To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the right to silence.

In appropriate circumstances, a court should be able to draw proper inferences from an accused person's failure to answer questions before and at his trial. At present, courts are precluded from drawing any inferences of guilt from the failure of an accused person answer such questions. I do not think that that artificial restriction can be justified and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill contains provisions to modify it.

In welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend's answer, may I ask whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that no one has anything to fear from being asked reasonable questions? Does he accept that many of our right hon. and hon. Friends are puzzled at the Labour party's failure to support such a modest measure in Committee?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and, on that matter, with the hon. Member for Brightside. It is a matter of considerable regret that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues have not seen fit to follow his opinion on that question.

The Secretary of State will know that many of those who have made representations to us on that issue have pointed out that there will be a significant increase in the number of miscarriages of justice as a result of the proposed legislation, especially when it applies to those who have disabilities. Does the Secretary of Stale agree that, before he makes any changes, it would be better to wait until we have procedures in force to deal with miscarriages of justice, as recommended by the Royal Commission on criminal justice?

We should like to put those procedures in place as soon as posssible. The truth of the matter is that those who make disproportionate use of the so-called right to silence are professional criminals and terrorists. They make a mockery of our system of criminal justice and the sooner that we put an end to that abuse the better.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Lord Chief Justice said clearly in his Tom Sergant lecture that there is no reason why proper inferences should not be drawn under such circumstances? Does he agree with that statement?

I certainly agree. That was also the view of the majority of judges who gave evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

While unemployment and poor housing can never be an excuse for crime, does the Secretary of State accept that 14 years of Government policies on unemployment, housing and education could have contributed in any way to the appalling rise in the levels of crime over that same 14-year period?

Order. The question is a specific one dealing with the right to silence. I must ask the hon. Member to relate his question directly to the question on the Order Paper.

Does the Secretary of State feel that the current Bill will in any way affect those factors?

Order. Those factors have nothing to do with the question.

On the question of miscarriages of justice, will the changes that my right hon. and learned Friend envisages take into account the appalling case, which aroused such public concern, of the parents who undoubtedly killed their small baby and yet walked free from the court because of that right to silence?

I very much hope that the changes that we are making will go some considerable way towards remedying the manifest injustice of the case to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. The whole House will have seen just a moment ago the extraordinary extent to which Labour Front-Bench Members will go to talk about anything other than the real issues affecting law and order.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to regulate private wheel clamping.

We are currently considering what action it may be appropriate to take. In doing so, our aim will be to ensure that any measure introduced to prevent or to deter irresponsible and heavy-handed wheel clamping on private land does not prevent sensible measures being taken to control genuine parking problems.

Does the Minister accept that that answer is quite unsatisfactory, given that his departmental consultations ended on 31 May last year? Is not it about time that he looked at the issue? The cowboy clampers are still making motorists' lives a misery. An amendment has been tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Why does not the Minister do something about it and take some action?

The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the consultation did not reveal any clear consensus on the way forward. I am very conscious of the fact that there is a balance to be struck here. We must protect the interests of the genuine landowner and the interests of the genuine motorist. Wheel clamping has proved to be an effective means of deterring some motorists who are parking illegally and causing considerable inconvenience at road access ways, hospitals, retail centres and on other private land.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the activities of some companies are excessive? Does he agree that women in particular are put in fear and great anxiety when they have to redeem their cars? Although I accept all that he says, may I stress as a matter of urgency that those excesses should be removed?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have consulted on the issue and we are currently considering what we need to do. It would be wrong of the Opposition—I know that my hon. Friend did not seek to make this point—to conclude that there is a simple, easy explanation and way forward or to conclude that all the fault lies clearly on one side. It does not. Before the House rushes in and creates new criminal laws to deal with the problem, we must ensure that we protect the legitimate interests of both sides of the argument.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has had about his proposals for change in the method of appointment of police authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) regarding the Criminal Justice Bill and the Police and Magistrates Court Bill [Lords].

