To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the enforcement of the law with regard to illegal trading in class A drugs.

Tackling the trade in hard drugs is a key priority for the police and customs. We do all that we can to support their efforts. The Government have a comprehensive strategy to reduce both the supply of and the demand for drugs.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate those constituents of mine—and some of his—who work in the customs and in the police in our area to ensure that this country has much less drug trafficking than it might otherwise have? They are very successful and have had a number of catches recently. Will he also give every support to those involved in that work? Will he confirm that the Government want nothing to do with the trendy, lefty, liberal establishment which wants to legalise hard and soft drugs?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am delighted both to give him the confirmation which he sought and to congratulate his constituents and mine. Recently, there have been some notable major seizures by the customs—500 kg of cannabis on 16 January, 30 kg of cocaine on 2 March, 20 kg of cocaine on 10 April and 20 kg of heroin by the police last month. The whole House should join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police and customs on those successes.

While congratulating the police and customs, may I ask the Home Secretary to agree that it is also important to take measures to cut the demand for drugs, especially among young people? Does he agree that it is appalling that some of our young people are gaining access to drugs even within their school gates? Would not it be a better idea if, instead of spending millions fiddling about with police authorities, we were to spend that money on a decent drugs education programme for our young people?

We spend something like £500 million a year dealing with drugs on trying to reduce both the supply of, and the demand for, drugs. If the hon. Gentleman, who I know is pretty busy at the moment, were to find the time to talk to some of the Home Office drugs prevention initiative teams up and down the country which are doing tremendous work with parents, children and schools and on the streets reducing the demand for drugs, as I have, he would see that the Government are taking the problem extremely seriously and are taking effective action to counter it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet his European Union counterparts to discuss areas of the Maastricht treaty which fall within his Department's remit.

The next meeting of Interior and Justice Ministers is expected to be an informal Council in Berlin on 7 and 8 September 1994.

While I welcome the Franco-German initiative at Corfu to combat race discrimination, would not this be an excellent opportunity—given the fact that a new European Commission is to be appointed—to make sure that the need to combat racial discrimination in the enlarged market is included in the remit of one of the new Commissioners? That is something which Labour has urged.

The Government welcomed the recent Franco-German initiative, and it is widely recognised that the way in which we deal with race relations in this country is something from which our partners in Europe could learn. We discuss these matters with them at every opportunity—in European Councils and other places. One of the things that we stress to them in those discussions is the need to give free access to their countries to Commonwealth citizens from this country.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his extremely interesting letter in The Times today. Can he confirm, subsequent to that long-standing tradition in the Labour party, that he is getting wonderful support for the integrated formation of Europol policy?

The Labour party has been rather silent on Europol policy, but no doubt Opposition Members will rise to welcome it at an early opportunity. I look forward to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) getting to his feet now and answering the point that I made in my letter to The Times.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the law on drink driving.

None, Madam Speaker. Existing legislation provides for strong penalties against those who drink and drive. The Criminal Justice Act 1993 increased to 10 years' imprisonment the maximum penalty for those who cause death by drink driving.

Is the Minister aware that, as the law stands, the police have no power to require the taking of a sample in a hospital from a suspected drink driver? Can he imagine the distress and disbelief felt by the family of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Roberts, who were killed by a suspected drink driver? That person was taken to hospital and the police were unable to take a sample from him. Because no proper charges were brought, the man was able to walk away from court with his licence intact and with a fine of only £400. Is not that an outrageous anomaly? Why did the Government refuse my request to correct it during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill? Will the Minister undertake to do so now?

As was explained during the passage of the Bill, such samples cannot be taken without the patient's consent and the doctors would not allow that. I have every sympathy for the difficulties experienced by his constituents, but that was explained to him during the passage of the Bill.

