To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding delays in assessing the cases of asylum seekers. [23546]

The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 has reduced significantly the average time taken to decide applications made since the Act came into force, but delays persist as a result of a large and continuing increase in the number of asylum applications. Earlier this year, I announced substantial additional resources to speed up asylum determination and the appeal system. I hope to announce shortly proposals for further improvement.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that, in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) last November, we were told that some 129 people had been imprisoned or kept in detention centres or police stations for more than six months. Does he agree that that is scarcely consistent with the country's best traditions in dealing with asylum seekers, that it does not reflect well on the Government or, more important, on the nation and that he should try to do better?

I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. More than 90 per cent. of people who have been detained for the period to which he refers have already had their asylum applications refused. The proportion of asylum seekers who are detained is a tiny proportion of the people who apply for asylum. Only those who cannot be trusted not to melt away into the general population, never to be seen again, are so detained. I entirely reject the basis of his question.

It appears that a sizeable number of people claim asylum some time after they have been in this country to avoid our immigration controls. Under the 1993 Act, how long after they have been here can they still apply for asylum?

There is no time limit, but that is one of the matters that we are considering. It is clear, from the questions of both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), that, while the Government are determined to take the necessary measures to deal with bogus asylum seeking, Labour would run away from the problem and not take any action to deal with it were it ever in a position to do so.

Will the Secretary of State explain why, at the culmination of 16 years of Tory Home Office administration, hundreds of people are being detained at centres such as Campsfield, at enormous cost to the British taxpayer—tens of millions of pounds every year—and why Group 4 is having to train a riot squad because conditions at Campsfield have become so miserable and dangerous? Is not that the most vivid indictment of this squalid regime?

Conditions are Campsfield are neither dangerous nor miserable, but we will take whatever action is necessary to deal with bogus asylum seeking, which has become a problem that needs firm and effective action. All that we get from Labour is criticism without any idea of what it would do, should it ever find itself in government. See no policies, hear no policies, speak no policies—that is what we get from the Opposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what analysis he has made of the incidence of crime arising from uniform night public house closing hours; and if he will make a statement. [23547]

A number of studies show that violent and disorderly offences occur near pubs and clubs at closing time, particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the changes that he has made to the licensing laws, permitting drinking in the afternoons and introducing the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill, which is currently proceeding in the other place and which will allow drinking on Sunday afternoons. Does he not think, however, that it is about time that we considered evening closing times?

We are currently considering whether pubs should be allowed to remain open later on Friday and Saturday evenings. I agree with my hon. Friend that there may be merit in allowing magistrates discretion, but he is making the case for staggered hours, which is not the same as the case for extended hours.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent consultations he has had to promote the concept of active citizenship. [23549]

I am determined to do all that I can to encourage active citizenship, including volunteering. In March 1994 I launched the Government's "Make a Difference" volunteering initiative. The "Make a Difference" team, which includes representatives of key volunteering organisations, has been developing a United Kingdom-wide strategy for volunteering.

I acknowledge the merit of that answer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise, however, that the promotion of active citizenship has perhaps lacked momentum? At a time when we seem preoccupied with material matters, will he take this opportunity to commend the enormous amount of good work done by the voluntary sector in all our constituencies, on an entirely unpaid basis? Will he reinvigorate the initiative, on the basis that the state is not the universal provider?

I am certainly happy to commend those who engage in voluntary activity, in accordance with my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I do not entirely accept the first part of his question. There has, in fact, been a substantial growth in volunteering in recent years—an increase of about 15 per cent. between 1981 and 1991—and about 17 million people engage in the kind of voluntary activity to which my hon. Friend and I attach such importance.

May I ask the Home Secretary about two very active citizens—the Fayed brothers? Why has their application for British citizenship been turned down, with no reasons being given? Has it not been rejected for crude and base political reasons? [Interruption.]

Order. I do not think that that was within the scope of the question.