I have received many representations from organisations, members of the public and hon. Members. Last week, I announced measures that we propose to include in the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill to reinforce the independence of local police authorities. We have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers about that Bill and about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

I am amazed at the effect that my tabling the question had on the Home Secretary. Does he realise that his generous and ungrudging U-turn on the appointment of chairmen and chairwomen, and on the numbers in police authorities, has delighted most Members of the House, most members of the other place, members of police authorities and the police forces themselves? Will the Home Secretary now take one more U-turn towards democracy and remove his most distasteful proposal: to add five or more placemen or women to police authorities?

No. Independent local people who do not have the time or the inclination to become magistrates or councillors can make a valuable contribution to the working of the local police authorities. I do not believe that local police authorities should be denied the benefit of their service.

Did those representatives reflect the growing public concern that some police authorities had been tardy in introducing modern management techniques and information technology? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, therefore, that it is extremely sensible to have on police authorities people who bring management, financial and IT skills, which can only assist the police in doing their duty?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Police and Magistrates Courts Bill will provide strong local police authorities to reflect the interests of local people, greater freedom for chief constables to manage their forces and a clear framework for setting priorities and measuring performance. The measures will contribute to more effective policing.

Now that the Secretary of State has accepted that it is wrong to appoint the head of the police authority, what possible justification is there for proceeding with appointing one third of the members, thus ensuring that his national objectives for policing should override local priorities and forcing smaller police services to amalgamate, even where local people do not want that? As the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers said last week, after the Secretary of State's U-turn, that the proposals were still ill-conceived and publicly unacceptable, what possible support does he have for proceeding with them?

I have just explained to the House the purpose of my measures. It is for this House and the other House of Parliament to decide what measures we should take; it is not even for the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. We must set in place the proper framework for policing in this country. We must have slimmed down and effective police authorities to which there will be proper local accountability. That is what my measures will achieve.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received from police representatives since the publication of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received from the police to his announcements of new measures to tackle crime; and if he will make a statement.

Representatives of the police service have expressed strong support for the Government's new measures to tackle crime, particularly the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill now before the House. We have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers about the Bill.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. In the fight against crime and on law and order issues, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is one of the most important Bills ever to come before the House. Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the statement of the Opposition spokeseman on law and order, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), that we should not hesitate to applaud the Government when they introduce measures that are correct? Will he now take the opportunity to invite Her Majesty's Opposition to support the Bill in all its remaining stages? If they do not, what conclusion can people draw from the Opposition's stance on law and order?

The only logical conclusion that people can draw from the Opposition's reaction to these measures is that they cannot make up their mind about them. When the measures came before the House for Second Reading, the Opposition could not make up their mind whether to vote for or against, or whether to say yes or no—they simply abstained. Since then, in the Standing Committee, we have seen a series of attempts to weaken the measures in the Bill—to neuter them and make them have as little effect as possible.

May I direct the Home Secretary's attention to the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill dealing with computer-generated pornographic images of children which were introduced as a result of a successful campaign by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)? Has he received any representations about the fact that those provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the ease with which computer material can be transmitted from one part of the kingdom to another? Is not it essential that the loophole be plugged as soon as possible, preferably this afternoon?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point which I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the great concern expressed by the police not only in my constituency but in other areas about the violent crimes being committed by many young people? Will he assure the House that his tougher measures will be implemented as soon as the Bill becomes law?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will implement the measures at the earliest possible moment because we understand how urgently necessary they are to protect the public.

Will the Home Secretary read the report of the Committee considering the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and admit that the Opposition have been trying to make effective a Bill that he has admitted will do nothing to cut crime? With crime up more than 124 per cent. under the Tories, and with only one crime in 50 ending with a punishment in the courts, when will the Home Secretary accept Labour's advice to be tough on crime and the causes of crime by providing a legal framework for a local partnership between the police, local authorities and the community to cut crime and protect the victims of crime?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the last person to want me to read the reports of the proceedings of the Standing Committee. He has been comprehensively routed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and by other hon. Friends on the Committee whenever he has dared to raise his head above the parapet.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in condemning the appalling murder of Police Sergeant Robertson in Croydon? Will he give careful consideration to the amendment that I have tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill which would ensure that, when the persons responsible for that murder are caught, life imprisonment would mean exactly what it says?

