To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce direct elections to police authorities.

We have no plans to change the existing arrangements for the constitution of police authorities, where two thirds of the members are local councillors and one third are local magistrates.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent opinion poll only 8 per cent. of the respondents supported the idea that police authorities should consist only of elected members? Is it surprising that the public should resist such an attempt to politicise the police, despite the fact that it is the policy of the Opposition?

As far as I can see, it is the only policy that will appear in Labour's manifesto, in that Labour want fully elected police authorities. There is no popular support for that and there is no evidence that policing is made more effective by tinkering with the membership of the police authority. In my judgment, magistrates add an important element of non-political independence to any police authority and they help to improve the effectiveness of that authority. We remain strongly opposed to bringing police forces under total local political control.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in London there is a majority in favour of Labour's proposal to set up an elected police authority for the Greater London area? We already have one elected police authority in London—in the City of London. Is the Secretary of State further aware that the proposal is welcomed not only by the majority of Londoners, but by all the senior officers of Scotland Yard? What has he got to say to that?

The hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents that opinion of senior police officers of the Metropolitan police. I know perfectly well that when he was chairman of the Greater London council he wanted an elected police authority, and I think that he wanted to be chairman of it—

No.

I can think of nothing more damaging to law and order in the metropolis than having the hon. Gentleman as chairman of such an authority.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary has just misled the House. He is a liar.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that comment, even though I was on my feet.

If the Secretary of State withdraws his allegation, I will withdraw my accusation.

Order. No ifs and buts, please.

I called the Home Secretary a liar. It is true and I regret it.

That compounds the offence. The hon. Gentleman must not call an hon. Member a liar.

I withdraw it, Sir.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extra police expenditure resulting from the War Crimes Act 1991.

Additional police expenditure associated with the War Crimes Act 1991 is estimated at £930,000 for 1991–92.

On reflection, does my right hon. Friend agree that precious police resources—the figure of £2 million has been mentioned—should not be used on vindictive, Soviet or Israeli-type show trials which are bound to be a travesty of British justice as practised by this country for a long time? Should not the money be used instead to deal with rapists, murderers and muggers in my constituency and in other parts of Greater London today?

There are two points there. I respect my hon. Friend's strong personal feelings, but I point out to him that Parliament has expressed its view very strongly. It is now up to those charged with the duty of investigating alleged crimes to do so. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that no Government have brought the police force to such a level as this Conservative Government have done. It is better manned, it has more resources and it is better equipped than any police force in British history.

I totally disagree with what the Minister said about police resources. We know only too well of the crime wave in this country.

I appreciate the effect that the hon. Gentleman's visit, of which I was not aware, must have had on him. Parliament has already expressed its view that investigations should proceed and, if necessary, prosecutions should be brought. It is then a matter for due process of law before a trial judge and jury as to whether people are found guilty and punished.

Is it not time to cease the spiteful vendetta against a group of pathetic old people who really have nothing left to offer?

Again, I respect my hon. Friend's strongly held personal views, but Parliament has expressed its views and I cannot add anything to the answer that I gave to the two previous questions.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information on drug shipments and drug seizures from illegal traffic from European countries and from other countries is shared with United Kingdom, European countries and other interested organisations.

Responsibility for combating drug trafficking is shared between Her Majesty's Custom and Excise and the police service. There are close and developing links with other European countries and elsewhere. In some of those countries, those links are enhanced by the posting or exchange of drugs liaison officers. Effective exchange of information is essential, and we devote considerable efforts to that. The United Kingdom also plays a full role in the work of international organisations—in particular, Interpol and the Customs Co-operation Council.

I am sure that the Minister will congratulate Customs and Excise on the record seizures of drugs that it has undertaken. Nevertheless, heroin is still coming into this country at an increasing rate, and something must be done to control it. In view of the recent "Dispatches" television programme, has the Minister conducted an inquiry into how the police, Customs and Excise and the security services work together and how they share information with other countries so as to reduce the hard drugs problem that each and every hon. Member sees weekly in his or her constituency?

