To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in extending contracting out in the prison service.

From 1 April, the Prison Service agency will assume full responsibility for taking forward Government policy on the involvement of the private sector in the management of prisons. The agency will make recommendations to me later this year.

In warmly welcoming the private management of prisons initiative, may I ask my hon. Friend to extend the initiative to young offender institutions? Given that a third of crime is now committed by people under the age of 17, is not that a strong case for strengthening the network of young offender institutions? Such strengthening could be done by the private sector.

My hon. Friend is right: young offender institutions are a most important part of the prison service and we need the best standards in them.

Will the new contracted-out private prisons be covered by Crown immunity? If not, will the Minister ensure that Her Majesty's prisons have Crown immunity withdrawn from them so that all prisons can operate on a level playing field?

What we want is exactly the same playing field for all prisons. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly on Crown immunity because I am not sure of the details that it covers. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know. The equal playing field, to use the hon. Gentleman's term, which was the gist of his question, is what we are aiming at.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that we are engaged in the biggest prison building programme this century? Can he give an assurance that those places will not be wasted and will be put to good use in dealing with miscreants?

Prison places will be filled not by the prison service but by the courts. It is the largest prison building programme this century. We are almost at the end of it and 18 of the 21 new prisons are open. The last three prisons will open next year. They have improved facilities in the prison service which enables an improvement in the sort of programmes that are so necessary if prisoners are to return to society better able to lead law-abiding lives.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with which organisations he has had recent discussions about the local organisation and local accountability of the police force.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations his Department has had with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities regarding proposals to restructure police forces and police authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those chief constables whom he has met since December 1992 to discuss his proposals for restructuring the police force.

I have had many discussions with a wide range of interests and organisations on the subject of police reform. I intend to produce firm proposals for change and I shall consult widely on those proposals before final decisions are taken.

Will the Home Secretary say clearly whether he intends to move towards larger police forces? If he does, how does he propose that local communities should have an influence so that the police are sensitive and responsive to their needs? When he makes his statement, will he bear in mind the representations that he has had from people in different parties in his county of Nottinghamshire?

As I said, I shall bring forward proposals in due course. Obviously, I need time to work on them and then I shall go out to consultation on them. The aim is to produce stronger police forces with strong local police authorities that can improve further the effectiveness of the protection that the police offer against crime.

The Home Secretary must be aware of the public concern at the huge increases in crimes such as burglary. Does he accept that to deal with such increases we need effective partnerships at local level between local authorities, the police and the general public? Against that background, if restructuring is necessary, why does not he approach the matter as a joint exercise with the local authorities and the police, rather than ploughing on with his own agenda, which is undermining local partnerships and confidence?

I am very concerned at the high level of crime. That is why I am looking closely at how we can improve the effectiveness of the police force in making its contribution to protecting us against it. As Home Secretary, I am expected to produce proposals for strengthening the police force. Then I shall discuss with local authorities and others the implications of those proposals. But I cannot be expected to put my whole job into commission and not even to make proposals until I have cleared them with all the relevant interest groups. Interest in the police and crime goes beyond local authorities; the public as a whole are interested and I am sure that they are all waiting for my proposals.

If the Secretary of State met the chief constables, did he by any chance discuss with them one of the recommendations in the Sheehy report—that the post of chief superintendent be abolished? Is he aware that certain chief superintendents in the Greater Manchester area and other urban areas are responsible for a far greater caseload than those in police forces in other areas? Will he take that into consideration before he makes his final decision?

I meet chief constables all the time and I have discussions with them on all the matters that we are now discussing, including police structure, police financing and pay, how to reward good performance and how to organise commands more effectively. In due course, we shall produce proposals. So will Sir Patrick Sheehy. It is pointless debating proposals before we have them. In due course the Sheehy group will make proposals and we shall consult on them before we put them into effect. Meanwhile, the Superintendents Association, having given its evidence, is undoubtedly waiting, like the rest of us, to see what proposals Sir Patrick and his colleagues make.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we need a police structure across Britain that is fully accountable and response to local needs? Is not responsiveness best achieved by beefing up local liaison and community policing panels, which were successfully introduced under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? Does he also agree that accountability works both ways? The police have to be accountable for what they do and the money that they spend and local authorities have to be accountable if they do not properly support the police. The worst local authorities have not done so.