I heard with great regret of the tragic death yesterday of Sergeant Robertson. The House will share my sense of outrage that it should happen to a police officer who was bravely doing his duty. The House will want to join me in extending the deepest sympathy to his widow and children. His death reminds us again of the enormous debt which we as a society owe to our police officers.

Order. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was not told that his question was to be linked, we shall now take Question 5.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) regarding the Criminal Justice Bill and the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill [Lords].

May I immediately apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that he was not informed, as he certainly should have been.

I thank the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for clause 45 of the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill, which covers Scotland. This morning, I talked to two Scottish chief constables, who expressed their concerns to me about the interest that the Secretary of State for Scotland can now take in operational matters as a result of that clause. That will interfere with the independence of the police, and they are so concerned about it that they would like to pass their concerns, through me, to the Home Secretary. Will a meeting take place with the relevant Minister to assure the police that their optional independence will be maintained following the passage of Bill?

I can certainly give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks in relation to the operational independence of chief constables. That is essential and it is written into the Bill in exactly the same language as is on the statute book at present in the Police Act 1964.

rose—

Two minutes!

Order.

Since an obvious concern of the police authorities is the safety of their officers, may I say how much Mrs. Christine Robertson—a constituent of mine—will be comforted by the sympathy which my right hon. and learned Friend has extended this afternoon on behalf of the House? Does he agree that it is only the courage and dedication to duty of officers such as Sergeant Robertson which provides the shield to protect us all?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks and I entirely agree with the rest of what he had to say.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations his Department has had with the local authority associations regarding reducing crime; and if he will make a statement.

The Home Office has from time to time sought the views of the local authority associations on crime-related matters, including their contribution to local crime prevention schemes.

Does the Minister accept that the local authority associations are worried about some of the proposals in the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill? They are worried that the reduction in the number of local authority members on police committees will reduce the impact that it is necessary for local authorities to have if we are to reduce crime. We must have corporate organisation between the community, the local authority and the police committees. Will the Minister prevail on his colleague to rethink the Bill to allow greater representation of local authorities on police committees?

As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, local authority representatives will account for half the membership of police authorities. As he knows, the police Bill will place a requirement on police authorities to consult locally and to draw up locally focused policing strategies and report on them. The local authorities are part of the partnership against crime. In several schemes up and down the country, the co-ordinator has been appointed by the local authorities. Equally, in many other successful schemes the co-ordinator has been appointed by other sources.

Has my hon. Friend had any demand for the restoration of some form of physical punishment? Does the enormous increase in crime among young people of school age suggest that we are paying the price, after a decade of abolition of the cane, of lack of discipline in schools and in the home?

My hon. Friend's powerful plea will have been heard by the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will always consider any representations put to him. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the House will shortly have the opportunity to debate the issue of capital punishment.

The Minister must be aware of the Prime Minister's "back to basics" campaign. Will he ensure that there are sufficient policemen on duty in villages? We do not want any crap about there being more policemen. There is no doubt that communities are demanding more policemen. Will the Minister also ensure that they have sufficient technology to combat the current crime wave?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are more police officers now—128,000—than at any time in the history of the police. He will know that spending on the police is almost £6,000 million. I am sure that he will have welcomed my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that the number of special constables should increase to 30,000 in the next three years. He will also have welcomed the parish constable initiative.

Order. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) was not informed that his question was linked, I am prepared to call it separately.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received from the police to his announcement of new measures to tackles crime; and if he will make a statement.

My announcement of the measures that I am taking to fight crime have been warmly welcomed by the police.

I strongly support my right hon. and learned Friend's reforms. Has he received any representations about arming the police in this capital punishment-free era when any Tom, Dick or Harry can go out on to the streets armed with a knife or a gun, use it to kill police officers or members of the public in furtherance of crime and, if caught, not receive an appropriate penalty? They do not face much risk in carrying out the crime.

I do not accept the latter words of my hon. Friend, especially in view of the answer that I gave earlier on the sentences that are available. The question of arming the police is a difficult one. At present, it is for chief officers to decide in what circumstances their officers should be armed and how many should be armed. I do not believe that there is any middle course between that and arming every police officer in Britain—a course which I believe most people in Britain and most police officers would not want us to adopt.