Given the success in reducing drink driving, does my hon. Friend agree that the danger of introducing random testing is that it would alienate the law-abiding majority from the police?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we have had great success with our campaign against drink driving. That is evidenced by the most recent figures, which show that the number of fatalities has dropped by 60 per cent. since the campaign started in the early 1980s. My hon. Friend will appreciate that police officers have the right to conduct random checks of motor vehicles, but that they are not entitled to carry out random breath tests.

The Minister must be concerned about the number of incidents in which people have avoided prosecution, except on minor offences. For example, a brother of one of my constituents was killed in an accident, but the driver was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident. Will the Minister look carefully at the different ethical approaches adopted by other countries to see whether a solution can be found to the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright)?

The House has already heard that additional sentencing powers were provided in the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The hon. Member will be aware that, last year, 600,000 breath tests were conducted and 15 per cent. of those were positive, so the campaign is proving effective.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Attorney-General to discuss the policy of appeals against lenient sentences.

I meet my right hon. and learned Friend frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest. We share the same view of the importance of the power contained in section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the Attorney-General, will he raise with him the concern that is felt about the baffling sentences that are all too often imposed on people convicted of killing other people, young children and the elderly in road accidents caused by reckless or drink driving and other reasons? It causes great anguish to families. Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the sentences available on conviction of such crimes and consider extending the powers to refer lenient punishments to the Court of Appeal, as the law applies to other serious crimes?

My hon. Friend will have heard the Under-Secretary of State tell the House a moment or two ago that the maximum sentence for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs was increased in the Criminal Justice Act 1993 from five to 10 years. I confirm that the Attorney-General's power to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal applies to both those offences.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of burglaries (a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

In 1979, 544,037 burglaries were recorded by the police. In 1993, 1,369,998 burglaries were recorded.

Does not that reflect an astronomical rise in serious crime under this Government? I remind the Secretary of State that in 1979 we had a Labour Government and by 1993 we had had 14 years of Tory rule. Will he answer two simple questions? First, why has crime rocketed under the Tories? Secondly, if he continues his present law and order policies, what is his latest estimate of the year in which crime under a Tory Government will be reduced to the level that it was under a Labour Government?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be more interested in the fact that in the last quarter of 1993, recorded burglaries in West Mercia, which covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency, decreased by 7 per cent. If he wants to know why, he should take note of the comments of the chief constable of West Mercia, who said:

"The increasing tactic of police to target offenders coupled with the increased use of remands in custody over the past year, may well have combined to remove from circulation some 'bail bandits', people who commit offences repeatedly."

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that a significant number of those burglaries are carried out by relatively few persistent young offenders? Does he accept that long-suffering residents in my constituency and others would be happy to see such anti-social young people detained in secure units? Will he ensure that we have an opportunity to reverse their lordships' amendment at the earliest opportunity?

I entirely understand the concern that lies behind my hon. Friend's question and I hope that those Opposition Members who complain about crime will join me in regretting and deploring the fact that their colleagues in the other place voted to delay the time at which we shall be able to bring those secure training centres into effect. They bear the responsibility for that delay. We will, in due course, construct the secure training centres, which are so badly needed.

Instead of coming into the House and just reading the brief that he has been given, will the Home Secretary answer the questions and reassure my constituents who know that if they are burgled, it is rare that anyone will be caught and punished for the crime? What will he do to ensure that when people steal other people's belongings, they have a reasonable chance of being caught?

That is precisely what the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is designed to achieve. If the hon. Lady and her party had not consistently tried to wreck and undermine it, it would probably be on the statute book by now.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to build more prisons.

Six new prisons are to be built under the private sector design, control and finance initiative announced on 2 September 1993. Sites for the first two have been identified at Fazakerley in Merseyside and at Bridgend in south Wales.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent news on the prison building programme. Will he confirm the measures that he is planning to provide effective drug abuse treatment in prisons in the future, both in the maintained mainstream sector and the private sector?