In accordance with the concept of volunteering, will my right hon. and learned Friend give all the backing that he can to those of our citizens who volunteer, either regularly or occasionally, to combat crime? Will he ensure that citizens who see a crime taking place in the street and "have a go" are given all possible support, and are not penalised?

I am extremely keen to encourage citizens to help the police in a number of ways—through neighbourhood watch and street watch schemes, and by becoming special constables. I do not think that it is necessarily wise for them to "have a go", however. They can play a very active part in combating and preventing crime by helping the police without "having a go" themselves. Increasing numbers of people are taking part in one or other of those schemes, and I am sure that their numbers will continue to rise.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on United Kingdom stolen vehicle recovery rates. [23550]

In England and Wales 62 per cent. of stolen vehicles were recovered in 1994–3 per cent. more than in 1993—and vehicle thefts were down 11 per cent. last year. I congratulate the police on those excellent achievements.

Having treated us to the usual nauseating trumpeting of a one-year drop in vehicle crime, will the Minister tell us where he gets his figures from? I believe that there has been a consistent drop in the vehicle recovery rate, from 69 per cent. in 1989 to 55 per cent. last year, and that we suffer the worst vehicle crime in the western world. Is he not thoroughly ashamed of that after 16 years of stewardship of policy and what on earth is he going to do about it?

I get these figures from the police service in England and Wales and I shall ensure that the police service in England and Wales has its attention drawn to the hon. Gentleman's comments because they seemed to betray some of the attitudes of other Labour Members. The crime figures, which showed the biggest drop in 40 years, have not been changed one iota in their calculation by the Government in 15 years. They are exactly the same figures as the Labour party used to trumpet every minute they were going up and about which it is deeply embarrassed now that they are going down.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the very sound part that closed circuit television cameras have played in deterring vehicle theft and vehicle crime? Will he call on British Rail, in particular, to install such devices in its stations?

I encourage all organisations and individuals, towns, car parks, and British Rail to take advantage of the tremendous benefits of CCTV. In doing so, they could complement the £5 million that we gave to special schemes last year, levering in £13.8 million from other quarters. The net result of that Government initiative should be about 1,000 extra cameras. That could mean many, many fewer victims of crime, a safer society and a greatly reduced fear of crime.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he will have with the Governor of the state of Alabama on the recently introduced policy of prison inmates working in chain gangs; and if he will make a statement. [23551]

I have no plans at present to meet the Governor of Alabama to discuss his policy of reintroducing chain gangs.

In view of that reply and as the Home Office is increasingly introducing American penal systems such as boot camps and tougher prison regimes—none of which has succeeded in the states where they are used—does the Minister's reply assure us that under no circumstances will the penal systems of the state of Alabama be introduced in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. There are many examples in the United States of very successful regimes that have ensured that youngsters are less likely to re-offend. Although those regimes cannot be translated exactly to our system, the Government are open-minded and prepared to take whatever measures are necessary to make prisons more effective.

If my right hon. Friend should have the opportunity of discussing prison policy with the Governor of Alabama, will he reflect on the fact that there, as in Britain, prison officers often have to perform acts of conspicuous bravery well beyond the call of duty? Would it make sense to consider introducing a medal similar to the police medal to reward those acts of bravery and to recognise the very brave men who perform them?

My hon. Friend makes a very sensible suggestion that I am happy to consider further. I entirely agree that the service that our prison officers give to the country is much under-recognised. Every day, they have to deal with some 51,000 of the most difficult people in our country and they do so with great courage and determination. That is one of the reasons why yesterday we increased the powers available to governors to take disciplinary action to maintain order in our prisons. I very much hope that where prison officers are attacked, the Crown Prosecution Service will take action and that the courts will impose substantial penalties, because our prison officers deserve to be supported and protected.

Before the Minister even thinks about ordering the chains and fetters, will he devote some attention to ensuring that a higher proportion of prisoners have more work to do more of the time? Does he recognise that part of the problem is that not enough work is being organised in prisons and that far too many prisoners spend far too long banged up in cells when they should be being prepared for constructive work when they get out—something that many prison officers seek to do every day?

