To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what impact he expects his proposals for police reform to have on the county of Cumbria.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received to date on his proposed police reforms.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on his recent proposals for the reform of police authorities.

My proposals would improve the effectiveness and performance of the police forces in Cumbria and elsewhere and thereby improve the value for money that we get from them. I have so far received a few representations from hon. Members, members of the police service and others. I propose to issue a White Paper setting out the details of my proposals before the summer. I will continue to listen to the views of all those concerned with improving the performance of the police service.

Why should meddling Conservative appointees appointed by the Secretary of State be appointed to the Cumbria police authority when they surely serve only to undermine the authority and the excellent work being done by our chief constable? Has the Home Secretary no faith in local institutions which can make adequate appointments and carry out the responsibilities that the public expect of them?

I do not make appointments to public bodies for which I am responsible on a purely party political basis. The hon. Gentleman's question is indicative of the attitude of many Labour Members. When police authorities are mentioned, all that they can think about is whether they are of their own political persuasion. I have every confidence in the local delivery of police forces. That is why I intend to create stronger local authorities, whose presence will be more visible to the inhabitants of Cumbria. I will also give them more autonomy in handling resources from central Government. I will lift from the shoulders of the Cumbria police authority and others many of the detailed restraints currently imposed upon them by me and by the Home Office.

I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's determination to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the police. However, I urge him to look again at the issue of London. Does he agree that London is different from the rest of the country in many ways and should, therefore, be treated differently in his reforms?

There is a question about London further down the Order Paper which I shall answer. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is emphatically yes. He and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have already made their views known to me informally about my first proposals. I accept that the Metropolitan police, who cover the capital city and parts of the surrounding counties, are quite different from the rest of the country. I will carefully consider representations about the nature of the new police authority which I propose to establish for the Metropolitan police.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are a great many people who could be appointed to police authorities could bring a vast range of experience for whom serving as councillors or magistrates is not an option? Will he make it clear when he publishes his White Paper that he is looking not just for people with business experience but for people with experience in running police liaison panels, victim support schemes and crime prevention schemes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In considering people to serve on a police authority, one must bear in mind that not every man or woman able to make a contribution in that way can also spare the time to be elected to the local county council or to sit in a local magistrates court. People who might want to sit on a police authority should not be judged, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would judge them, on whether they are the right party political colour. [Interruption.] The Labour party's defence of local authority membership of police authorities is because, all too often, it sees local authority appointments to committees of this kind as a means of party patronage. We are concerned with strengthening the police authorities and improving the effectiveness of the police service. I hope that the Labour party will eventually take a more enlightened view of the undoubted need to strengthen the effectiveness of the police service.

Earlier this year, the Cumbria police force axed four senior police posts and asked the Secretary of State if it could spend the money thus saved on seven constables, but he refused. Will he change his mind today and allow us to have extra police in Cumbria to fight the rising tide of crime?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has described the existing situation, and I regard that feature of it as positively daft. That is why, in my recent statement to the House, I announced my intention to change that situation so as to give far more discretion to the local police force to determine how it spends its resources and what balance it strikes between men and resources. We need stronger police authorities with unfettered discretion to handle money in that way and I propose to set them up. It is the normal instinct of the Labour party to be against any reform or change of any kind to any public service. I hope that at least this small detail of my reforms will get the hon. Gentleman's support.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the effectiveness of police reforms in ensuring that the police can combat crime better will be a matter not merely of organisation but of police operational priorities? Is he aware of the Audit Commission report which points out that 20 per cent. of police time was spent on administration and 25 per cent. on non-crime priorities such as traffic management? Should that not be investigated when the reform proposals are being considered so as to ensure that the police are more actively concerned in beating crime?