My hon. Friend is right. That is an extremely important problem. Drugs do get into prisons, both public and private. They should not. We are seeking powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, as I think that my hon. Friend knows, so that prisoners can be required to be tested. That is the essential feature of the new strategy that we are developing, and of course it will include the private sector.

How can the Minister contemplate building any more private prisons when Derek Lewis, head of the Prison Service, has admitted to the Public Accounts Committee that the Wolds is costing £1 million more to run than it would cost if it were in the public sector, that it is costing £1.5 million more to pay Group 4 to manage the Wolds than was estimated, and that Group 4 has lost—a familiar word—control of certain sections of the Wolds prison? Will not even this Minister now admit that the time has come for the Prison Service to be administered by common sense rather than political prejudice?

The prejudice is all on the hon. Gentleman's part. All the points that he made and all the figures that he quoted were wrong. The Wolds is being run for £3 million less over five years than the benchmark of the Prison Service. The contract was awarded on that basis, and it will continue on that basis. There is no loss of control in the Wolds. The Wolds is pioneering new types of effective management. If the hon. Gentleman had read the chief inspector's report, he would have seen that the inspector found that the staff who run the Wolds were busy, hardworking and professional, and that their instinctive reaction was to solve problems rather than pass them on. That is the example that we want for the whole of the Prison Service.

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, when it comes to building new prisons for persistent juvenile offenders, he will insist that the will of this House should prevail, rather than that of the interfering busybodies down the Corridor— [Interruption.]

Order. I do not even have to ask the hon. Gentleman. I can see by his face what he is about to do.

Rather than that of those who sit from time to time in the other place, who are remote from the real worries of my constituents, and who, when they are there, represent no one but themselves.

I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said will be heard at the other end of this building, in another place. He can be quite sure that the question will return to the Chamber, so that the House may express its views on it again.

Will the Minister confirm that, at the new Blakenhurst private prison, United Kingdom Detention Services refused to recognise trade unions, that assaults on staff are at least four times the norm, that there have been seven acts of concerted indiscipline, including one riot, and that eight warnings have been issued to the company, resulting in two default notices for failure to comply and a financial penalty of more than £40,000? Does the Minister really believe that that is a model for the prisons of the future?

The hon. Lady must know, if she looks across the Prison Service, that all prisons have their problems, especially when they are starting up. First, the impressive thing about Blakenhurst is how quickly its problems were brought under control. Secondly—I think that the hon. Lady found it a fault, but my hon. Friends and the public at large would find it something quite different—when Blakenhurst failed in a certain degree in its contract, it lost money as a result. The Home Secretary has the leverage to obtain the type of Prison Service that he wants from the private sector which is, alas, absent in the public sector, occasionally to the detriment of the performance of the public sector.

Will my hon. Friend note that there is still considerable concern about the number of mentally ill people in our mainstream prisons and about the frequent lack of specialist medical attention in prison hospital wings? Will he ensure that he looks carefully at providing secure accommodation for those people, but with adequate medical provision?

My hon. Friend is right to perceive that as an important problem, but the place for mentally disordered offenders is not prison, but the national health service outside. Over the past few years, each year a much larger number of such prisoners has been moved out into the health service. The only bar to the speedy movement in every part of the country is places within the health service. The Prison Service medical staff are alive to the problem and are constantly in touch with the health service about it.

Can the Minister comment on the prison transfers currently taking place from England to Northern Ireland? Is not part of the problem the differences that exist in the prison regimes of England and Northern Ireland, in relation to both the conditions of custody and the release procedures? Would not those difficulties be minimised if there were roughly similar prison regimes in both jurisdictions?

If there were roughly similar regimes, there would not be a problem. I admire the way in which the hon. Gentleman has successfully asked his question under the heading of private prisons. The delay has not been in making arrangements, but in satisfying ourselves on the legal position of prisoners under the different regimes. We have come to a satisfactory conclusion on that, which is why appropriate transfers are taking place.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to change the electoral system for the election of UK Members to the European Parliament.