I agree that it is a serious problem—and not, I hope, one for party political debate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that co-operation between the services—customs and the police at frontiers and at ports of entry —is very close indeed. Her Majesty's Government are doing all that they possibly can to cut off overland supplies of heroin, in particular, coming along the so-called Balkan route. In the next few months, with British taxpayers' money, we shall be setting up a national drugs intelligence unit in Czechoslovakia to try to intercept drugs coming overland. We hope shortly to do the same in Hungary.

Would it not be a good idea if the airlines, when checking in passengers in those countries from which large quantities of drugs come to this country, were to hand each passenger a paper in his or her own language clearly explaining that if they bring drugs into the United Kingdom they are likely to be caught and, if they are caught, they are likely to go away for a very long time indeed?

That is an interesting thought from my hon. Friend and I shall pursue it. The effect on anyone flying into Kuala Lumpur and hearing a Malaysian Airlines hostess saying, "You are about to land in Kuala Lumpur: if you bring drugs into our country, the penalty is death by hanging" must be very salutary indeed. We do not have that penalty, but we have life imprisonment—which means between 20 to 30 years in the case of some of those convicted in the most serious cases. The notice to which my hon. Friend referred is a very good idea indeed.

The Minister of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the shadow Home Secretary?"] My right hon. Friend is presenting awards at an important lunch. The Minister of State does not want to make this a political issue, but I want to make two important political points. It is all very well for the Government to pretend to mount a campaign against drugs and drug imports, but at the same time they have allowed another Department, the Treasury—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear—to cut 400 customs officer jobs. Customs officers are the front-line troops. They are the people who stop drugs flowing into Britain. The Government have also allowed the Port of London police to be privatised What does that do for the campaign against drug imports?

What a rant—the hon. Gentleman gives his well-known imitation of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), but without the charm and lightness of touch. The Government are spending about half a billion pounds per year dealing with the serious international problems caused by drug traffickers trying to bring drugs into Britain. I would hope for a little bipartisan support for the sort of work done, for example, by our drugs liaison officers abroad, who have brought about such successful seizures of heroin and other drugs in recent months.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on new initiatives undertaken by car manufacturers as part of his strategy to defeat car crime.

I am glad to report that in the past few months we have made real progress with the car manufacturers. I have had three meetings with them and our manufacturers are committed to improving the security of their cars and, in particular, introducing immobilising devices, deadlocks and visible identification numbers. Much has been done in the past few months, but more needs to be done. I am meeting the manufacturers again early in March.

I welcome the moves made so far by my right hon. Friend to encourage manufacturers to make cars more defensible. Will he undertake to include the insurance industry in his fight against car crime and encourage it to give financial incentives by way of lower premiums to owners who improve the security of their vehicles?

I have had two meetings with the Association of British Insurers. At the first, there was not much co-operation, but I am glad to say that in October the association announced a scheme similar to that which my hon. Friend suggested—to offer discounts to certain car owners who have security devices fitted when the car is being made in the factory. It has also introduced excess payments for when goods are stolen from people's cars. That is a beginning, but I expect the insurance industry to do much more in helping to reduce car crime.

Is the Secretary of State aware that any measures taken to increase car security will be welcome in Northern Ireland, where stolen vehicles are so often used in terrorist murders and other such crimes? Will he also ask the manufacturers to consider the possibility of installing devices to enable stolen cars to be traced, so that if a terrorist murder is committed the police can get on the track quickly?

I acknowledge that in Northern Ireland cars are used extensively for terrorist activities, quite apart from normal criminal activities to support terrorism. On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I am glad to say that work is being done on such devices so that we can trace cars more effectively. All those measures must be taken because cars are now involved in 30 per cent. of all crime. Unfortunately, that is a record unique to Britain. We have a uniquely high level of car crime and we must all do something to reduce it.

Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of that car crime is carried out by juveniles and how many of them come into the category of persistent offenders?

A large proportion of car crime is carried out by young males between the ages of 12 and 22. I must ask my right hon. Friend to wait for an answer to his question about persistent offenders. I shall be making a statement in the next few days about offending while on bail.

It must be six years since the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) first met the manufacturers. Since then, there have been about half a dozen glitzy launches—featuring among others, the Home Secretary grinning into the television cameras, telling us that something was going to be done some time. Is it not time that the Government forced the pace and, if necessary, made regulations requiring manufacturers to incorporate safety procedures? We do that regularly for aviation safety matters. Why cannot the Government force the pace, make real progress and do something about reducing what the Home Secretary acknowledges is the fastest growing crime?