It is important that we do, and the police service does, exactly what my hon. Friend proposes. We need to be clearer about what the priorities of the police service are, and what the local public expect of it. We then need to reflect those priorities in the disposition of manpower and resources in the locality and to measure performance in meeting the first priorities of the police service. For that reason, in addition to the White Paper that I am producing, I have other studies under way into exactly how we should prioritise the different duties imposed by the public on the police service. The service also needs to be better organised so that it can react to those priorities, dispose of its resources accordingly and then account to the local public and the general public for its performance.

Is not one part of an effective police service the provision of an efficient police and prison escort service to and from the courts? In relation to Group 4 Total Security Ltd., which has taken over certain police and prison functions, will the Secretary of State confirm that, in the past few days, not merely have four prisoners gone missing, but at Leicester prison Group 4 turned up with the wrong van and the wrong documentation and then could not get through to headquarters because the line was engaged? Is he aware that in Derby, court hearings have been delayed because prisoners have turned up late, in Nottingham, court hearings have been postponed because Group 4 vans have got lost in the city's one-way system and that yesterday, a Group 4 van carrying prisoners crashed into a police car outside a police station? Is it not about time the Secretary of State took a grip on his Department and the prison escort service and started to run a service with some regard to public safety rather than one that is like something out of an Ealing comedy?

Escorts between prison and the courts are frequently an occasion for escapes. In the contract area of Group 4 alone, last year more than 50 prisoners escaped during escort—an average of more than one a week—but the Labour party took no interest whatever in that. It could not care less so long as prisoners are escaping from public sector workers. Suddenly, when a contract is taken out by Group 4, it pays attention to every crash of every vehicle, every escape of every prisoner and every slip on the paperwork. If we have aroused the Labour party's interest in the quality of the service provided when escorting between prison and court, we shall have made at least one modest advance. The fact is that the Labour party is obsessed simply with whether a driver belongs to the right trade union. Until it can lift its thoughts about the criminal justice system above that pathetic local Labour party executive committee level, it will have nothing to contribute on this front.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage devolved management within the police service.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on his intentions to allow chief constables to manage their own budgets.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in his statement on 23 March, he intends to give police authorities and police forces greater freedom to decide for themselves how best to spend their money.

Is my hon. Friend aware that local management of police forces has been broadly welcomed in the Thames valley area by the police service and by the general public? 'Will he and his colleagues press on from that position and ensure that the performance indicators that he and the Home Secretary are now planning can be applied at local area level so that the public know that not just chief constables but area commanders are making proper and efficient use of resources committed to their stewardship?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to give more freedom to chief constables and police authorities to deploy the resources at their disposal, and that means devolving responsibility within police forces from headquarters to local units. National standards and objectives will be translated into local objectives which mean something to the local community and by which those local units can be measured.

My hon. Friend will not be surprised that in Billericay, where we are well known for our dedication to private enterprise and personal responsibility, the chief superintendent welcomes the moves announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but will my chief superintendent be freer of paperwork imposed on him by the Home Office so that, instead of pushing paper, he can be out catching crooks? In addition, will he be able to subcontract out more of his detective work to the Maigrets and Miss Marples of this world?

There will be greater freedom for chief officers to manage—that is the important thing—with much of that delegated to local level. We want to put the nearly £6,000 million a year spent on the police to the best possible use with as little red tape as possible. Where minor functions can be subcontracted, they will be, leaving the basic policing to the police.

Does the Minister agree that the first principle of a proper arrangement for delegation is to recognise that it is the chief superintendent on the ground who has the best knowledge of the resources required to ensure effective policing locally? If so, will the Minister please stop sending hon. Members such as myself misleading replies about the actual reduction in police officers that has occurred in Greenwich? Will he ensure that the real representations made by local police and representatives of the community are met by a positive response to build up numbers to tackle crime effectively in Greenwich and elsewhere in south-east London?

From what the hon. Gentleman says, I take it that he is in favour of the reform proposals, as it will then be up to the chief police officers themselves in the police authorities to decide precisely what the strength of their force should be within their cash-limited resources.