We have no current plans to do so.

Does the Minister realise that if the United Kingdom had already adopted a more proportional system of electoral representation, the number of seats gained by the Conservatives in the recent UK elections would have risen from an utterly abysmal 18 to a merely awful 23? How many devastating election results will the Conservatives have to suffer before the Minister changes his mind?

The hon. Lady can probably see merit in the prison system— [Interruption.] I am still on the last question. The hon. Lady can probably see some merit in the present system as it looks as though it may have temporarily benefited her party. In the longer run, we should look at the basic merits of the system. Our single Member constituency, with its direct relationship with the electorate, is one on which we set great value. Our representation in the European Parliament consists of those candidates who received the highest number of votes in their constituencies. I do not complain about that, but I am certain that next time many more Conservative candidates will get a higher vote.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only change that we need in the European parliamentary election system is to require Opposition parties to talk about European issues at European elections?

Yes, or talk about the real issues at any election.

Does the Minister appreciate that, with the ever-closer union in Europe and the extra powers that have been given to the European Parliament—democratically elected though its Members are—more and more people will begin to question the disparity in numbers between Members from various countries in that Parliament. Luxembourg, whose population is less than half that of Birmingham, has six representatives. In addition, the different electoral systems throughout Europe, as well as within the United Kingdom, distort the European Parliament.

All countries have universal suffrage and all countries have slightly different ways of electing their European Members. Common rules need to be justified by common benefits. It is not obvious that any country would benefit from harmonising the electoral systems.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he has taken to maximise the use of new technology in crime prevention.

I attach particular importance to the use of new technology in the fight against crime. Recent initiatives include the successful promotion of closed circuit television as a crime control measure and close co-operation with the vehicle manufacturers to promote the use of effective car immobiliser systems. We are also pushing forward with a number of major new crime and technology initiatives to assist the police in combating crime.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that closed circuit television surveillance schemes, many of which have been funded by the urban fund and by the safer cities campaign, have significantly helped to reduce crime in the precincts and car parks of our inner cities and towns? Does he agree that people want more cameras and less crime—not the other way round, as suggested by some civil liberties groups?

I entirely agree. My hon. Friend the Minister of State launched a new CCTV scheme in the centre of Liverpool just a couple of days ago. I think that CCTV can make a significant contribution to the fight against crime. We certainly want to encourage its spread.

Although video cameras in shopping areas and housing estates can be a useful way to deter crime and catching criminals, will the Minister accept that there is now a need for a code of practice governing who should have access to the cameras and the purposes to which they can put the information gained from them?

That matter is currently under consideration by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I want to await the results of its deliberations before deciding whether any action needs to be taken. I am in no doubt at all of the contribution that CCTV can make to the fight against crime.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to scotch the rumour in a recent issue of Police Review about plans to disband the national criminal intelligence service? Does he agree that the use by NCIS of information technology is probably the best weapon the police now have to fight international organised crime?

I certainly do. NCIS is seen across Europe as a model for how policing against major crime can most effectively be carried out. There is no question of disbanding it; I take this opportunity of paying tribute to its work.

Will the Home Secretary confer with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry on the prevention of car crime through rendering illegal the re-chipping of mobile phones, which is increasingly an objective of the criminal?

We are looking at that matter. The National Board for Crime Prevention is conducting an investigation into it. It is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but we are certainly examining it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances it is permitted for individual police forces to exercise discretion not to post warrants for suspects and bail absconders on the national police computer unless the offences are particularly serious; what consideration he is giving to offenders being pursued by the police in areas other than those in which an alleged offence has been committed; and if he will make a statement.

It is for chief officers to decide how to respond to individual cases, but there can be no question of offenders escaping justice simply by moving to a different area.