Given the increased concern among the public and police authorities about crimes related to specifically to drugs, is the Home Secretary prepared to introduce specific measures to deal with drug-related crimes and to provide our police authorities with additional resources to tackle that problem?

We have a comprehensive strategy in place to tackle the very serious problem of drug misuse and we are pursuing that strategy vigorously. I hope that the country will take note of the vote on the decriminalisation of drugs that is being held in the European Parliament today, which is expected to be supported by the majority of socialist Members of the European Parliament both from this country and from the rest of Europe.

Further to the last supplementary question, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the years of Conservative Government we have had a strong attitude towards drug-related crime, but that the police are nevertheless very concerned that the proportion of such crimes has risen to something approaching 70 per cent. So the measures that we have taken hitherto have simply not been sufficient to deal with the problem. As he can see, the view is shared across all party lines in this House, so will he redouble his efforts to ensure that in the years ahead the proportion of drug-related crimes falls instead of rises?

I share my hon. and learned Friend's concern and I can assure him that we lose no opportunity of examining our policies to find out in which ways they can be made more effective. I entirely understand and share his concern.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received over legislation affecting racial violence.

We continue to receive representations from a wide range of organisations and from hon. Members. The Commission for Racial Equality made a number of recommendations for changes in the law in its second review of the Race Relations Act 1976, which we are considering. The Select Committee on Home Affairs is also examining the issue, as part of its inquiry into racial attacks and harassment and we await its recommendations with interest.

I deplore all forms of violence, including the horrifying murder of a police sergeant in New Addington, Croydon.

I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in deploring all assaults and attacks. I am glad that he has given me the opportunity to correct his misunderstanding of the figure that I gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I referred to 130,000 racial incidents. Only a very small proportion were physical assaults.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is one certain way to cut out racial violence, or violence of any description? If someone is put in prison for five years they should serve five years. Let us stop all this nonsense about remission, rehabilitation and parole—let offenders serve five years. If the Prison Officers Association says that prison officers have no control over prisoners, let us make prisoners serve extra years if they misbehave.

Many people will have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks. However, fie forgets—but the judiciary does not—that the law enables a prisoner to be released half way through his sentence and so the judiciary imposes sentences with that in mind. Release at half time, which is allowed under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, makes it possible for offenders to be supervised and at risk of being returned to prison. That is a better guarantee of their reintegration into the community and a better sanction for their good behaviour.

The Minister will be well aware of the fact that the Labour party has tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that will effectively deal with racial harassment. The amendment is in a form that the hon. Gentleman has suggested may be acceptable to the Government, and we hope that they will accept it. Does the Minister realise how black people in this country feel? Does not he understand that when they are subjected to racial attack they become victims twice over—first, because of the violence itself and, secondly, because they know that they have been picked on as a result of their race. Surely it is time for the Government to take these matters much more seriously and to accept the amendment that we have tabled.

I am not sure that the hon. Lady is quite clear about her own party's amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. My understanding is that it deals with racial violence rather than harassment. On the question of harassment, I have nothing to add to the points that I have just made. We are looking at the public order legislation, and we want to see the report of the Select Committee before finally making up our minds about what changes should be made. I believe that the pressure from the hon. Lady's party relates to a separate crime of racial violence, which would do nothing to secure the conviction of those who perpetrate racial violence and would, in the long term, be bad for community relations.

I promise my hon. Friend that the Select Committee will ensure that Ministers receive its report as quickly as possible. In the meantime, may I ask whether he agrees that what we require is not necessarily more legislation but better police practice? Does he share my admiration for the racial violence unit at Plumstead police station, which, over many years, has painstakingly built up a very good relationship with local ethnic communities? Does my hon. Friend know that much of that good work was undone by the Anti-Nazi League's march through south-east London a few months ago?

I believe that these marches do nothing but heighten tension. I agree with my hon. Friend that the police have made enormous efforts to establish good relationships with the ethnic minority communities and, thereby, encourage the members of those communities to report any crimes against them. My hon. Friend will know that we have recalled the racial attacks group to consider improvements in the practices in this area and to decide whether these could be improved further.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were injured in the performance of their duties in 1993.