Will the Minister explain why, when chief officers have decided that resources should go local and have set up special urban crime schemes, such as those in my constituency in Armley and Bramley, when they have proved to be successful after a year of operation the Government withdraw the funding?

The hon. Gentleman will already have heard, if he has followed the proposals, that it will be up to the chief police officers to decide precisely how funding will be deployed. If there is a particular scheme on which a chief police officer wishes to place emphasis in any local area, he can so do. It will be up to the chief police officer and the police authority to determine priorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements he intends to make for the additional European parliamentary constituencies.

My right hon. and learned Friend is currently consulting colleagues on this matter. Once proposals are formulated, we will consult formally the Opposition parties.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the parliamentary boundary commissioners rightly enjoy an enviable reputation for impartiality? Will he ensure that a similar system is established to create the new constituencies, and give an assurance that twixt the initial announcement and implementation there will be ample time for representations to be made?

I can assure my hon. Friend on both points. We shall not necessarily use the boundary commissioners to propose the new boundaries, because they are very much occupied with the parliamentary boundaries, but we will want to have similarly independent recommendations for the new Euro-constituencies. We are determined that there will be an opportunity for public consultation, although it will be constrained by a comparatively tight timetable.

The Minister will have seen press speculation that the additional seats will be available on a proportional representation basis in order to secure the votes of the Liberal Democrats for the Maastricht treaty. May we take it that there will be no question of adopting the single transferable vote system, or will the Minister follow the logic of that and tell his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he should follow it, too?

I am always sceptical about reports in the newspapers. We will not announce our final proposals until they have been formulated. We will then discuss them with leaders of the Opposition parties.

Does my hon. Friend agree that where areas are distinctive historic entities, such as Cornwall, there is a case for making them Euro-constituencies in their own right rather than the present situation of unholy alliances?

I think that the basis on which we want to make the new Euro-constituencies is a traditional one. We want Euro-seats of comparatively the same size in terms of population, but taking into account geography and other local connections. No doubt the body making recommendations will bear those thoughts in mind.

The Government are clearly afraid that their own Back Benchers will do to the European boundaries Bill what they are trying to do to the Maastricht Bill. Will the Minister take the opportunity to allay the suspicions of the House that the European constituencies will be redrawn not by the independent and much-respected boundary commissions, but by a hand-picked group of Home Office officials, with all the potential for gerrymandering that that allows? With the next European election so close, the House has a right to know when the Bill will be brought before it.

The hon. Gentleman obviously prepared his question before he came into the Chamber because I have already dealt with it. I said that the new Euro-constituency boundaries would be recommended by an independent body. I also said that we would be discussing the way forward and the timetable with the Opposition parties.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from magistrates about the workings of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

The representations I have received from magistrates about the Act have covered concerns about the unit fines scheme and matters relating to sentencing under section 29.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many magistrates in my constituency will be delighted by the assurances given in the House yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that he is prepared to look at the workings and non-workings of the Criminal Justice Act 1991—particularly in relation to unit fining, which appears to be fine in principle but in practice is working more as a punishment for wealth than one for crime?

My hon. Friend articulates the feeling of many of our hon. Friends about the Criminal Justice Act 1991. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made it clear at the Dispatch Box yesterday that he intends—and he has my full support—to look hard at some of the problems with unit fines and also at section 29. However, may I say to my hon. Friend, with the same vigour as he put his point to me, that I hope that he will ask magistrates to look carefully at the flexibility that already exists under the unit fines scheme, which enables magistrates to meet their criticisms of the present system.

Have there been any complaints about the criminal justice system breaking down after the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about the failure of the privatised prisoner escort service? After the fiasco of the so-called Group 4 security system, will the Minister admit that the privatisation experiment has been a failure, or does he intend to tell us that it is all part of the Government's plan to reduce the prison population?