I begin by wishing my right hon. and learned Friend a happy birthday. Is he aware of reports that some forces are finding it too expensive to pursue suspects who flee from their home area to another part of the country? Will he consider the possibility of the force in the area to which the suspect has gone dealing with the arrest warrant and the case being heard by a local magistrate in the area concerned?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes. There certainly may be ways in which our present arrangements can be improved, but there can be no excuse for not pursuing offenders who seek to escape justice by moving to different areas. It is the job of the police to make sure that they do not escape justice and that justice is done.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives are being taken to reduce the number of rules and regulations affecting the workings of his Department; and how many officials he employs currently working on deregulation initiatives.

We have reviewed 32 of the 71 regulations affecting business for which the Home Office is responsible, and reviews of the other regulations are in progress or due to start shortly. The Department's deregulation unit involves three officials directly and many others are involved in taking forward deregulation initiatives.

Is the Minister aware that officials in his and other Departments are blocking an attempt by Conservative Members to institute some sort of local appeal mechanism, so that over-zealous interpretations of rules and regulations can be dealt with uniformly and so that local businesses are not continually crippled by such over-zealous interpretation and the additional unit costs that regulations put on them? Why do not we behave like the French and do nothing at all?

My hon. Friend knows that I am aware of his concerns because he has written to me about them. He is also aware that discretion for the matters that concern him lies with the local licensing justices, who have made it clear to my hon. Friend and his constituents that what is proposed might come up against the Sunday Observance Act 1780. He will be aware that in the deregulation Bill we have taken the initiative on children's certificates. We have also made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend is reviewing other aspects of the licensing system; no doubt my hon. Friend's concerns will then be given due consideration.

Is one of the rules and regulations that no findings of the Home Office research department should be published if they contradict the views of the Home Secretary? What does the Minister have against evidence and facts?

The hon. Gentleman no doubt saw a letter in The Guardian from the head of the research department at the Home Office making it clear that that report was utterly without foundation. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was about to stand up and applaud the Government for their various deregulation initiatives: first, with the Sunday Trading Bill, secondly, with the deregulation Bill and thirdly, with the further progress being made within the Home Department on a number of deregulation fronts.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the profits criminals make as a result of the publicity surrounding their case.

The Government deplore any exploitation of criminal activities for financial gain. We have previously considered legal restraints on chequebook journalism, but there are insurmountable practical problems.

My hon. Friend should know that his answer will not go down very well with my law-abiding and tax-paying constituents in Billericay, who pay taxes to help victims through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Does he agree that it is offensive when criminals pocket profits by telling tall tales to tabloids, thus gaining from their ill-gotten actions and badly written memoirs?

We all deplore such instances. They are offensive, but we have considered carefully whether a law would be appropriate in this case. There would be tremendous difficulty in framing a law that would effectively deal with it. The utter condemnation of other newspapers when such isolated incidents happen is a good and effective policing mechanism.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish Sir John May's report into the Guildford and Woolwich case; and if he will make a statement.

The report was published on 30 June.

Did the Home Secretary notice that Sir John May asked that the independent review tribunal to deal with miscarriages of justice be introduced as a matter of urgency, and that the Lord Chief Justice made the same point in a speech last night? Can the Home Secretary give us a clear timetable for the introduction of such a tribunal? Will he also give an assurance that, when it is introduced, it will not be dependent solely on police officers to carry out investigations—a very important point?

The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are committed to the establishment of a criminal cases review body and we are currently considering responses to our discussion paper. Of course, I cannot presume the contents of the Gracious Speech.

Will my hon. Friend note the full co-operation of the Surrey police in the various inquiries and the way in which they have certainly gained local support and admiration? Will he also note that the people who perpetrated the outrage in Guildford have yet to be apprehended? Would not it be better if some Labour Members worried as much about that as about other aspects of the case?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point which will no doubt be heard by those Opposition Members. For my own part, I congratulate Sir John May; his report is rigorous and searching and all those who care about the quality of our criminal justice system have cause to welcome it.