Progress is being made. Significant changes have been made during the past few months. As a result of my promptings, car manufacturers are committed to introducing immobilising devices on all new cars by the end of the year. In addition, I have put the matter on the agenda for the Ministers of the Interior of our partners in Europe, because I want a European standard with tighter security applying to all cars made in Europe and sold in this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current annual budget of the national drugs intelligence unit.

The annual budget for 1991–92 is £5·2 million.

Does the Minister agree that something must be done to control imports of the drug known as Ecstasy, which is not merely creeping into schools in London but has reached teenagers in my constituency in south Devon? Is he aware that that drug is not grown on some poppy field in South America but that 98 per cent. of it is manufactured in Holland, which is one of our EC partners? The Dutch have been very lax in dealing with that. What does my right hon. Friend think that we could do to stop the drug being imported into this country, or arranging some reciprocal arrangement whereby we would stop importing Dutch cheese or some such thing?

I do not know about that kind of radical suggestion, but the police were very successful last year in closing down four domestic manufacturers of Ecstasy—hence the fact that most of the drug being sold on our streets comes from abroad, some from continental Europe. That is why it is so important that, as one of the conclusions of the Maastricht settlement, it was agreed that the 12 countries should set up an organisation loosely known as Europol whose first job would be to set up a Europeanwide drugs intelligence unit among the Twelve, which should lead to a greater level of co-operation with our continental partners to stop Ecstasy and other drugs coming into the country.

How do we know that the drugs enforcement authorities are doing their job when there is no point at which they are democratically accountable to elected people? Is that not a pertinent question in the context of the millions of pounds worth of drugs on the streets throughout the United Kingdom? Where is the process of accountability whereby elected people can ask questions such as, "What are you doing to stop it?"

There are thousands of police officers in the 17 drugs wings who are accountable to the police authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I come to this place to answer questions about them. Also we have democratic accountability for the customs service, which is deeply involved. Occasionally it is important to ensure that people are protected, such as the brave police officers, both men and women—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has not time to listen—who serve abroad as drugs liaison officers on difficult and dangerous work. We should support them and not seek to undermine them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have lost a young constituent to one Ecstasy tablet? It is a killer drug. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the charity Release is putting out the leaflet that I have here, which dupes young people into the belief that Ecstasy is somehow not a harmful drug? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to withdraw all Government funding for that organisation until it sends a clear message to young people about drugs—"No, no, and no"?

I shall read carefully the evidence that my hon. Friend will probably wish to send me about the document to which he referred. I agree entirely that Ecstasy is a drug which can kill. The first reported death was in 1989 and there were five deaths last year. Ecstasy kills because it affects the respiratory system and causes lung failure and hence death. Also clear evidence is emerging that, unfortunately, long-term psychotic effects may be involved. That is why we are absolutely determined to make sure that the advice that reaches young people is correct. My hon. Friend is right to put his finger on advice that he thinks is wrong. That is why I give a clear undertaking that our answer to pleas to legalise the use of soft drugs will be no, no, and no again.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of ranting and raving as I am always the sweet face of reason.

I enjoyed the hon. Lady's charmed offensive and I would never in any circumstances dream of comparing her with her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the civilianisation of police clerical posts.

In the past eight years, some 5,400 police officers have been freed for operational policing duties by civilianising posts which do not require the powers or skills of a police officer, representing an efficiency gain of around £100 million per year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Will he extend his congratulations to the West Midlands police, who have civilianised 413 posts since 1985? Does not that suggest how we can release police officers to duties within the community at very little cost to the police authority?

I certainly extend my congratulations to the West Midlands police. It has done well and civilianised 73 per cent. of the posts identified, but, even though it has done very well, it has somewhat further to go.

In the light of the 86 per cent. increase in robberies on Merseyside in the past 13 years, does the Minister agree that the freeing of police officers through the civilianisation of posts should give Merseyside police the chance to put more policemen back on to the beat? Does he further agree that there is a need to reopen neighbourhood police stations and to put more emphasis on community policing?