Hearing questions like that is like watching the dinosaurs come back to life. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the fact that prisoners escape is not a new phenomenon, but the dialogue of the deaf opposite did not listen to that salient point. Only now, when a new company running a new and complex service takes over those responsibilities, for which there is a very good reason, do the Opposition take any interest. I ask the hon. Gentleman to watch developments.

Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that we got the principle of unit fines and previous convictions fundamentally and absolutely wrong? Is it possible that we got it wrong because at that time hon. Members on both sides of the House were obsessed with the change of Prime Minister?

My hon. Friend brings his own particular analysis to bear on how we got ourselves into this particular situation. The Criminal Justice Act had a long run-in, during which people could have contributed to the debate. There was a consultation document in 1988, a White Paper and a long parliamentary debate. Eventually, the House agreed the measure which came before it. It is important now to concentrate on the positive side and on our assurance that we are looking both at section 29 and at unit fines and that, if necessary, changes will be made.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he will take to counter juvenile crime.

The Government's measures to deal with juvenile crime will be further extended by the contents of my right hon. and learned Friend's statement to the House on 2 March, which commits us to developing new policies to deal with persistent juvenile offenders.

Is the Minister aware that the problem is not so much the growth in the number of juvenile offenders as in the number of persistent offenders? In Leicestershire, for example, 28 persistent offenders have committed 2,057 offences—73 offences each—in the past 18 months. It is obvious, therefore, that the courts do not have the power to deal with juvenile crime as they should and that there is no way in which the Government are helping parents, governors of schools, teachers and others to cope with persistent juvenile offenders.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's enthusiasm to put his point to us is a ringing endorsement of the contents of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's statement. That is the whole thrust of what the secure training order is all about. It deals with matters connected with education, offending behaviour and training for the outside world. Juvenile crime in the hon. and learned Gentleman's part of Leicestershire is also being combated by our safer cities initiative and by many of the diversion projects, such as the north Braunston motor project. That is helping to alleviate some of the problems caused by young people and to deal positively with their potential entry into criminality.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are surplus places for juvenile delinquents in special residential schools? Will he amend the secure accommodation regulations and tell magistrates, town halls and parents to send more juvenile delinquents to those special schools?

With his usual astuteness, my hon. Friend has been studying the contents of my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. He will have seen reference in it to making various orders with a requirement for secure accommodation to be used. That is certainly something which we shall be considering.

Why does the Minister rely on the Home Secretary's statement which looks to the distant future when we need to speed up justice and to intervene earlier with young offenders in particular now if we are to be tough on crime and the causes of crime? As the Home Secretary has admitted that there is a relationship between unemployment and crime, will he persuade his Cabinet colleagues to restore hope to young people and to recognise the impact of other Government policies on them? Will they recognise especially that the way in which the Government are forcing cuts on the youth service will increase the number of idle hands for which the devil will find employment?

The reason I rely on the statement is because it is a darn good statement. It was made by my right hon. and learned Friend and I feel that it is important to rely on it. I wholly rebut the hon. Gentleman's allegation that my right hon. and learned Friend made the connection that his question begged. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads again the Home Office research by Simon Field in which he will not find a proven connection between individual wrongdoing and the level of economic activity. There is no split between us. I also point out that the hon. Gentleman's question did not acknowledge the work being undertaken by the Department for Education to deal with the relationship between crime, truancy and exclusion.

Has my hon. Friend had time today to read about the case of the 17-year-old who was before the courts yesterday in Birmingham and found guilty of attending the stealing of a car with a young girl who was killed? Does he realise that that youngster was already on bail for the offences of rape and kidnap? What are we going to do to ensure that such people are not allowed out to endanger lives in future?

We very much understand the strong feelings on the subject of bail. A great deal of work is being undertaken to reconsider not only our policies in that connection but the effectiveness of the working of the bail system. It is very important that, for example, our bail study information groups come up with recommendations to improve the quality of the bail decision-making process. I very much understand my hon. Friend's point.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the Home Affairs Committee's first report of Session 1992–93 on accountability of the security services.