Information on the number of injuries is not held centrally. In 1992, in England and Wales, 14,946 police officers were assaulted while on duty. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

Does the Minister agree that it is not all that long since policemen could expect, or at least hope, to complete their service without sustaining serious criminal injury? The dreadful incident yesterday and the figure that the Minister has just given the House suggest that policemen can no longer hold such a hope. Will the Home Secretary, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service accept that they have an obligation to consider this matter urgently with a view to securing the improvement that is so desperately needed?

My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that he will ensure that the police have the necessary equipment to protect themselves from attacks and assaults. The House has already made known its deep regret at the tragic murder of Sergeant Robertson yesterday. In fact, the number of assaults on police officers dropped in the last two years for which information is available, as did the number of serious assaults and fatal assaults. The police scientific and development branch keeps the question of body armour under review all the time, and chief officers are able to issue ballistic vests when that is considered appropriate.

What resources is the police scientific and development branch providing for the testing of knife-proof and bullet-proof vests? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that there will not be any delay in the testing programme on account of lack of resources and that, where necessary, private sector firms that produce this equipment will be allowed to provide the necessary resources to enable testing to be carried out as quickly as possible?

As my hon. Friend will know, the scientific and development branch is able to keep all new developments in body armour under review. It liaises closely in its findings with all police forces.

Does the Minister acknowledge that if police officers wish to acquire and wear bullet-proof vests, they must pay for them, save in the narrow circumstances that he mentioned? Will he discuss with chief police officers and police authorities throughout the country whether that is appropriate?

As I have already said, it is for chief police officers to decide the operational circumstances in which ballistic vests will be issued. One police force, the Northumbria constabulary, recently acquired 600 vests and, I understand, intends to make them available for wider use within the force. But it is up to chief officers to make the operational decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the effect of allowing only Crown courts to pass secure training orders on persistent juvenile offenders.

The principal effect of confining this sentence to the Crown court would be delay in dealing with offenders and additional costs for the criminal justice system. The Government believe that it is important for youth courts to have the power to make a secure training order when the right criteria have been met.

Does my hon. Friend agree that restricting the provisions of the Bill to the extent that they have no practical effect is no different from opposing them outright? In their attempts to emasculate the Bill in Standing Committee, do not the Opposition show their total inadequacy in tackling the problems of juvenile crime?

What we saw on Second Reading was a dithering Opposition who did not know whether to vote for or against the measures. In Committee, they tabled amendments that would have made it practically impossible for anyone taken to court to be sentenced for the persistent crimes that they were committing.

Is the Minister aware of the concern of the police about the video now being sold entitled "Police Stop", which consists of 50 minutes worth of spectacular car chases and motorway smash-ups? Does he agree that that reckless video provides copycat encouragement to young "twockers" and joyriders and should be withdrawn from sale forthwith?

There is a tremendous responsibility on all those who make videos to ensure that they do not lead the young or innocent astray. As the hon. Gentleman knows, videos containing sexual or violent material must satisfy very strict criteria. I shall be happy to look at the video and include it in my review of the adequacy of the law relating to videos.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding his proposal to extend the Attorney-General's right of appeal against lenient sentences.

I have received a number of representations on that issue. It is abundantly clear that the plans to extend the scope of the Attorney-General's powers command widespread and enthusiastic support.

Has the Minister received any representations on that proposal from the Labour party?

I am not aware of having received any representations from the Labour party on that subject. I am aware, however, that when the Government introduced the power in 1987, the Labour party fought against it tooth and nail and voted against the Attorney-General's right to review sentences and send to the Court of Appeal those sentences that he thought were unduly lenient.

Will the Minister explain whether he has taken measures to investigate the fact, as was revealed in answer to parliamentary questions, that there is a great regional variety in the length of sentences in rape cases and that some sentences for rape are excessively lenient? What does the Minister propose to do about it?

It is rather rich for a representative of the Labour party to complain that some sentences in rape cases may be lenient when the hon. Lady's party voted against our taking that power in the first place. Since we took that power, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has referred 129 cases to the Court of Appeal, and in 84 of those the sentence has been increased. Those include many rape cases. My right hon. and learned Friend will certainly send cases to the Court of Appeal if he concludes that his criteria have been met and the sentence is unduly lenient.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the sale of stolen property at car boot sales.