But why has not the Home Secretary taken the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box to support the view of the Labour party, the Royal Commission on criminal justice, Sir John May and now the Lord Chief Justice that the establishment of a body to investigate miscarriages of justice is now urgent and overdue? During its remaining time in another place, will the Home Secretary accept an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill aimed at establishing such a body? If not, will the Minister today give a categorical promise of legislation in the next parliamentary Session—no later—to establish a body to investigate miscarriages of justice?

The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have been listening to what I said. If he thinks that a simple amendment could deal with something as complex and important as the establishment of a criminal cases review authority, he clearly did not listen to the demolition of his arguments in Committee when he proposed a similar unworkable and simplistic system. As I have said, the Government are committed to the establishment of a criminal cases review authority and we are considering the responses that we had to the excellent discussion paper that we launched.

In considering Sir John May's report and the findings of the royal commission, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that with approximately only one crime in 30 resulting in a conviction, for millions of British people the principal source of miscarriages of justice is the courts' inability on many occasions to convict the guilty?

Sir John makes it clear in his report that the definition of a miscarriage of justice is wider than some of the popular notions of it. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Miscarriages of justice occur if an innocent person is found guilty, but it is equally important that we should have a system that ensures that those who are guilty are convicted.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received in connection with proposals to alter fees for the issue of firearms and shotgun licences; and when he expects to be able to make a decision.

We have received more than 550 letters from right hon. and hon. Members, and more than 370 from members of the public. We hope to be able to make an announcement on fees soon.

Does the Minister realise that the continuing uncertainty is causing deep-seated feelings among legitimate gun licence holders, particularly in rural constituencies such as my own, where farmers of necessity have to hold such licences? Therefore, will he give a clear date for the announcement?

I understand what the hon. Lady says. She will be able to tell her constituents that the aim of the review has been to ensure that the fees reflect the true cost to the police of operating the system. However, as I have already said, the hon. Lady can expect a report shortly.

Does my hon. Friend recall that, some time ago, I introduced a private Member's Bill, which became the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1992, which gave the Home Secretary the power to increase the period covered by firearm and shotgun certificates? Many of us hope that those fees will not be raised, but if they have to be, will he ensure that the period covered by the certificates is also extended?

I remember my hon. Friend's Bill. I seem to remember that it passed through the House shortly before the general election. My hon. Friend's contribution on that occasion will have been noted. He is right to refer to an extension to the life of the certificate because that is one factor that has been considered. I have no doubt that he will look forward to the announcement of the results of that review shortly.

Will the Minister assuage the natural worries of legitimate firearms owners that they may be paying for inefficiencies in the police administration of the system by publishing the Ernst and Young report before he gives his report on the increase of the fees?

The Ernst and Young report will be published at the same time as the fees are announced. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the point that is of concern to him was also of concern to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which said that in some forces the system was being operated inefficiently. We issued a best practice guidance in order to remedy those errors.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the responsibilities of the Home Office in relation to the Lockerbie crime involving the destruction of Pan Am 103; and if he will make a statement on the co-ordination between the specialist services of the Metropolitan police and Scottish police forces on the investigation and prosecution of those responsible.

My Department has an interest in view of our overall responsibility for counter-terrorist policy in Great Britain. The Metropolitan police, the forensic explosives laboratory of the Defence Research Agency and many other police forces and agencies have provided assistance to the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary during the course of the investigation.

What is the state of the present police investigation into the case of Youssef Chaabane, who claimed in a Beirut court that he had been responsible for placing the bomb on Pan Am 103?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in this matter, checks again on what happened in the Beirut court. Our understanding is that Chaabane mentioned the Lockerbie bombing only in an outburst. He claimed that, in the face of the interrogation to which he had been subjected in respect of other charges, he would have been willing to confess to anything—even the Lockerbie bombing. In his rigorous researches, the hon. Gentleman must not obscure the central issue, which is that the Libyan Government should fully comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions without further prevarication, so that those who have been charged can stand trial.