I agree that the local liaison arrangements are extremely good in many places. I strongly approve of the move towards neighbourhood policing which is being made throughout the country. It will give more power and discretion to local commanders and keep them in one place for longer so that they get to know the patch for which they are responsible and the people within it. We also need to improve the effectiveness of the police authorities. When people talk about the local accountability of their police force, they do not always automatically think of the police authority. They are more likely to complain to their Member of Parliament or to the Home Secretary than to the police authority.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand that there is urgent need for reorganisation? The Government keep telling us that they are putting more money in. The police keep telling us that there is not enough money. Those of my constituents who are not exactly involved in crime say that they are not getting value for money.

My hon. Friend puts clearly the question that every sensible member of the public asks. We are spending much more on policemen and Britain has more policemen than ever before. They are higher paid and better equipped, yet there are constant voicings of dissatisfaction, despite the fact that the police face rising demands on them. That is why we need to look afresh at strengthening the way in which we lay down national and local standards and compare the effectiveness of different police forces. We need to have proper structures in place to ensure that the performance of all police forces is brought up to the standard of the best.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the experience of Thames Valley shows that it is perfectly possible for the police service to provide a good service to the public across more than one county area? Given that spending on the police has increased by about 74 per cent. since 1979, is not it common sense to seek the best possible value for every pound that is spent?

We have police forces that cover more than one local authority, police forces such as the Metropolitan police in which the local authorities are not involved, and police forces that are covered by one local authority. The pattern is determined by history rather than logic. I am looking at that history at the same time as looking at the important things—how strong and effective the police authority is; how clearly it lays down local standards and demonstrates that it is delivering them; and how well it helps the police to communicate with their local population. I shall produce proposals that address all those questions as soon as I can.

Does the Home Secretary understand that, with crime apparently out of control in many parts of the country—a crime is now committed every six seconds every day—what people consider important is that institutional change should help the fight against crime and that there should be no break in the connection between policing and the local community? Whatever other changes the right hon. and learned Gentleman may make, will he undertake not to remove the right of local representatives—Conservative, Labour or whatever—who have been elected by local people, to have a say in local policing and an influence on it? Many consider that central to the fight against crime.

First, crime is not out of control, although it is an extremely serious matter. The level of crime is rising: that is the reason for our proposals for secure accommodation for juvenile offenders and for dealing with people who offend on bail and those who organise rave parties. The Government are known to be working on various proposals. At the same time, we are encouraging the process of making the police more effective and the local liaison mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

Does my right hon. and learned Friend, like me, feel a certain scepticism when he hears Opposition Members—especially those on the Front Bench—talk of support for the police? Over the past decade, they have voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Criminal Justice Acts and the Public Order Act 1986, not to mention the prevention of terrorism Acts.

My hon. Friend is right. The shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Sedgefield, is one of those who are changing the rhetoric of the Labour party. It is becoming closer to that of President Clinton, who advocated the restoration of the electric chair during his campaign in America. The fact is that the hon. Member for Sedgefield advocates no new proposals and his party has a history of voting against each and every proposal that we have presented to strengthen the fight against crime.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to attend a further meeting of the Trevi group on immigration and related issues.

Trevi is concerned with police co-operation and not with immigration policy. European Community ministerial meetings on these two separate areas of work usually take place on consecutive days. The next formal meetings are scheduled for 1 and 2 June in Copenhagen.

I am grateful for the Minister's claim that the Trevi group is concerned only with policing functions. Perhaps he will take this opportunity to publish the proceedings of all Trevi meetings: then we could be assured that it is not a secret society designed to harmonise immigration and asylum policies throughout Europe and to prevent people from seeking political asylum and safety in western Europe. Does he agree that there is an agenda to try to deny refugees safety and human rights throughout Europe by means of common closing of frontiers?

Trevi has nothing to do with asylum seekers. Any decisions made by the Trevi Ministers will be published and made available to the House, as they regularly are.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although many hon. Members on both sides of the House would want any application for immigration to be dealt with compassionately, we should also bear in mind the best interests of people already living in this country?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The present Government and successive Governments in this country have operated a firm but fair immigration policy. We shall continue to do precisely that.

