—sorry.

The people who listen on the radio to Prime Minister's Question Time will not be aware that the Prime Minister does not answer questions off the cuff, but reads her answers from a prepared brief. Is that because the Prime Minister does not have the wit to answer the questions, or is it because she has no confidence in her policies?—[Interruption.]

Order. Briefly.

Is the reason the Prime Minister does not want television cameras in this Chamber that people would see the Prime Minister and Prime Minister's Question Time for the sham that they both are?

As the hon. Gentleman has referred to broadcasting, I hope that people will also have the wit to know that one does not have a clue what will come out from the other side at all and I hope — [Interruption.] I do not know if anything of any value will come out from the other side, but just in case there should be anything of value one does take a great deal of trouble to try to provide statistics and to provide the facts. It is the facts that Opposition Members cannot stand. The reason why I do not want television is that I am afraid that people would see too much of what the other side are really like, and that would not enhance the reputation of this House.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to congratulate our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the accord that he announced yesterday on the subject of Gibraltar? That accord does not involve any loss of sovereignty and will lead to better relationships with Spain and cheaper air fares throughout Europe.

Yes, congratulations are very much in order to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on negotiating this agreement, which will be of great benefit to Europe in terms of cheaper air fares and air liberalisation. That accord has been agreed without any derogation from the sovereignty of Gibraltar and gives the Gibraltarians the possibility of joining that agreement if they wish to do so.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the decision of the Government of the Irish Republic to refer extradition applications from the United Kingdom to their Attorney-General will make extradition from the Irish Republic to the United Kingdom an extremely political act? Does the Prime Minister further agree that it allows the Government of the Irish Republic to increase pressure for judicial change in the United Kingdom in exchange for such extraditions? During her pleasant flight this afternoon, will the Prime Minister reflect that such a power would not be created by the Irish Government if it was not their intention to use it?

On the last occasion that I answered from the Dispatch Box I answered a question about the extradition arrangements. The old extradition arrangements that we had were excellent and fair. Neither side looked through the warrant. They accepted the warrant and the fact that when a warrant was presented there was evidence and intention to prosecute. I believe that the arrangements now — the measures that have recently gone through the Dail in the Republic—are a step backwards, because they undo that most excellent arrangement. I made it clear that extradition will be more difficult. I see no reason why we, on our side, should ever attempt to make extradition more difficult. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done everything possible, in concert with Europe, to make extradition easier and to ensure that the people against whom there are serious charges are extradited to the country that requires them so that they can be properly and fully tried.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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

In preparing her efforts to ensure common sense in the Common Market at Copenhagen—[Interruption.]—whatever the Opposition may think, my right hon. Friend has the support of the whole country—will she draw encouragement, not only from the backing of public opinion here, but from the support given by the West German people, as shown in a recent public opinion poll?

I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend and of colleagues. It is vital that we tackle the issue of agricultural surpluses in the way proposed by the Commission—by stabilisers for each and every product. The worst thing that could happen would be a message from the European Council that, once again, we had run away from the issue instead of tackling it.