The hon. Gentleman is right about the benefits from civilianisation. That suggests to me that he supports the policy of sector policing that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put his weight behind. That policy means that the police identify with the local community that they serve.

In parallel with civilianisation of the police, will my hon. Friend ensure that instructions are given to all chief constables to increase further the designation of special constables and to increase the special constabulary, which would lead to more bobbies on the beat? Is that not the best discouragement to crime and an encouragement to those elderly people who fear being attacked on the streets?

Our objective is that the number of special constables should equal about 20 per cent. of the regular police force. The campaigns that we have been conducting are moving in that direction because special constables have a particularly valuable part to play.

On the question of police numbers, why has the Minister constantly refused to provide chief constables with the number of police officers that they need to reduce crime? Why do not the Government copy Labour's policy of supporting our police forces by substantially increasing the number of bobbies on the beat in a self-financing fashion?

It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box to suggest that the Government follow Labour's policy. When the Labour Government left office, they left the police force about 7,000 under strength.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to increase the penalties for the unlawful occupation of private or public land by traveller families; and if he will make a statement.

The main criminal penalties for unlawful occupation of land, under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Public Order Act 1986, are fines. The maximum level of all fines will increase when the Criminal Justice Act 1991 takes effect in October.

Does the Minister realise that traveller families pose an immense law and order problem to local authorities and the police, especially in north-west Kent? Will he therefore liaise with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment so that a joint effort can be made to give the law the rigour to prohibit the illegal occupation of public and private land by traveller families?

I well understand, as my county has similar problems involving unlawful occupation of sites by gipsies and other travelling folk. As my hon. Friend implies, the principal Act belongs to the Department of the Environment—the Caravan Sites Act 1968. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recognises that there can be difficulties with that Act and is considering whether a review would be helpful. However, local authorities have had a duty, since 1968, to provide adequate sites for gipsies normally resorting to their area and, where they have done so to the satisfaction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, they have criminal powers to remove illegal campers.

Would it be possible to have another look at the last provision that the Minister mentioned, which imposes on local authorities a duty to provide sites for travellers? Why should they have to facilitate what is, in all its aspects, an anti-social form of life and thus impose a loss on rate and charge payers, who then have to put up with such sites in their neighbourhood?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty of moving on people who lead a nomadic lifestyle when there is nowhere to move them to. As I said, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He is concerned about the issue and I shall draw the remarks that have been made today to his attention.

Is my hon. Friend aware that section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 has proved something of a disappointment in protecting those whose homes are near tracts of land that are habitually invaded by travellers? Does he agree that those peaceful citizens have their rights too, particularly against the disturbance, disorder and disruption that is often brought by those people? Is not further legislation urgently needed?

Section 39 is available for the police to use at their discretion. It was designed to deal with seriously aggravated unlawful occupation, not to undermine the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which is the basic legislation in that area. We have no plans to change section 39. It was recently reviewed and guidance was issued, but we shall examine how that guidance has been used.

While I recognise that the occupation of unofficial sites can cause a severe nuisance to settled communities, surely the Minister must appreciate that the only proper way of dealing with the matter is to enforce the 1968 legislation. How can he justify the fact that, so long after that legislation was introduced, local authorities such as Kirklees and Calderdale have made absolutely no permanent provision with proper facilities to provide proper homes for travelling people?

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. In not getting themselves designated, county councils cause problems for their local residents, as they are unable to achieve the powers that would enable them to deal with unlawful campers.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a decision relating to West Yorkshire police authority's application for a £3.6 million grant from the urban crime fund.

We expect to receive details of applications from all those eligible, including West Yorkshire, later this month, and to make decisions by the end of March.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the residents of West Yorkshire will be pleased to know that a decision on the matter is not too far off? I am sure that every one of them would want that extra money to come to West Yorkshire, as I do. Is not the extra £3·6 million further evidence of the Government's clear commitment to fighting crime? Does not that contrast sharply with the complete mess that the Government inherited from the Labour party in 1979, when there was low police morale, low police pay and the police were way under strength?

My hon. Friend is right. We expect the authorities to come up with imaginative schemes, designed to tackle specific local crime problems, such as kerb crawling, mugging and burglary. If they do, they will certainly bring great benefits to the public in their district.