The Minister must be aware that there is great concern that immigration, asylum and other policies are being decided by secret meetings—in the European dimension, by the Trevi group and the ad-hoc group on immigration, and by the K4 group of civil servants. One example of such policies is to go for the lowest common denominator on visitors' visas. The Government are abolishing the right to appeal against the refusal of a visitor's visa. Will the Minister today give an undertaking that, instead of listening to colleagues in Trevi and other groups, he will listen to those in the other place who are currently discussing the abolition of visitors' visa rights? The Government should listen to the House of Lords when it throws out their proposals, not to people in the Trevi group.

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's speculation about what will or will not happen to the Asylum and Immigration Bill in another place. The House will agree that it must make sense for member states of the European Community to harmonise immigration policies, not seek to uniform policy. They should discuss important issues of common interest within a framework of intergovernmental co-operation. Following the Maastricht treaty, that is precisely what will happen under the pillar of co-operation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to alter the law on evidence in cases of cruelty to, or murder of, children.

My right hon. and learned Friend recognises and shares the concern that has been expressed following a recent case. He has no plans to change the law on evidence, but he will wish to give early and careful consideration to what the Royal Commission on criminal justice has to say on the matter when its report is available in a few months' time.

There is widespread public concern about the baby Griffin case in which two people who were known to have battered, burnt and killed that child walked scot-free from the courts. Is my hon. Friend aware that that is just the latest in a long list of such cases? What has he to say to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has been calling for a change in the law to end the injustice and provide more deterrents against such wicked acts?

I share the concern of my hon. Friend, who has quite properly brought the issue to the attention of the House. I am aware of what the NSPCC has had to say and have studied its evidence to the royal commission. The Home Office has asked the NSPCC to send us the results of its research, which we shall study most carefully. In its evidence it said that it wanted to draw attention to the issue, but it does not have a prescriptive solution to the problems outlined by my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister take careful note not only of the evidence of the NSPCC but of other medical and social caucuses? I think that he will agree that it is frightening that children who are killed appear to have no rights. No one wishes to take away someone else's legitimate rights, but the child victim must be first and foremost in our minds at all times.

The thesis of the hon. Lady's question is entirely right. However, when dealing with criminal justice issues, we must focus on matters of evidence, which is the central point of the case. She may have seen reports in the newspapers discusing the opinions of the Crown prosecution service on the subject. It carefully detailed its views and centred on the issue of evidence. The royal commission will be the place where all the arguments come together.

Has my hon. Friend seen the exposé in the Evening Standard of the cruelty to, and exploitation of, children and young people by a villainous character? While they are vulnerable through unemployment, he seeks to send them out to raise money that goes straight into his pockets. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the law is adequate to meet such problems and, if necessary, have it changed quickly? Will he also ensure that the police are undertaking a full and swift investigation into the perpetrator of that crime?

My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to that newspaper report, which I found most disturbing. He will be aware that child cruelty matters can be handled under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I shall certainly look carefully at his words and ensure that the law is adequately framed to deal with the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for further and higher education for prisoners.

Competitive tendering, as I said earlier, has demonstrated that there is scope for making significant improvements in the quality of delivery and the value for taxpayers' money of education to prisoners. I am therefore placing in the Library a list of 68 prisons and young offender institutions where contracts are now to be offered for the future provision of education services.

Is the Minister aware that the great success of Holloway's education department in getting women on access courses depended on their being eligible for concessionary fees? Does he realise that further education colleges are having to charge the full fee of £550 per woman? From where does he think those women prisoners will get that money? Will he ponder on the state of mind of the head of Holloway's education department, who in the space of two weeks has received an MBE for her services to prison education and a redundancy notice as a result of the Government's contracting out of education plans?