Representations have been received from nine hon. Members and from five members of the public.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although many chief constables may say that it is not a problem, many ordinary police constables and many of our constituents, who are sometimes advised by the police to go to car boot sales to seek the proceeds of crime for their homes, take a different view? Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be possible to maintain the enjoyment that many thousands of our constituents derive from car boot sales, while making it rather more difficult for the proceeds of crime to find such an easy market?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, one local authority—North Yorkshire county council—makes use of local registration to register occasional sales and secondhand dealers. It has registered 4,000 and has had 50 prosecutions, all for non-registration. The North Yorkshire police have no information about any cases of handling stolen goods. I am reviewing with the North Yorkshire authorities the effectiveness of that scheme. Meanwhile, a police officer who identifies such problems will know that powers exist under section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 to deal with the disposal of stolen goods. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 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 have further meetings later today.

In a letter to me from the Imperial Tobacco Company, the corrupt practice is exposed that, in the general election, it awarded 1,000 advertising sites to the Tory party because the Tory party promised not to ban tobacco advertising. The Government have now delivered on that promise to their paymasters. The cost will be borne by the nation in several thousand avoidable and unnecessary deaths. Will the Prime Minister promise today that never again will the Tory party accept bribes, favours or money from the tobacco industry?

The hon. Gentleman clearly overlooks the excellent record that this Government have had in reducing smoking—down from 45 to 28 per cent. He knows very well of the changes in taxation that have been necessary to achieve that. He illustrates that no company that was remotely sensible would support the policies of the Labour party.

Will my right hon. Friend consider making public funds available so that every business in the land can be sent a copy of the European socialist manifesto so that they may judge for themselves whether it is a constructive business plan or a fast route to failure?

I am not entirely sure that would be a proper use of public funds. I very much doubt whether anybody would really wish to read it. It is certainly clear that what is contained in that socialist manifesto, which was signed up to by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—without, as I recall, reading it—would be desperately damaging for British industry. It is equally true that the decision in the past of Members of the European Parliament who support the Labour party to vote for ending single nation vetoes would in effect mean that we would not be able to sustain our rebate, at a cost of many billions of pounds to the British taxpayer.

Given the widespread concern throughout the country at the arbitrary and unfair decisions that are being produced by the system operated by the Child Support Agency, why are the Government so opposed to allowing an independent review of its decisions?

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there will be a full debate on that issue later today. As I have said on previous occasions, we have made it clear that we shall keep the nature of the system under review and if it seems necessary to make changes we will do so. We are embarking on implementing a principle that is supported uniformly across the House. We need a little more experience of how it works. We will keep it under review. If it is necessary to make changes, we shall make them then, not now.

Is not the Prime Minister aware that the phrase "keeping under review" has been the bromide response of bureaucrats down the decades? Why do the Government—despite all the evidence—stop the Child Support Agency from taking into account divorce or separation agreements involving the transfer of assets, which may be highly relevant to establishing justice between the parties?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously did not listen to what I said a moment ago. I made it perfectly clear that we would continue to evaluate the workings of the Child Support Act 1991 and the agency. We intend to secure a well-accepted, consistent mechanism to deliver a better child maintenance system than we have had in the past. That is why I said that we would keep the matter under review.

The Prime Minister cannot be so complacent about the anger that is now felt throughout the country—and his Back Benchers certainly should not be so complacent about it. Does not 80 per cent. of the money recovered by the agency go straight to the Treasury? Did the Government intend that?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman reveals instinctively that he thinks in terms of "big government", rather than thinking of the taxpayer. The money is actually returned to the taxpayer who contributed it in the first place.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain's only interest in Bosnia is assisting in the provision of humanitarian aid? Can he assure the House that we will not prejudice that effort by attacking any of the combatants?