To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of whether the reduction in resources available to the coastguard service will prejudice safety at sea.

The chief executive of the Coastguard Agency has confirmed that the resources available this year will enable the agency to fulfil its objectives on search and rescue and on oil and chemical spills. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has given the House an assurance that he will not allow the efficiency gain that he is seeking to prejudice safety at sea.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the most efficient way to run the coastguard service would be to provide the existing complement of professional and auxiliary personnel—who know their own coastlines, seas and weather conditions—all the equipment, training and back-up that money can buy? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he personally will refuse to sanction further efficiency savings in the coastguard service if there is any suggestion that they would prejudice safety at sea in future? After all, the Prime Minister himself may need the political equivalent of a breeches buoy before too long.

Of course we would not do anything to prejudice safety at sea, which is self-evidently of vital importance. It is right to seek efficiency gains where it is thought that they will be available. The agency's chief executive has joined other Department of Transport executive agencies in submitting proposals on how further efficiency gains may be made. I am sure that that is right. The greater the efficiency gain that can be made across the public service, the greater will be the saving to the taxpayer or the improvement in services elsewhere in the public service.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer and assurances, but would not it be quite wrong and unthinkable to apply to coastguard front-line services the 20 per cent. across-the-board cuts that are being considered for other aspects of the Department of Transport? That must be wrong and out of the question. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that does not happen under any circumstances?

My hon. Friend is running two things together. There is no presumption that the coastguard service must achieve a 20 per cent. reduction. What is sought is a 20 per cent. efficiency gain. I believe that that is achievable, and the chief executive is investigating how it may be achieved. As I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), that will not be at the expense of the security and safety of people at sea.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Railtrack board members have introduced a new working practice whereby they are paid £500 additional bonus—three times the basic wage of signal staff—simply to attend Railtrack meetings? Will the Prime Minister join me in agreeing that those additional payments are obscene? Will he take this opportunity to condemn Railtrack's board for making those additional payments?

I will certainly make inquiries about what the hon. Gentleman has alleged, and check whether it is true. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also take the interests of the travelling public into account and condemn a strike for an 11 per cent. pay award, which far exceeds what is being paid to anyone else in the public sector. There is no justification for an award of that size at this time. I hope that negotiations will continue and that the strike will be swiftly settled.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a new offence of racial harassment—as recommended by the Select Committee on Home Affairs—together with new measures to tackle the publication of racist material, will be major steps forward in the fight against racial attacks?

We abhor any crime in which any element of racial motivation is present. That is precisely why we have added to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill a new offence to tackle that particular mischief. I believe that that is desirable, and will achieve widespread support among all shades of opinion.

On Tuesday, the Leader of the House rejected doctors' criticisms of the Government's health service changes; today, the health service ombudsman has published strong criticism from patients. Are they wrong, too?

Like the right hon. Lady, I have not yet had a chance to read the whole of the ombudsman's report. The ombudsman examines a minority of the cases referred to him, and does not comment on the generality of health service treatment. I understand that some of the reports that have been evident earlier today have been repudiated by the commissioner, but, as I said, like the right hon. Lady, I have not yet had a chance to read the full report.

But the Prime Minister must know, as I do, that it reveals a record number of complaints. Does he not recognise that the ombudsman, doctors, nurses, patients and Opposition Members are all saying the same thing—that the Government's health service changes are making matters worse? When will the Prime Minister drop them?

I think that the whole House will have noted that the right hon. Lady did not say that she had read the report about which she claims to be speaking so authoritatively. Of course we will take the Health Service Commissioner's report seriously: we are anxious to ensure that the health service continues to improve, and, according to the test set out by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), it is. He said that the test of the reforms was whether more patients were treated. They are—1 million more every year.