The lady about whom the hon. Lady speaks has rendered exceptionally good service to the prison education service. I have no doubt that she will be extremely attractive to the new suppliers of education who are looking for people of experience and skill. I suggest to the hon. Lady that she should study carefully—I have put the information in the Library—what the new providers will do, what they have undertaken and that for which they have contracted. If she does that with an open mind, I am sure that she will join me in agreeing that the exercise has proved a fruitful one from which the education service in prisons will benefit.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the appallingly high level of drug abuse in some prisons. Has he had an opportunity to meet members of the Addictive Diseases Trust, who are pioneering—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's question would have been most appropriate as a supplementary to Question 6, which I could not call. I regret that it is not appropriate in its present form as a supplementary to Question 8, which relates to further and higher education. The hon. Gentleman should move his question into education.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is educative treatment for the taking of drugs in one of our prisons? Is he aware also that the Addictive Diseases Trust is trying to cure addiction through education in one of our prisons? I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider expanding that programme of education into other prisons.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting his supplementary question so neatly in order. He is right to stress that the treatment to which he referred is an important part of education in our prisons. I attended the launch of the Addictive Diseases Trust's new enterprise at Highdown prison and was most impressed with the programme that it is developing. Opposition Members may like to know that the trust is not part of the prison service. It comes in from outside, which shows how much skill and benefit we can gain from taking knowledge and capability from outside. I have told the ADT that I shall be examining carefully what it achieves in its present location to see whether that can be treated as a blueprint for a scheme that could be spread across the prison service. My hon. Friend is right to say that drugs are as much a menace in prison as they are outside.

Notwithstanding the Minister's comforting words about the future of the education scheme, especially in Holloway prison, if he has confidence in the future of such a scheme will he give a guarantee that the women who are participating in it, who were featured on a Radio 4 programme this morning, will have their fees paid so that they are not cut off in mid-stream from education courses that will be of lifetime benefit to them?

I did not hear the programme to which the hon. Lady refers. I can say, however, that no prisoner will lose out because of the change in the way in which education is managed in prisons. At Holloway, there will be no change—certainly not until the end of August. There is therefore plenty of time to ensure continuity. Whoever pays the fees, the opportunities that are there now will be continued. The great change that is coming about means that opportunities will be increased by the tendering exercise that we have introduced. That is because more imagination is being injected into the provision of the service.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further powers he intends to give the courts to deal with the incidence of burglary, theft and mugging.

We are developing proposals to increase the powers of courts to deal with persistent juvenile offenders, some of whom may have been convicted of the offences to which my hon. Friend refers.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and I am well aware that his office has been in touch with the Macclesfield division of the Cheshire constabulary, but is he aware that, within that division, burglary from the home is up by 30 per cent., theft of or from cars is up by 30 per cent. and theft of other sorts is up by 24 per cent? The detection rate in my division is some 35 per cent.—one of the highest rates of detection in the country, on which my police should be warmly congratulated—but is my hon. Friend not prepared to do something about the fact that much of the trouble is caused by young recidivist offenders who are arrested by the police and taken before the courts but released into the community to re-offend?

My hon. Friend, with his usual robustness, puts his case with great clarity. I congratulate the Cheshire police on their efforts to deal with the crimes that my hon. Friend listed and on their support for the home watch scheme, which my hon. Friend also supports. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are four-square behind my hon. Friend in his wish to deal with persistent juvenile offenders who carry out many of those crimes. I wish that we had similar robust support from the Opposition.

Before the courts can deal with offenders, they must be brought before the courts. What is the Minister's reaction to the apparent decline in the number of cases coming before the courts at the moment?

My reaction is to refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that the Home Secretary gave earlier on his efforts to improve the police service and its effectiveness, because in that way criminals can be caught and ultimately brought before the courts for justice.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the frustration of police, magistrates and judges is not restricted to Cheshire at having to go on cautioning, cautioning, cautioning, and then releasing into the community young offenders who are persisting in their offending? Has the time not come to remove the hard core of persistent offenders from circulation?

My hon. and learned Friend will know the efforts that we in the Home Office are making to expand the amount of local authority secure accommodation, which would deal with some of the problems that he mentions. Equally, we must not forget that there are other ways of dealing with juvenile offenders. However, I agree that dealing with the persistent juvenile offender is an important priority; it is certainly at the top of my list of priorities and that of the Home Secretary.