I agree that there need to be more opportunities for constructive work in prison. I should tell the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) that one of the very good things that I saw in the United States last month was a prison that, in partnership with the private sector, was able to produce goods that were being sold in the marketplace, thus providing revenue towards the cost of running the prison. That meant that prisoners were doing a day's work and were able to earn wages that they could use to look after their families rather than expecting, as many do, the taxpayer to take on that task. I hope that the Director General of the Prison Service will seek to involve the private sector to a greater extent in providing opportunities for real work in prisons. That task is now in hand.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to help the police and courts to deal with the most persistent juvenile offenders. [23552]

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contains important new measures to deal with juvenile criminals. The secure training order will provide a vigorous regime based on education and discipline for persistent juvenile offenders. Invitations to tender for the first two secure training centres were issued at the end of March.

Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the recent success in tackling juvenile crime has resulted from the implementation of our policies, following sensible advice from the police that we should target the young lads most likely to commit crime? If the Labour party had been in power, we would not have achieved such success, not least because, time after time, it votes against our sensible reforms.

That is absolutely true. Last week I visited a police service where, in one division alone, there had been 946 burglaries in 1993 but only eight last year. That was due to the policy of targeting the individuals involved and the imprisonment of four persistent burglars responsible. However, we all remember the howls of outrage from the Labour party when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that prison works. It certainly worked by taking those persistent burglars out of circulation.

Will the Minister set aside his complacency and accept that it is about time that he did something to cut juvenile crime by providing the legal framework for an active partnership involving the police, local authorities and local communities to tackle crime, by accepting our proposals to nip problems in the bud in respect of young offenders and by providing the secure places that we were promised in February 1991 but which have still not been provided?

It is no wonder that the whole country understands what is meant when we say that the Labour party is a policy-free zone. If someone were to interpret what the hon. Gentleman just said, I might like some of it. He fails to tell the House that the Opposition have consistently voted against all the key laws that we have passed to tackle crime and offending. In the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, we took the powers to deal with offending on bail and to do drug tests in prison while the Labour party, which says that it wants to be tough on crime and the causes of crime, abstained on Second Reading and toughly abstained on Third Reading.

Does my hon. Friend agree that bad families and bad peer influence has a considerable effect on juvenile delinquency and that the success in dealing with juvenile delinquents in the United States has required taking youngsters away from their bad backgrounds for rather longer than is contemplated in the secure training orders? Will he keep an open mind about the effectiveness of that course of action and keep a close watch on the successes that are appearing in some parts of the United States?

My hon. and learned Friend may be absolutely right. I seem to recall that when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill was going through the House we were under pressure from some quarters to have much shorter periods of secure detention. We rightly made the point that if the period was too short it would not be possible to achieve anything with a youngster, to educate him or her or to rehabilitate youngsters. I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. and learned Friend has said. If we can take persistent troublemakers out of circulation and keep them out for long enough, not only will the public get respite from their awful offending but there will be a chance to make something of them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the activities of Combat 18. [23553]

Combat 18 is the name adopted by a loose collection of violent activists with extreme right-wing views, a small number of whom have been convicted of public order offences and crimes involving violence. The Government deplore the activities of Combat 18, and any other group that advocates racism, violence or intimidation.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that the Government deplore this activity but what do they intend to do about it? For example, does the Home Secretary know that members of this violent organisation or of that ilk recently made three attacks on the newly opened office of the immigration advisory service in Cardiff, smashing windows with bullets and abusing staff? Surely the time has come for the Home Secretary to rally his Ministers and the police to take vigorous action against these people to prevent them from doing what we all deplore so much.

The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we amended the law under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 so as to deal more effectively with serious cases of incitement to racial hatred and deliberate racial harassment. Of course, he will know that the activities to which he refers are already criminal offences. Inquiries are being vigorously pursued by the police and I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's hope that those responsible can be brought to justice.