The Government will publish their response shortly.

Is the Home Secretary aware that we hope that he will accept the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee that the security service should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny? If other countries, no less democratic than our own, have decided over a period of time to have such scrutiny, why should this country be an exception? Is it not the case that the sooner the security services are subject to proper scrutiny, the better it will be?

I gave my views to the Home Affairs Select Committee and they have not changed from those in the evidence that I then gave. The important issue of parliamentary accountability will be dealt with again by the House when we debate the Bill relating to the secret intelligence service and GCHQ, which the Government have announced they intend to introduce in due course. We shall then have a proper and serious debate about how the security service can be subject to some accountability without damaging its operational effectiveness.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the level of crime in the capital.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to meet the Commissioner.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that he is aware of the concern of my constituents and many like them about the relatively small number of criminals who are caught and charged and, of those who are apprehended, the less than satisfactory number who are convicted and adequately sentenced? Can he give my constituents some reassurance that the challenge of crime will continue to be tackled with the vigour and rigour that it demands?

I understand the concern that my hon. Friend expresses; no doubt he will be pleased to hear that Operation Bumblebee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bunglebee]. Operation Bumblebee, which is a very successful operation, has recently been launched in the Romford area. My hon. Friend will also be aware that sector policing is proving successful in the Romford area, and no doubt he will welcome the fact that there is a dedicated anti-burglary squad there, too, whose clear-up rate is better than the metropolitan average. No doubt he will also welcome the fact that 6,000 uniformed posts have been added to the Metropolitan police since 1979.

Does the Minister appreciate that he has already devised a new name for Group 4? Leaving that aside, does he agree that the best form of crime prevention in London is that devised by local authorities working in co-operation with the police, which will take place only if we have a proper accountable police force in London under local authority control, such as exists in all other local democracies? Why are the Government the only people now holding out against that proposal?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the answer is more local authority control he should realise that that would simply lead to a whole lot of political posturing. He ought to await eagerly my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals for a new police authority for London which will genuinely increase accountability and support the work being done by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when the Home Secretary meets the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan police he will ask him to ensure that there is a clearly stated policy within the Metropolitan police area for the control of burglary and auto crime, and that the small minority of offenders who persistently commit large numbers of such offences is targeted?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will discuss that priority with the Commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) will also appreciate that the new Commissioner has set out plans to release 700 officers from headquarters unit out into local units within Greater London in order to tackle precisely the problems that my right hon. Friend describes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the proposed police authority for London; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future political control of the Metropolitan police.

I have already received representations about that subject from a large number of hon. Members. As I announced on 23 March, I propose to establish new police authority arrangements for the Metropolitan police. I will develop my proposals in more detail over the next few months and set out more details when I publish my White Paper.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the size and complexity of London means that the Metropolitan police have to be controlled differently from the way in which other police forces are controlled? Does he accept that, however unsatisfactory it may be for the Metropolitan police to be controlled by the Home Office, the establishment in London of a police authority along the lines of police authorities elsewhere is not the solution?

I think that London needs a police authority and that the arrangement whereby the Home Secretary is in theory the police authority for London is not adequate if we are to hold the Metropolitan police to account, as happens with other police authorities, and if, as I have said in answer to previous questions, we are to assist them by giving clearer guidelines on priorities and so on. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is no good regarding the Metropolitan police force as if it were just another provincial police force. It is much bigger and has many special duties connected with being in the capital. It certainly should not simply be handed over to local government as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) suggests. Considerable thought about the sort of police authority that London needs is necessary.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us feel that there was far too little consultation on the matter before he announced his proposal? We feel that greater London has special problems—it is the seat of government and has a huge diplomatic community—and special arrangements should be made for it, but we remain to be convinced of the need for the new proposals.