Will the Minister face the fact that there has been a 163 per cent. increase in burglary in the past 13 years and that there is immense pressure on the police, with the result that there is a low clear-up rate? Will he respond to the Labour party's plea for urgent action? Is it not time that the Government faced up to their responsibilities and gave leadership and support to those who need to fight crime at local level?

I will respond to what the Labour party has said. I am flattered, to a degree, by the fact that it has endorsed the very policies that we are following. We have formed the new National Board for Criminal Prevention, reactivated a ministerial group on crime prevention, pioneered the safer cities concept and expanded it by a further 20. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stand up and endorse the policies that have already resulted in a 90 per cent. reduction in burglary in the Sparkbrook area of Birmingham, and reductions in burglaries in Bradford, Salford, Bristol and Deptford. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to endorse and support those policies.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the draft fire regulations resulting from EC directive 89/391/EEC.

Following the issue in May 1992 of a consultative document on the proposals, there was some concern about the extent to which the draft regulations exceeded the requirements of the EC directives. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced in December that the draft regulations would be given further consideration.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the last thing we want as we pull out of recession is for our businesses, especially our smaller businesses, to be clobbered by a new wave of fire regulations costing several billion pounds? In the light of the Prime Minister's drive to reduce these crippling burdens, will my hon. Friend ensure that his Department does not add to the requirements of any EC directive? Indeed, will he seek to reduce them?

My hon. Friend confirms precisely the concerns about unnecessary costs and over-regulation that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary highlighted when he announced a fresh look at the proposals in December. We want to be sure that people at work are as safe as possible from the risks of fire, but we are determined not to push costs on to businesses, nor burdensome regulations which go beyond the needs of safety and common-sense precautions.

Does the Minister recognise that one group of small businesses with a particularly poor record on fire are hoteliers offering bed and breakfast accommodation? Will he make sure that any new directives about fire ensure the highest possible safety standards to try to save people from death as a result of fires in those entirely inadequate places?

The regulations will apply to large hotels and boarding houses, and the hon. Gentleman will know that those establishments have to have a certificate under section 1 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The smaller premises will be excluded, but will, of course, still be liable to the general provisions of the 1971 Act.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to reduce car crime.

The themes of Car Crime Prevention Year continue to play a significant part, in all police force areas, in encouraging action to combat car crime. In addition, we are actively promoting the secured car parks initiative and I have formed an advisory group further to inform policy development in combating car crime.

I welcome the Government's initiatives, but is the Minister aware of the growing frustration—he will also have heard it today—about the low deterrence and low punishment that some of these young offenders are receiving? Age is no barrier to the misery that they bring to society, and age should be no barrier to the sort of sentence meted out to deter these people. May we have an assurance from the Minister that he is looking at this problem and that those young offenders will be left in no doubt that society has had enough?

First, I commiserate with my hon. Friend. I know that he has been a victim of car crime and speaks with great feeling on the matter [Interruption.] If that is the Opposition's attitude to the victims of crime, let it be marked in this place. My hon. Friend will have acknowledged the line that I have taken this afternoon on the subject of persistent juvenile offenders, many of whom are involved in car crime. I also draw his attention to the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which put special responsibility on parents of young people who may be involved in crime. It bears down heavily on that as well and I hope that it will contribute to providing a solution to the central issue of my hon. Friend's question.

Are the Minister and the Home Secretary aware of the shameful incident which took place in my constituency yesterday, and which was shown to the nation on ITN's "News at Ten" last night, in which an 11-year-old boy stole, rode, and crashed a car and then swaggered with his mates in front of the television cameras because all that the police could do was to release him, reported but uncharged? That incident is not typical of Hartlepool, but it is illustrative of what is happening in all constituencies right across the nation. Will the Minister tell the House what he intends to do to crack down on persistent young offenders and explain to my constituents why the Government have failed to provide the secure accommodation in Cleveland that is needed to detain these young offenders?

The Home Office and the Department of Health, who are in the lead in providing the necessary resourcing for secure accommodation, are working hard to secure our objectives. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that he supported the action that we shall be taking on persistent juvenile offenders. We have at least put that to the top of the agenda and are working hard on that policy. I am grateful for his support.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the car crime wave which swept through Croydon and south London last year? Does he agree that one of the best ways of combating this is to encourage the admittedly growing use of car security devices by encouraging insurers to charge lower premiums if such devices are used?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. I have already seen the Association of British Insurers on that point. It has recently introduced what it calls the Thatcham report, which is a way of assessing the effectiveness of car security devices. At the launch of that in London recently, I again called for a tangible demonstration of premium reduction in respect of properly installed car security devices.