Is the Prime Minister denying that the report shows a record number of complaints this year? Is he denying that? I doubt it very much. Only under the present Government would a record number of complaints be regarded as evidence of success. Does the Prime Minister recognise that the health service changes are hurting but certainly not working, and that, while he may sack the present Secretary of State for Health, he also needs to scrap the policies and start putting patients first?

The reforms are precisely about putting patients first. That is why the number of patients treated in hospital has grown by record amounts, the quality of care has improved immeasurably and the number of patients waiting, and almost all waiting times, have fallen. That is an improvement in care.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that bed space is no longer the determinant of a nation's health care policy, and that when a nation has many beds that is likely to be because epidemiology is not the advanced science that it is in the United Kingdom today?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The proper judgment of how well the health service is performing is based, first, on the number of people who are treated and, secondly, on how satisfactorily they are treated. On both those measures, the health service continues to improve.

To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed the membership, structure and functions of the Security Council of the United Nations when he last met the leaders of the other member states of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

I did not discuss those matters when I last met European leaders in Corfu.

President Nelson Mandela said recently that Rwanda is a stern and severe rebuke to us all. That surely holds for the disgracefully inept and irresponsible Security Council. Does not the Prime Minister agree that there is an urgent need for the Council to solve the problems of financing and manning peacekeeping operations so that United Nations resolutions can more effectively and efficiently be implemented? Given the mess that the Security Council is in, financially and structurally, most UN resolutions are utterly unenforceable.

I share the horror and revulsion felt by many people, including the hon. Gentleman, about the terrible suffering in Rwanda. That is undoubtedly the case. I do not entirely share the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the Security Council. It is not practicable for the Security Council—it simply does not have the resources in terms of cash or money, nor is it likely to have in the short term—

Cash or money?

It is not Britain that is behind in its payments to the UN. The hon. Gentleman, as usual, wishes to criticise this country, with a complete absence of the facts when he does so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sweeping reforms that we carried out in the national health service in 1991 have inevitably led to controversy and criticism, both malevolent and constructive and positive? Is he aware that, unlike the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who leads for the Opposition, I took the trouble to read the report of the health service ombudsman? I noted in particular paragraph 1, where he summarises the rest of the report, which I have also read, and refers to the number of complaints as being "remarkably small". Does my right hon. Friend agree that our reforms have been extremely successful, with more than 8 million people being treated in hospital this year? Will he join me in congratulating Portsmouth and South East Hampshire trust, which for the first time achieved the position whereby no one had to wait for more than a year for any operation?

I am delighted to hear about that improvement in waiting lists and about the remarkably small number of complaints. I am interested to see that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did not even get as far as the first paragraph in her studies. I share my hon. Friend's view that we have every reason to be proud of what the national health service has achieved. The Labour party takes and deserves the credit for having established the national health service—no one would deny it that—but in the 45 years since the health service was established, the Conservative party has been predominantly in government, and that party has put in the resources to build up the health service from its early beginnings to its present excellence.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

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

Does the Prime Minister think it odd that a senior adviser to the Home Office on prison policy is also in the pay of Group 4, which is bidding to win contracts for building private prisons? Furthermore, does he agree that it is odd that an interest is definitely involved?

I understand that the chief inspector of prisons has satisfied himself that there is no impropriety in that appointment and I am happy to accept that advice.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of the public are concerned about people who commit crimes while out on bail? Will he strongly urge prosecutors to take up what we have given them—the right to appeal against bail being imposed on them?

I believe that the vast majority of the public will entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There is an opportunity there to be taken. I very much hope that it will be taken.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister simply confirm or deny the fact that a Cabinet Committee, which he chaired this morning, decided to recommend the closure of Rosyth naval base?

The hon. Lady will have to wait, as far as any aspect of the defence costs study is concerned, for the Cabinet to consider the matter itself and for a statement subsequently to be made. Until that time, I have nothing to say either in confirmation or denial.