As my right hon. and learned Friend will agree, Combat 18 is a very evil group, but will he tell hunt saboteurs and animal rights activists that one cannot pick and choose with violence?

I agree that the law is indivisible and invisible and that it must apply equally to those who commit offences. That is why we made changes under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act to deal with the abuses to which my hon. Friend refers.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Oklahoma bombing served as an awful reminder that some seemingly insignificant extreme right-wing groups can indeed have deadly intent? Does he accept the need to maintain the highest vigilance against Combat 18 in this country and against similar groups? Does he agree that politicians of all parties have a heavy duty not in any circumstances to play the race card in politics and so give encouragement, however indirect, to groups such as Combat 18?

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the dangers arising from organisations of that kind and about the supreme importance of maintaining our vigilance. As I have said, we have taken steps to make the law more effective. His comments about the race card are absolutely right. Conservatives have always set their faces against anything of that kind. We accept that to keep race relations as good as they have been in this country for a long time we must also have firm and fair immigration policies. We shall continue to have both.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has of the annual cost of policing football matches. [23554]

This information is not held centrally and individual police forces could provide it only at disproportionate cost.

My hon. Friend will know that the major cost to the police of looking after football matches lies outside the ground and that it is increased by the somewhat arbitrary way in which fixtures are now frequently moved to Sundays at the behest of television companies, which pay extra fees to clubs for moving matches. Will my hon. Friend ensure that some of the extra profit that goes to football clubs is used to offset the increased cost to police forces of providing security outside grounds on Sundays?

I do not think that my hon. Friend is right in asserting that the bulk of cost arises from policing outside the ground. I understand that it arises from policing inside the ground, depending on the type of match, for which the football clubs pay. It has been a long-standing practice that the police do not charge for policing outside football grounds, where their duty is to maintain law and order. I do not wish to depart from that practice. It is up to the police service, in discussion with football clubs, to arrange policing inside the ground and reach an accommodation on cost to cover the bulk of the policing costs.

Does the Minister accept that, as he said, most football clubs come to sensible arrangements for policing and stewarding inside their grounds to minimise problems? We should recognise that only a handful of clubs make massive profits and we should ensure that in protecting spectators we do not destroy the sport of football.

I agree entirely, and nowhere is that more true than in Burnley—I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman about the relegation that his club has suffered. I generally accept the thrust of his point. If I were deeply concerned about the costs of policing football matches, I would wish to take more action. The present arrangements are generally satisfactory, but if a time comes when the police wish to make representations to me, I shall be happy to reconsider the matter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective means of combating football violence, committed by those who are not remotely interested in the sport and who just go to major matches to cause trouble, is the work of the football intelligence unit of the national criminal intelligence service? In that connection, would my hon. Friend have a careful look at a transcript of this morning's "Inside Out" programme on Radio 4 so that he may read views expressed by people who have committed such crimes? They regard the facilities in our prisons as being sufficiently attractive to represent no deterrent against committing further offences. Will he ensure that, in future policy, the view of our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, which the public support, that prisons should be fair but austere, is followed through?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has heard the comments of my hon. Friend and no doubt he will organise suitable punishment in the community for gangs of football hooligans should the need arise. I shall certainly pay attention to the transcript, but first, more importantly, I pass on my high regard and the thanks of the whole House to the football unit at NCIS for the tremendous work that it does. It is quite noticeable than when other foreign countries wholeheartedly participate with NCIS, problems have been reduced. We would encourage many other countries in the world where our football supporters or hooligans may go to co-operate with NCIS and to sign bilateral agreements with us. Then, much more can be done.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently subject to restriction orders made under legislation introduced to combat football violence. [23556]

Two.

Is that not an extraordinary situation? The figure has not changed since the middle of February, when the riot occurred in Dublin before, during and after the England v. Ireland match? Does it not show that the courts treat the legislation with contempt? What are the Government doing in the face of mounting evidence that British Nazis are co-operating with European Nazis to turn the forthcoming European football championships into an orgy of violence and serious public disorder?