Bearing in mind that it is only two years since the Government sought to introduce new principles of sentencing which were supposed to be definitive, why have the Government felt it necessary to embark on this review? What evidence is there that they got it so wrong two years ago?

The hon. Member might look at some of the evidence on juvenile crime that has gone to the Home Affairs Select Committee. He would then see that the overall incidence of juvenile crime has fallen, but this small group, which the whole House has identified, of persistent juvenile offenders has fallen through the net—juvenile offenders who have not responded to any of the regimes in place. It is quite clear that the public and the House want us to take action.

Is the Minister aware that the borough council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk, in conjunction with the Norfolk constabularly, have brought out a closed circuit television scheme for all their public places and car parks and that since its introduction car crime has gone right down? Is he aware that this is the first scheme of its kind in the country, and will he encourage other authorities to bring in similar schemes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; where Norfolk goes today, others will follow—as, indeed, they have in Bradford. I can cite an example there where the safer cities programme has helped to fund an inner-city CCTV scheme which has reduced car crime by 60 per cent. Interesting Home Office research on this subject will be published very shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into disturbances at the Wolds prison.

Regular reports are made by the Home Office controller based at the Wolds and details of all incidents are reported to prison service headquarters. None of these has merited a separate inquiry.

Will the Minister at least hold an inquiry into the alarming number of assaults occurring at the Wolds private prison? Is he aware that figures released by his Department show that in the state sector the average number of assaults is six per prison per year? In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), he said that eight assaults had occurred at the Wolds in a single month. Does that not show the folly of prison privatisation and the stupidity of extending it? Is it not made even more damning by the fact that, while the state sector prisons are very often overcrowded and underfunded, the Wolds is a state-of-the art prison with facilities which are only dreamt about in the public sector?

Of course I look at the figures very thoroughly, and I find that the Wolds is punctilious in reporting every incident. All such incidents are recorded and put in the figures. The Wolds figures are before adjudication, whereas the figures from the rest of the prison service are after adjudication, so I do not think that they provide a fair comparison. I am very happy with the way in which the Wolds is conducted, but I look very carefully at the figures that come to me.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding Section 48 of the Gaming Act 1968 and the Bingo Act 1992 relating to the promotion and advertising of bingo.

Since the passing of the Bingo Act 1992, we have received representations from the Bingo Association of Great Britain and the National Bingo Game Association about the advertising of bingo.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that bingo is essentially a recreational activity in this country, where the punter spends small sums of money comparable with those spent in an evening at the pub or the cinema? Does he therefore recognise the anomaly whereby a socialist crook like Robert Maxwell can advertise newspaper bingo on television while a modest bingo club such as the one in Chester—which is superb, despite having small prizes—cannot even advertise on local radio?

My hon. Friend is half right: bingo is a social activity, but it is also gambling. Because it is both, and because the gambling is light, the restrictions on it are far fewer than for other forms of gambling. My hon. Friend's local bingo club may not be able to advertise on the radio, but we have made it possible under the 1992 Act for it to advertise its club facilities and its address in his local paper.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met his counterparts in the European Community to discuss penalties for violent crime.

My right hon. and learned Friend has regular meetings with his counterparts in the European Community to discuss co-operation across a range of criminal justice matters, but penalties are a matter for the criminal law of each member state and are not normally discussed with our European partners.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in Belgium people who rape young women can receive sentences of 10 to 15 years' mandatory prison service together with hard labour, and that for other kinds of rape they will be given solitary confinement and a confinement period of a minimum of eight years? Is he also aware that the women in this country are getting sick and tired of judges handing out soft sentences to rapists, and that there are those who think, as I do, that perhaps we should do something a bit more drastic to those people, including cutting off their goolies?

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. The Minister should be given the opportunity to answer.