I am sure that West Yorkshire will welcome any assistance that the schemes can give, and will also appreciate that its rate support grant has increased by 16 per cent., but that does not mean that it can bring its force up to the required standard. Has the Minister any plans to assist the West Yorkshire police authority to enable it to bring its police forces up to the required standard?

Although spending nationally on the police has risen 73 per cent. during this Government's life, in West Yorkshire the figure is 83 per cent. Therefore, the spending in that police authority area is higher than elsewhere, so it does have the resources to police to strength and it will receive additional resources under the arrangements.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that we welcome the £3·6 million in West Yorkshire? Will he ensure that the money is spent throughout the county?

It will be spent throughout the police area, except in those regions that do not come within the urban crime catchment area—

That is the wrong answer.

I am giving my hon. Friend the correct answer; if he has asked the wrong question, that is his problem.

Conservative Central Office does not seem to have got its questions and answers right today. At a time when crime has doubled in this country and is increasing at a rate of 28 per cent. per annum in West Yorkshire, how can a Minister stand in the House and say that it will keep West Yorkshire 154 police officers under strength this year and next year?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened the last time we had Home Office questions he would know perfectly well that the standard spending assessment has been set in West Yorkshire to enable it to employ police officers up to the full establishment. The problem in West Yorkshire is that it costs more there to put a police man on the beat, and the authority spends more per head of the population. If its cost effectiveness was equal to that of the average police authority, it would be able to recruit up to full establishment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of Derek Bentley.

The report which I have received from the police is receiving careful consideration. I shall decide as soon as I can whether any action on my part is appropriate in this case.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he recall that it is now 40 years since that unfortunate and backward youth was hanged? Does he accept that not only that youth's family but many other people have a total lack of comprehension as to how someone could be hanged in this country when he was in police custody when the gun was fired and the unfortunate police officer was killed by another person? Although it is 40 years since the incident, I urge my right hon. Friend to give urgent consideration to the case because the suffering of Derek Bentley's family continues day in and day out.

I appreciate the importance of the case and the public interest in it. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has taken new evidence which has been received and is being assessed by my Department. It will then be submitted to me and I shall review not only that evidence but all the earlier evidence, the reports of the trial and all the voluminous other aspects of the case. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do that as soon as I can.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on raising this issue. Has the Home Secretary considered exercising his powers of a posthumous pardon in this case? If he has, will he explain why he decided not to act? Secondly, I urge him to make the best possible speed in this matter because for many of us it represents the most dreadful stain on our criminal justice system.

The material new facts that have emerged involve new evidence from certain officers who were present on the night of the crime and who witnessed certain things. That evidence has to be assessed, and when that is done I shall, of course, make a decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions on the future of Sunday trading.

My extensive programme of separate discussions with a wide range of major interest groups on possible ways of reforming the Shops Act 1950 is nearing completion. For the present, there remain great differences between the groups. Once the legal position of the Shops Act 1950 in relation to Community law is clear, I hope to be in a position to recommend a way forward to the House.

Is it not by now abundantly obvious to everyone that those organisations that remain implacably opposed to Sunday trading will never agree to any compromise solution to the problem that could be laid before the House and command widespread support? Has not the time come for the Government to commit themselves unequivocally to legislate in the next Parliament so that those who wish to shop on Sunday and exercise their free choice to do so are enabled to do so by total deregulation of the law?

My hon. Friend represents the important views of a number of colleagues. However, another group of people have equally strongly held views, and for that reason it is not as easy as my hon. Friend would have the House believe to introduce legislation that would command total respect in the House.

Does the Minister appreciate that tomorrow there will be an opportunity to ensure that proposals put to the House could be accepted, could go into Committee and could form the basis of discussion for any Government returned on 9 April? 1 know that a Labour Government will be returned and I am sure that that Government will not take as long as from 1986 to the present time, as this Government have, to do something constructive about changing the law and bringing in legislation that could be enforced throughout the country.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's views; I also appreciate the fact that he is presenting a proposal to the House of Commons. I think that he knows that it is difficult for the Government to accept, any proposal before the question of Community law is resolved, and also that his proposals are relatively controversial.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the supermarkets that have recently been opening on Sundays? Does she accept that very few people are totally opposed to Sunday trading, but millions want some form of compromise that recognises the special nature of Sunday?