Although only two restriction orders are currently in force, the courts have made use of thousands of exclusion orders. I do not agree that the courts are treating the matter with contempt, but I think that they do not fully understand the powers available and how they could use them much more—and better perhaps. We therefore intend to send out a reminder in the next few weeks of how the powers can be used. More generally, we are looking at the whole question of exclusion and restriction orders to see whether we can bring about further tightening and simplification of the law and make it easier for the courts to use them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of football violence has dropped considerably in this country because of the various measures adopted, with some courage, by the Government, including the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994? Does he also agree that the situation has not been helped by the soft community order issued to Mr. Eric Cantona, probably the biggest football hooligan of the lot, who has become something of a folk hero among young people because he is now mixing with them in a rather pleasant way?

I cannot comment on an individual sentence imposed by the courts, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has considerably toughened community sentences in general with the new national guidance that has been issued to ensure that community punishments are genuinely punishments in the community, and are tough. That is what my hon. Friends and the whole House want.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his response to the Audit Commission report "In the Line of Fire". [23557]

The Government welcome the report as an important and challenging document, which provides an admirable basis upon which future change in the fire service can be considered and planned.

Is the Minister aware of a specific problem highlighted by the report concerning the firefighters pension fund, which is directing resources away from firefighting? How does he propose to deal with that problem?

The Audit Commission report gives further guidance to brigades on the scope for potential savings which will be very helpful to them. As for the specific question about pensions, we recognise the concern about the increasing net costs of the firefighters pension scheme which, like most schemes in the public service, does not have a pension fund. Its provisions are under review, but even if it were changed the savings would not become available for many years.

As the Minister will know, almost a year has passed since the Richmond hotel in my constituency caught fire, yet, even as we speak, there is a proposal on his desk to cut the number of fire engines in Scarborough and Whitby. "In the Line of Fire" recognises the life-threatening inadequacies of the present minimum standards. Will the Minister promise today to prevent the ridiculous suggestion that we cut the number of fire engines in Scarborough and Whitby from going ahead?

The management of the fire service in my hon. Friend's constituency is a matter for his local fire service authority, but I point out to him and to the fire authority that since 1988 the number of emergency calls handled has increased by 24 per cent. while the number of firefighters in post has increased by only 1 per cent. The Audit Commission report shows many ways in which savings and greater efficiency can be achieved.

Can the Minister confirm that, as the Audit Commission report highlighted, there are serious problems with the finances of fire authorities, which will get worse between now and the end of the century? Will he give an undertaking to move quickly to consult the fire authorities on how to deal with those problems, and will he assure the House that that vital emergency service will not be starved of resources to the point where its effectiveness is compromised?

There is no question of that important emergency service being starved of resources. As I think the hon. Gentleman recognises, the Audit Commission report is an in-depth study of value for money in the fire service. That is the whole point of it, and it should help brigades to carry out their responsibilities with no diminution of standards in the most cost-effective manner possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the police regarding the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. [23558]

The representations we have received from the police have warmly welcomed the Act. The chief constable of West Mercia, the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers crime committee, has said:

"the provisions … in the Act are balanced, rational and fair and they are welcome by the police service."

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that despite the gloomy picture of the Police Federation presented by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) this morning, in fact the federation has warmly welcomed the Act? Yesterday Mr. Fred Broughton described it as the first Act for years to turn the tide. Is it not then astonishing that the Labour party did not have the guts to back the legislation when it was before the House as a Bill?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is also astonishing that the hon. Member for Blackburn went to the Police Federation this morning and pretended to be tough on crime. He did not tell the federation that Labour tried to wreck the bail provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. He talked about the courts being soft on sentences, but did not tell the federation that Labour consistently voted against legislation that gave the Attorney-General the right to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. The hon. Gentleman did not tell the federation about Labour's attempts to vote against changes to right to silence.

Untrue.