And to do so intact, I trust. What happens in Belgium is a matter for the Belgians. My hon. Friend will be aware that stiffer sentences have been made available to the courts. [Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friend will remind those who complain about sentences in this country that the Opposition have opposed every piece of law and order legislation since 1979.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 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.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the impartiality of Independent Television News is threatened by the appointment as its next chairman of Mr. Michael Green, a known Conservative supporter and Conservative donor? Or does the Prime Minister share the views of his predecessor and ask himself, as she did, "Is he one of us?"

No, I do not think that the impartiality of ITN is at all threatened by the appointment of Mr. Green, any more than I would question the impartiality of many programmes whose presenters may have one or other political opinion.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of one single militant teacher trade union which proposes to ballot its membership to boycott all tests [Interruption.]—Yes, all tests associated with the national curriculum? Will he also join me in saying just how damaging that would be to the education of the nation's children?

I agree with my hon. Friend about that point, and I thoroughly condemn the union concerned. I believe that it will be seen by parents as a concerted attack on the rights of pupils and their parents to know what progress the pupils are making in their education at their individual schools. I very much hope that the teachers of that union will reject the proposition put before them.

Is it not a deplorable indictment of Conservative government that during the Conservative years crime has more than doubled? What action does the Prime Minister propose to take to protect our citizens from the crime wave that is sweeping the nation?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to want to put the blame for everything on the shoulders of the Government—quite apart from the view expressed by his shadow home affairs spokesman this morning. Let me illustrate for the right hon. and learned Gentleman some of the things that we have done. There has been the passage of the Public Order Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, both Criminal Justice Acts, the Prison Security Act and the Act to ban joy riding, every one of which was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party.

Has the Prime Minister noticed that, whatever he claims to do or to have done, the crime rate rises consistently year after year? Does he think it remotely tolerable that, according to the Government's crime survey, there are about 25,000 break-ins in this country every week? When will he do something about protecting our citizens from that?

I note that there was no pledge from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to support legislation that we brought forward in previous years or to support us in the future in dealing with crime. Crime has increased ever since the second world war, under all Governments. Our record in combating crime is comparable with that of other countries in western Europe. This trend has been seen year after year, but it is not a matter which can be dealt with just by legislation. I doubt whether any other Government would have provided for the police the resources that the present Government have provided. Certainly, no other Government would have sided with the victim against the villain in the way that the present Government have.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night Gloucestershire county council set a budget £10 million over its standard spending assessment? Does he know that Gloucestershire county council has debts of £25 million but has no plans substantially to reduce that figure? Does my right hon. Friend agree that plans should be made immediately to see that Gloucestershire county council seeks to reduce its debts so that money can be spent on education rather than on debt servicing?

I think that it is regrettable that any authority should set an excessive budget. We have made it clear that we shall not hesitate in any way to cap such budgets. It is open to local authorities to set new, lower budgets, and I very much hope that Gloucestershire county council will do so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

I was interested in the Prime Minister's initial reply about his engagements for today, but what about his engagements for tomorrow? My Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill seeks to put the missing millions back on the electoral register and to secure access to polling stations for disabled people. Will the Prime Minister be around tomorrow to vote in support of that measure, and will he bring his friends with him? I know that he needs all the friends that he can get nowadays?

I shall, in fact, be in my constituency meeting those friends.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conviction of the IRA terrorist Jimmy Canning represents a real success for the security services? Will he join me in congratulating those services in putting that murderous thug behind bars?

I believe that that will be the wish of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. I am happy to congratulate both the Crown prosecution service and the Metropolitan police.

While the Vance-Owen plan extracts the very best out of the terrible opportunities left open to us in Bosnia, does the Prime Minister realise that this is not a peace of which either he or other western leaders can be proud? It is their failure which has resulted in a price being paid in the dismemberment of the Muslim community, the disintegration of a state which was recognised by the United Nations, and reward for the aggressors. Does the Prime Minister understand that while we must all hope for peace in Bosnia, our hopes for peace in Europe will depend on our learning the lessons of this miserable affair?