With respect to my hon. Friend, the purpose of making the statement was to have a consultation process and to listen to the views of my hon. Friend and of many other people who have an interest in the Metropolitan police service. In modern times, the Government spend their entire time consulting on proposals, which is a good thing; I have no doubt that in the end it tends to improve the quality of decision taking. We are getting so used to leaks, guesses and misreporting in the newspapers that it is thought quite improper if the Minister ever says anything by way of announcement of intentions without having talks with the world and his wife about it first. I have now put out my proposals for consultation and I will set them out in more detail in the light of what my hon. Friend and others have already said to me when, in the summer, I produce a White Paper that will pave the way for further discussions.

Many of us welcome the proposals by the Secretary of State for a new police authority for London, although we would clearly wish to go that much further than he. Nevertheless, it is a welcome step. Can he tell the House his thoughts so far about the basis on which elected councillors will go on to the police authority? Since he did not answer the question when he made his original statement, what thoughts does he have about the future of the City of London police force within the compass of the new London authority?

The hon. Gentleman and I are agreed that London needs a police authority and that it is time to change the arrangements whereby the Home Secretary is the police authority. Remembering the hon. Gentleman's record on the Greater London council and the many things that he has said about police over the years, I very much doubt that it will turn out that we agree on anything else at all on this subject. I am now considering the membership of the police authority and listening to all views from all sides, and I will announce my proposals in more detail when I produce the White Paper. I have no proposals to make at the moment about the City of London police.

Recognising that the Home Secretary's authority has not always covered itself in glory in protecting members of the diplomatic community and the royal family in the past, can he assure us that further contracting-out groups such as have been active earlier this week in safeguarding prisoners will not be given responsibility for either the diplomatic community or the royal family?

I am happy to have the opportunity to assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no intention whatever of contracting out or placing in private hands fundamental police duties that require the powers of a constable. Reports to that effect in the newspapers are completely wrong. I do not believe that it is a proper use of a trained police officer to sit in a taxi handcuffed to a harmless prisoner who is being conducted from prison to a court, which is what most court escorting services amount to.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the workings of the unit fine system; and if he will consider proposals for change.

We are monitoring the operation of the unit fine scheme carefully. We are taking very seriously concerns expressed about the working of the system in certain cases, and are considering how these concerns can best be met.

I wonder whether the Minister has heard the story of the little 83-year-old lady who lives on her own in south Devon and who inadvertently forgot to renew her television licence. She was fined £800 and eight units, because she had a disposable income of more than £5,000 a year. In the same court, a younger woman who committed exactly the same offence and who had a disposable income of under £5,000 a year was fined eight units and only £32. While Conservative Members are entirely for change for the better, we are opposed to change for change's sake. Can the Minister tell the House today that he will make some improvement that is more equitable, which Conservative Members will support entirely?

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate on how we might study and improve the operation of the unifying scheme. He was kind enough to bring to the Home Office some of his local magistrates who made a singular and helpful contribution to our discussions. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), magistrates make the decision in assessing the value of units; it is a judicial decision. If there is information that they wish to question, they have the right so to do.

Why does not the Minister recognise the depth of feeling among magistrates about the unit system? It is undermining the discretion of local justices and leading to absurd fines. Recently in Gwent, a young unemployed youth was fined more than £1,000 for dropping a crisp packet. Although we may condemn litter louts, that seems a bit out of proportion and brings the whole system into disrepute.

On 4 May, we shall meet the Magistrates Association which will give it an opportunity to join in our work. The case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned resulted from somebody not filling in the means inquiry form. In those circumstances, an individual, under present arrangements, can go back to the court and ask for the matter to be reconsidered.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree first, that the supply of weapons to the states of the former Yugoslavia should be choked off and not increased and secondly, that arms and equipment dealers who may wish to dabble there, and their friends, no matter how well connected, will not find a safe haven in Great Britain?