The hon. Gentleman says, "Untrue," from a sedentary position, but his gesticulations are untrue. It is about time the Opposition started owning up, and they should tell the truth about their attempts to wreck our efforts to fight crime.

No, Madam Speaker, I did not tell the Police Federation any of those things, because most of them are not true. I told the Police Federation the truth—that crime in this country has more than doubled under this Government, but that the number of convictions and cautions has dropped in absolute terms by 7 per cent. That is a scandal. I also told them that the number—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I also told them that the number of cases discontinued and dropped—[Interruption.] That is scarcely a laughing matter for constituents. I said that the number of cases discontinued and dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service has risen by nearly 50 per cent. in eight years, and that the acquittal rate in the Crown courts—[Interruption.]

Order. The Secretary of State widened the question, and the hon. Gentleman has the right to a defence.

I repeat the point, because the public need to know. Crime has doubled in the past 15 years, while the number of convictions and cautions has gone down by 7 per cent. The number of cases dropped by the CPS has risen by nearly 50 per cent., and the acquittal rate has risen by 60 per cent. Does that not show that there is a serious crisis of confidence in the Crown Prosecution Service, and that reform of that service is urgently needed?

What the public understand only too well is that criminals are increasingly exploiting loopholes in the criminal justice system. The public also understand that the Government have acted to block the loopholes, and that the Opposition have consistently tried to wreck our efforts to do so.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that my constituents are grateful that the number of police officers in my constituency has gone up and the amount of crime has gone down? Will he support the all-party application—which is supported by the local police—for an exclusion zone around Stonehenge, so that my constituents can go about their lawful duty unhindered and in peace?

I will, of course, look at the proposal for an exclusion zone around Stonehenge. The first part of my hon. Friend's question shows that he is in touch with what is happening in the fight against crime, and that the Opposition are posturing in a way that deceives no one.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further resources are being made available to allow more CCTV to be installed in inner-city areas. [23559]

The recent CCTV challenge competition has injected £5 million into local CCTV schemes, generating up to £13.8 million in other funding. The possibility of further competitions in the future has not been ruled out, but it is too early to give a firm commitment.

Does the Minister think that the scheme should be funded by a form of competition? My borough has a high level of crime, and also a high level of fear of crime, and there is full support among the three party leaders in the borough of Lambeth, the police and the community for CCTV to be used more in the area. Will the Minister meet a delegation from my borough and give some support to inner-city areas? Will he make sure that that money does not just go to areas that are seen as slightly safer?

There is nothing to stop the hon. Lady's authority pushing ahead with CCTV. The CCTV challenge scheme was successful because £5 million of taxpayers' money levered in almost £14 million of other money. Inner cities have received generous funding from the Government and will continue to do so. Over the next three years, almost £4 billion will be spent on the single regeneration budget, all going to inner cities. It is right that this time we spread the CCTV money around the whole country so that smaller towns and cities can benefit from it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his CCTV initiative, which has matched pound for pound the sum raised by businesses in my constituency, which has now rendered Boscombe high street much safer for shoppers and shop staff alike. Can he make a clearer commitment to extend that scheme to residential and business areas throughout the country to places that the police believe will benefit from it?

There is no doubt that the whole country benefits from CCTV. I want to make it clear that the police service totally supports CCTV schemes, which supplement and help police efforts rather than diminish them, and that police numbers will be reduced by not a single policeman because of CCTV. I cannot at present give my hon. Friend the commitment that he seeks. We have noted the tremendous benefit of CCTV and I shall look carefully at whether we can fund future schemes.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23576]

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.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the reduction in unemployment announced yesterday? Is he aware that it is the 24th reduction in the monthly rate to be announced since the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said that unemployment would rise month after month after month? How does Britain's unemployment rate compare with those in France and Spain, the Governments of which have adopted the policies recommended by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

My hon. Friend is right to welcome the fall in unemployment and, of course, the growth in employment, particularly in manufacturing. Unemployment has now fallen by well over 600,000 since 1992 and by nearly 19,000 in the past month—the 20th successive monthly fall. As my hon. Friend intimated, the unemployment rate is substantially higher in Spain and France. In France it is around 12.75 per cent. and in Spain around 20 per cent. It is no accident that they have policies like the minimum wage, the social chapter and other policies that damage employment.