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman continues to take a wholly negative view of the enormous amount that has been done to seek a satisfactory peace in Yugoslavia. What is significant is the remarkable co-operation between the United States, the European Community and the United Nations in seeking to bring that conflict to an end. The best way forward, and the only credible way forward that has yet been found, is the Vance-Owen plan, which we strongly support. I very much welcome the policy statement from the United States Government earlier this week.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three councils in Cambridgeshire—East Cambridgeshire, South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire—which recently announced a zero component for the district council portion of the new council tax? How is it that some councils can deliver a highly effective service to their taxpayers while others, such as Harlow, are gross overspenders? Could it be because the Cambridgeshire councils are not controlled by Labour?

I think that there are two answers. First, the councils are efficient; secondly, they are not run by the Socialist party.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister not think it scandalous that at a time when the Health Department budget has been put into the public sector spending review and when prescription charges are about to be increased by 10 per cent., the West Midlands and Wessex health authorities have been allowed to squander £67 million on renting luxury homes in London, on air travel, on entertainment and on corrupt computer deals involving former Cabinet Ministers?

I have no intention of commenting on the detailed points made by the hon. Gentleman. There are adequate ways of making sure that they are examined. As to the health budget and all other budgets, one reason for undertaking a fundamental review is to make sure that taxpayers' money is well spent and that it is spent first on those areas that most require the expenditure.

When my right hon. Friend undertakes his review of European regulations that are handicapping British industry, will he turn his attention to the tourist industry and consult the Torbay environmental health officer who requires every hotelier in Torbay to check, monitor and register the temperature of every deep freeze in every premises three times a day on penalty of prosecution? Is that not exactly the kind of daft regulation that we should get rid of?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that regulation to my attention. I will ensure that it is examined. There are many regulations that we could usefully manage without. The intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to identify them so that we can remove them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities and national health service trusts are currently being forced to cancel operations and close wards because of the inadequacies, and in some cases the mismanagement, of NHS resources? Is he aware, in particular, that in my constituency Roose hospital, which provides excellent geriatric care for elderly people, is being forced to close? Will he tell the House what measures will be taken to ensure that such hospitals stay open? How does he believe it helps health care for hospitals such as Roose to close?

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the increased resources for health authorities—spending of £36 billion this year and planned spending of more than £37 billion next year; an increase in national health service expenditure by up to 57 per cent.; and an increase in the number of people treated. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the health authorities and the health service on that remarkable record.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agreed that it is the job of Government to attack cartels, cliques and vested interests—cartels in trade unions, cliques in Labour-controlled local authorities and vested interests that support the vast majority of Labour Members?

I strongly suspect that my hon. Friend has struck a sore spot. Every member of the shadow Cabinet is sponsored by a trade union, two thirds of the votes at the Labour conference are still wielded by trade unions; they will not support our tests in the schools because that is what the National Union of Teachers wants, they oppose our reforms on health because that is what the Council of Health Services Employees wants, and they fight competitive tendering because that is what the National Union of Public Employees wants. There is no doubt whose pockets they are in.

Has no one—[Interruption.] Cheeky little pup.

Order. I recollect that "Erskine May" does not allow that sort of language.

"Cheeky little pup" is a term of endearment, Madam Speaker. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Cyprus—[Interruption.]—rather, the Vance-Owen plan—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must settle down.

Bosnia is not a laughing matter—[Interruption.] Those idiots on the Government Benches. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Vance-Owen plan as now drawn up is unacceptable because it rewards Serbian ethnic cleansing and is in danger of creating a Palestinian-type situation within a quarter of a century? Will the Prime Minister for once listen to reasonable advice from America, and will he understand that that plan can become acceptable only if the Serbian aggression is held, if the danger to the Bosnian Muslims and their territory is removed, and if war criminals in Yugoslavia are brought to proper trial?

The hon. Gentleman has set out many of the matters which have been our policy for some time and were reiterated earlier this week by the American Administration—in particular, the point about war crimes. We have also supported—and others are now joining us in doing so—increased and hardened sanctions, particularly along the Danube, to put further pressure on the Serbs. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the map is not yet a settled matter. Nevertheless, there have been very dramatic improvements towards peace as a result of the Owen-Vance proposals. We need to continue to pursue those, and to continue to put pressure on each of the combatants until they reach a conclusion which will be satisfactory, which can be policed properly and which can bring the dreadful conflict to an end.