Many people wish to recognise the special nature of Sunday. Interestingly, however, each time that the topic is raised in the House of Commons, very diverse views are expressed. That, I think, clears the stand that the Government have been taking, and their view that the matter cannot be easily resolved. I share some of my hon. Friend's views, but I do not believe that the House is yet ready to accept a proposal from the Government that will command wide support from a large number of hon. Members.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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.

When the Prime Minister visits Scotland this weekend, will he be big enough to acknowledge that, sooner rather than later, he will have to bow to the wish of the Scottish people for self-determination? Does he not understand that, at a time when even he is forecasting a Europe of up to 30 member states by the end of the century, it is inevitable that the Scottish nation will demand to be a full part of that process of change?

No, Sir. I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. The Union between England and Scotland is greater than the sum of its parts, and always has been. I understand what activates the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that he is profoundly misleading Scotland and treading a path that is damaging Scotland and the Union.

At a time of economic difficulty and rising unemployment across the world, does not this nation—as a great trading nation—need, more than anything else, constant tax policy, the lowest possible income tax and competitive rates of corporation tax? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a disaster to adopt a policy that changed almost from hour to hour under Labour, with no constancy or purpose of any sort?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of clear-cut and low corporate and personal tax rates. I note that the Opposition's tax plans have gone back to the drawing board; after five years of careful preparation, they have been ditched in a period of five weeks. I also note that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—who said, when he took on the job that there would be

"no more phoney shadow Cabinet Budgets"—

Will the Prime Minister confirm that today's official figures show that the British economy is in its longest recession for over 60 years? As the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor before it started and has been Prime Minister throughout its course, is it not clear that he is not only the Prime Minister of recession, but the prime cause of recession?

Before the right hon. Gentleman goes into overdrive, perhaps he will confirm that, in the past three months, industrial production has fallen faster in Germany, faster in France, faster in the United States and faster in Japan than it has in this country; and that, if we take the last year as a whole, industrial production fell more in Japan, and more in Germany, than in the United Kingdom. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that is, if he blames me for everything?

To put it into perspective, let me point out that since 1988 the German economy has grown by 10 per cent. The British economy, under the Conservative Government, has not grown at all. Will the Prime Minister recognise that and stop groping round to try to find excuses for his own failure? Does he recall that it is exactly a year since he told us in this House, "Our policies are working"? Does he recall that in that 12 months the British economy has contracted by 2·5 per cent. and that unemployment has gone up by 750,000? Do not today's figures make it clear that it is official—Majorism isn't working?

As the right hon. Gentleman is now keen to look at a longer period than just the last year, he will also be interested to know that between 1981 and 1991 the British economy grew faster than the German economy, the French economy, the Italian economy or the economy of any other country in Europe. Will he now confirm, since he seems to regard all problems as being entirely domestic, that over the second half of the last year industrial production fell in the United States, in Japan and elsewhere and that Germany's gross domestic product has now declined for three quarters in succession and Germany is in recession? How can this be if, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, it is all a British problem?

In the last 18 months of recession—[Interruption.] British people are not on the dole in Germany; they are on the dole in Britain.

The House will have noted that the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the facts and cannot handle the questions. He may recall that in Germany more than 3 million people are unemployed and he may bear it in mind that a higher proportion of people are in work in this country than in Germany or in any other European country except Denmark. Let me try again to help the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the world is in an economic slow-down, as even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has now acknowledged. That makes domestic politics even more important. That is why we have cut interest rates seven times in a year and halved inflation in a year, have the lowest number of strikes for half a century and have cut the basic rate of tax. As a result of our action, real earnings are rising and we have lower interest rates, lower mortgage rates, lower inflation and the right circumstances for recovery. The people of this country will not let the right hon. Gentleman throw that away.

When my right hon. Friend sees the new Irish Prime Minister soon will he tell him that the biggest contribution the Irish Republic can make to peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is to renounce its claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland, as that claim encourages Irish Republican terrorism and gives it legitimacy, as well as being the strongest stumbling block in the way of all-party talks aimed at constitutional progress?