The whole House views with dismay and despair the slaughter in the whole of Bosnia which we see daily on our television screens. For that reason, we have sought over the past few months, not least at the London conference and in a variety of other ways, to play our part in the international community in trying to bring an end to that particular conflict. I share the hon. Gentleman's view about the need to damp down and not to increase the supply of arms.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Staff for calling a strike for tomorrow and on other days which will be damaging to passengers, especially my constituents, and which could put in danger other people's jobs? What would my right hon. Friend do if his transport spokesman backed the strike? Would he back him or sack him?

I believe that the latest strike by the RMT will cause further hardship to the travelling public and that it will damage British Rail's finances. That does not safeguard jobs in rail or elsewhere; it actually puts jobs in rail and elsewhere at risk. It is an utterly pointless strike. It is a throwback to the 1960s and it deserves the support of no one. It certainly does not have my support and it does not have the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I regret that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) supports the strike. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition does not and I hope that he will take appropriate action.

The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that just before Easter, he assured me during Prime Minister's Question Time that the Government were prepared to widen and to intensify sanctions against Serbia. In view of the appalling slaughter at Srebrenica, will the Prime Minister tell us what action the Government have taken since then?

I certainly stand by the remark I made to the House before Easter. We are keen both to widen and to deepen the sanctions against Serbia. To do that we need the complete support of our allies in the Security Council and elsewhere. I expect that a suitable resolution will be passed in the United Nations this month, but I cannot guarantee in advance of that the support of all other members, which is necessary to ensure that we have that resolution. The British position is clear. We wish to have that resolution as speedily as possible. We should have welcomed it today.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that even the existing sanctions are not being enforced adequately so that there is no real let or hindrance put upon the Serbs and their present barbarous behaviour? Instead of the Security Council resolution being delayed until towards the end of the month, ought not the British Government be urging that it be brought forward so that the international community can take effective action?

As I indicated delicately to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that is the position of the British Government, but we would not get it through the Security Council at this moment for reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can well understand. One of the permanent members would not be likely to support it now, but will be later this month. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows who and why.

Does not the Prime Minister understand that there is really deep anger and concern in Britain about the fact that the slaughter at Srebrenica is a daily affair? Ought there not to be more urgency than this leisurely diplomatic pace?

Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that neither he nor anyone else has a monopoly of concern or conscience about the matter. His concern is shared throughout the House and the country. No one doubts that. The question at issue is what we can do, how best we can do it and what options will most successfully help to bring an end to the slaughter. In achieving that, we need the support of the other members of the Security Council and the international community. We have been seeking to obtain it for a variety of measures and we shall continue to do so. In the meantime, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will need no reminding of the leading role that Britain has taken in providing humanitarian aid and in the search for a diplomatic settlement. We were the first nation to put a substantial number of troops into Bosnia and to help people facing great difficulties through the winter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the advice of the armchair generals and pseudo-defence experts, all suggestions of substantial military action in the Bosnian region should be totally resisted as in that terrain it would lead to guerrilla warfare and substantial loss of life among British service men and women and those of other countries, and would make no contribution whatsoever towards an early resumption of peace talks and a settlement of the problem?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and agree with him. We are seeking a diplomatic means of ending the fighting. That is the only credible way forward for the international community. Other issues have been considered and discussed, but they involve substantial disadvantages. Many of them were cogently set out to the House yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

The key question is whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to see Srebrenica fall into the hands of the Bosnian Serbs.

The right hon. Gentleman has shared for a long time the concern that everyone in the House feels about the issue. What he has never done is suggest a way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I will answer the question in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman has never suggested a way in which we could physically prevent military action. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should put British troops on the ground in Bosnia, will he please say so directly or stop implying it?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the respect of the public and parents for the teaching profession was not enhanced by the conduct of certain people at the National Union of Teachers conference last week, and that the proper way to restore public confidence in the education system and testing is the Government's review and not a campaign of sabotage?