The measures agreed yesterday at the North Atlantic Council are intended primarily to reinforce the peace process. There will be renewed diplomatic effort to encourage all sides to reach an agreement and stick to it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that, although private matters can be cruelly exposed within hours, issues of public accountability can sometimes lie dormant for years? Can he assure the House that British aid and export packages have never been used to cover the cost of large-scale commissions and backhanders?

I am aware of no circumstances in which that has happened. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I hope that he will show it either to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or to me.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the manifesto adopted by the European Peoples party on 3 February? Is he aware that it contains a commitment to a single currency, a central bank, the social chapter, a common immigration policy and a constitution for the whole of Europe? Does he agree that Conservative Members could not possibly accept those proposals, and repudiate them explicitly?

Neither do we have to accept them; nor will we. The Conservative party at the European elections is in agreement and will contest those elections on a distinctively British Conservative manifesto on the future of Europe.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

On the subject of the appropriate use of the taxpayers' money, does not the Prime Minister agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Department of Employment can waste £59 million on unused computer equipment, when thousands of my constituents are facing cuts in unemployment benefit as a result of his mismanagement, or are bureaucratic waste, sleaze and corruption no longer his responsibility?

The Government always study Public Accounts Committee reports carefully. The lessons in that have already been learnt and put into practice.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that national health service trusts, general practitioner fundholding and the patients charter are yielding valuable improvements in efficiency and quality of service? Does he further agree that not only the patients, but those who work in the national health service do not want those reforms undone and everything turned upside down, as the Labour party proposes?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The test that we should apply to the health service and efficiency is perfectly straightforward. Is the health service treating more patients? Is it providing better care and is it treating people more quickly? The answer to each of those questions is yes. The national health service treated 2·5 million more patients last year than in 1979. By contrast, the ludicrous document launched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this morning, contains nothing that would lead to a single extra patient being treated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would like to abolish trusts and fundholding. That is a recipe for inefficiency, upheaval and chaos.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his education Minister in the other place announced last week that there would be no extra assistance to grant-maintained schools for their liability to pay value added tax on fuel? Is he aware that grant-maintained schools are now paying £2·50 in every £100 in taxation rather than on books?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more and more schools are seeking to become grant maintained and doing so week after week?

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

In his very busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to look at the recent Confederation of British Industry survey, which shows that business confidence in Britain is at an all-time high? Orders are up and, in the words of the CBI survey, the recovery is deepening and widening. Does he agree that such good economic indicators and such good signs bode well for private investment in projects such as crossrail?

My hon. Friend refers to one of a number of surveys that have highlighted the improving economic circumstances. The survey to which my hon. Friend refers shows business and export optimism up in each and every region of the country. Orders are up, output is expected to rise and investment in plant and machinery is expected to rise. That is against a background of low inflation with unit costs falling in most regions. The prospects for British business are extremely good. By getting inflation under control, cutting public spending and bringing interest rates down, we have provided exactly the right economic circumstances for long-sustained growth with low inflation and the creation of employment.

To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the number of people killed in Sarajevo since the passage of the United Nations Security Council resolution of June 1992 authorising the use of force by UNPROFOR to protect the safe areas.

We do not have reliable estimates for casualties in Sarajevo. The death toll has been high. The killing of 68 shoppers in the market last Saturday was a step change in a deteriorating situation. There can be no guarantee of peace in Sarajevo or in any other part of Bosnia. There is no feasible and certain means of resolving the problem from outside, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's decision yesterday will put the parties under heavier pressure to stop the bombardment and make peace.

Does the Prime Minister accept that there can be no logical or moral justification for distinguishing between Sarajevo and the other UN-designated safe areas in Bosnia, and that about 2,500 civilians have died in all those safe areas since June last year, when the UN authorised the use of force to protect those people? Will he, therefore, undertake to work to extend the ultimatum that has been issued in respect of Sarajevo to those other safe areas?

We have to determine what is practicable. We are already working, as far as Srebrenica and Tuzla are concerned, to try and ensure that the situation improves. We are now doing that having seen the special difficulties in Sarajevo. To follow to its logical conclusion the concern that the hon. Gentleman set out would involve our becoming involved, very probably with troops on the ground, throughout the whole of the area of conflict. However strongly the hon. Gentleman may feel about the matter, or others, that is not a practicable proposition.