I have already spoken to the new Taoiseach and we have agreed to meet shortly. I think that we must wait and see what his detailed policies will be, but everything that I have seen and heard suggests that he is certainly very understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. Amendment of the Irish constitution is, of course, a matter for the Republic, but I am glad that it continues to be an issue that could be tackled in fresh political talks.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

Has the Prime Minister had time today to study the Department of Trade and Industry's figures that were released on Tuesday, which showed that over the last five years Chinese quotas for the importation of cashmere garments into the European Community have been exceeded by 500,000 units and that in 1991 the actual importation exceeded the quotas by over 400 per cent? Is the Prime Minister aware that 500,000 cashmere jerseys are worth £75 million to textile communities such as my own in the central borders in Scotland? Will he take a personal interest in stopping this scandalous dumping and make sure that the overshoot is clawed back during the next two years, the time remaining to the EC-Chinese trade agreement?

I am aware of the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises, not least because he was courteous enough to give me an indication of what he was going to mention this afternoon. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into the matter and to contact the hon. Gentleman.

To revert to the Scottish question that was raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has the Prime Minister noted the statement today by the leaders of the financial services industries north of the border that in the event of a measure of devolution or independence, to which the Opposition parties aspire, the likeliest result would be that many of the financial services companies would move south of the border? In his forthcoming visit to Scotland, will the Prime Minister underline the fact that these are matters which the Scottish people should also take into account before moving in the direction Opposition Members would like them to go—in favour of devolution or independence?

I did notice those remarks, which were widely reported this morning. We have made it clear for a long period that we believe that devolution or independence would damage very severely the degree of inward investment into Scotland and the degree of self-generating investment within Scotland as well. The Union has been in the interests of both this country and Scotland for many years, and it remains so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

May I also raise a matter with the Prime Minister, of which I have given him prior notice? It concerns the tragic death on 5 February of six-year-old Carley Reavill who died in hospital of meningitis. That is the reason why I gave the Prime Minister prior notice of the question. She died not because, as the Department of Health says, she was too ill to be moved, but because, according to her paediatrician, Dr. Alison Schurtz, no intensive care hospital bed was available at St. Mary's hospital or Great Ormond Street hospital. Is not that a tragic waste of a life? Does it not provide further evidence for the argument that if money is available it should be spent not on tax cuts but on our health service?

I asked for a report on this tragic case this morning. As the hon. Gentleman has raised it, I reply assuming that he has received the permission of the family for it to be the subject of a public exchange. I am advised that doctors at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital have confirmed that Carley could not have been transferred when the hospital test results showed that she had meningitis and the test results were available within one hour of Carley's admission. Carley's decline, I am informed, was sudden and fast. Medical advice is that paediatric intensive care is unlikely to have arrested this.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of those who live on their income from savings are either widows or those who retired early, very often to look after an elderly dependant? Does he further agree that it would be a grave injustice indeed to put swingeing extra taxes on the savings of these people as a result of the profligacy of socialism?

I believe that such people would find it inexplicable if that were to happen. We have sought to encourage savings by abolishing the investment income surcharge and by introducing tax-exempt special savings accounts. It is the Labour party which wants to increase tax by extending national insurance. Its plans would hit more than 1 million people, three quarters of whom pay tax at the basic rate. So much for the Opposition's promise that no one earning under £20,000 a year would be hit. That promise is worthless and that pledge by the Opposition illustrates why the promise is worthless.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the stabbing to death of the young black schoolboy Rolan Adams and in the year since then 15 black families—council tenants and owner-occupiers—have been driven out of their homes on the Thamesmead estate. The campaign, including a fire-bombing, has been orchestrated by the local headquarters of the British National party. Is there anything that the Government can do to change those events? Will the Prime Minister support the unanimous decision by Greenwich Conservative councillors to support the demonstration called by the Anti-Racist Alliance for Saturday at noon in Plumstead High street to demand the closure of the British National party headquarters?

I have every sympathy for Rolan Adams's family at this sad time and I wholeheartedly condemn racial attacks and those who commit or incite racial hatred. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me in December and my office subsequently corresponded with the mayor of Bexley. Although the location of the British National party office is a matter for Bexley council, we have drawn the council's attention to the laws available to deal with racial hatred.