I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The concern that we have in education policy is to improve the quality of education and the success of all our children as they go through their schooling. I believe that the remark of the president of the NUT that the union's aim was "to annihilate the tests" was a disgrace. I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member in the House will give any houseroom to that sort of attitude.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the increasing concern among the lower paid and many other people about the proposed increase in domestic fuel prices from April 1994? If so, what advice would he offer to those people who face massive bill increases in the winters of 1994 and 1995? Would he advise them to leave the heat on, turn it down or switch it off?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will provide substantial extra help for people in particular need; we will announce the details of that in good time and the increases will take effect before any increases in the fuel charges. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might give me a straight answer at some stage as to whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) when he called for an increase in value added tax.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

Bearing in mind the importance attributed to manufacturing by many, if not all, people, does my right hon. Friend recollect that manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government, whereas, during the 1980s, Britain enjoyed the fastest growth in manufacturing output of any major European country and that manufacturing productivity in Britain during the 1980s rose faster than in any other major industrial country in the world? Do recent figures show that conditions are now in place to resume and build on that progress in the 1990s?

As my hon. Friend clearly knows, the figures released yesterday show manufacturing output sharply up. They underline the fact that our manufacturers are taking advantage of the present opportunities. I very much welcome that. We need a strong and successful manufacturing industry. What we need to see is an industrial renaissance, not the propping up of lame ducks. The fact that we now have the lowest interest rates in the Community, very low inflation and a competitive exchange rate gives our industries and our exporters in particular every opportunity of growing, investing, expanding, and seeking and achieving success in the 1990s.

The Prime Minister mentioned tests. Does he accept that t he testing of English proposed for this year is so outrageously flawed that not only the test should be withdrawn but the present direction of the Department for Education should be withdrawn as well?

I do not agree with the principle behind the hon. Gentleman's question. I think that there is no doubt that the tests are the key to raising standards, as our main competitors around the world have shown. It is a straightforward matter of common sense. Without tests, teachers cannot identify pupils' weaknesses and cannot tackle them, parents cannot hold schools to account for their children's progress and the Government would not know what was happening in the schools. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members do not find the importance of education and tests a matter for seriousness.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

Against the background of the scandals surrounding the European bank for reconstruction and development, and persistent reports of fraud involving the common agricultural policy and other European funds, is it not a matter for congratulation that the British Government, at any rate, have made a high priority of proper discussion of, and attention to, the reports of the European Court of Auditors? Will my right hon. Friend read up on his efforts in that direction? In particular, when he has a chance to have a word with Chancellor Kohl will he ask him why the Germans are not so keen as we are on discussing this sort of fraud?

There is no doubt that the United Kingdom has taken the lead in action against fraud both in the agreements that we reached at Maastricht and on other occasions when European leaders have met. We have done that in the past and we will continue to do that in future.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

Despite the Prime Minister's boasting about the engineering industry, has he not seen the Engineering Employers Federation report published today which suggests that engineering imports will rise twice as fast as exports? How will that balance of payments crisis help the country? Does it not once more show how far engineering manufacturing industry has declined due to the mismanagement of the economy by his Government?

I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. He needs to concentrate, as we are concentrating, on the opportunity that we have to expand and improve the industrial and manufacturing base as a result of the policies that we put in place, which are now clearly becoming successful. I regret that Opposition Members do not like that success, but it is becoming more evident week after week.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that yesterday we had a similar situation to that which we now face: a Bill was defeated—by 65 votes to 39—on what was, in House of Commons terms, a very thin day because we had just returned from the holidays. Roughly the same Bill was introduced yesterday, and we challenged it. You said on a former occasion that you would not scrutinise Bills which were presented in an attempt to circumvent a decision of the House.

My ruling is precisely the same as the one I gave previously. I ruled earlier in this Session in respect of what was known then as the human fertilisation Bill, which was presented to the House by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). This course is in order, and since yesterday's refusal to introduce was not the kind of decision which rules out the presentation of a similar but not identical Bill. In so ruling I have taken account of the precedent set in "Erskine May".