The Prime Minister has indicated that he accepts the broad thrust of Nolan. Does he accept the recommendation that Members of Parliament with consultancies should disclose the agreement under which they are paid and how much they are paid?

I established the Nolan committee because I am determined to see higher standards in public life. I believe that that is important. It is important not only that we ensure high standards but that the people of this country see for themselves that this House adopts high standards.

What is the Prime Minister's own view about that recommendation?

The Government will have to table motions on the Order Paper. Not least as a courtesy to the House, we should listen to the views of the House.

Of course. But is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the debate may lead him to overrule the independent recommendation of his own committee? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say whether he supports the disclosure of payments to Members of Parliament, and as he is refusing point blank to allow the committee to investigate payments to political parties, may I tell him that his support for Nolan will ring more than a little hollow?

As far as political parties are concerned, I repeat the point that I made earlier this week. When the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party meet those points set out by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, a Committee of the House, then, perhaps, they might be in a position to lecture other people on political parties.

Given my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for consultation with regard to Government policies and given that the European Commission and Mr. Santer have just published the Commission's White Paper regarding the future of Europe in so far as it affects the intergovernmental conference, can my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance to the House that in good time and as soon as possible—before the summer recess—we can have a White Paper on European policy as it affects the United Kingdom in relation to that intergovernmental conference?

I have made it clear to the House on a number of occasions that we are now examining in detail, in Cabinet sub-committees, the British position as to how we will approach the intergovernmental conference. When we have concluded that detailed consideration, it will, of course, be a matter for discussion in the House. That was the case before the Maastricht treaty and it will be the case before the next intergovernmental conference.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23577]

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

In view of the latest developments on sleaze in the House, is it not now clear that the recommendations of the Nolan committee are the very minimum that need to be put into effect as quickly as possible in aid of the reputation of the House of Commons? Does the Prime Minister accept—perhaps he does not—that Members of Parliament are not elected to be hired as paid lobbyists or consultants and that it is about time the practice was put to an end?

Of course, the House will have the opportunity to debate the Nolan committee this afternoon. As I said to the House a few moments ago, and as I have said on previous occasions, I set up the Nolan committee because I am determined that the House not only has the highest standards, but is seen to have those standards. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the highest standards in politics as a whole, I hope that he will also support the suggestion that the Nolan committee should subsequently look at the position in local government. I hope that he will support that. Since the Opposition are so keen on openness in local government, perhaps the leader of the Labour party will hold in public those inquiries into Labour party activities that he is now holding in private.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23578]

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a minimum wage, whatever the level, would destroy jobs? Does he have any intention of proposing such a policy, not setting a level before the next election and wanting to pass the buck to a union-packed quango, as the Labour party proposes?

Of course I can confirm that a minimum wage would destroy jobs. The House has that on the excellent authority of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who said on one memorable occasion, "Any silly fool knows that." There is no doubt about it, so of course I can confirm that. For the Labour party these days, a quango a day keeps policy away, because it has announced three so far this week. [Interruption.] Yes, a new quango on Monday, a new quango on Tuesday and a new quango on Wednesday. We await today's developments with some interest.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23579]

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

Given that the Prime Minister's objection to publicising the source of Tory party income is that he would not like to expose anonymous donors, what is to stop him publishing the list of non-anonymous donors and also the list of donations and their amounts?

I sometimes wonder whether some Opposition Members understand the importance of privacy in any way on any occasion. In a free and open society, people have the right to donate anonymously if they wish. What is potentially corrupt is when donations buy favours or determine policy. That emphatically does not happen in my party. It emphatically does happen in the Labour party as a part of its constitution.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23580]

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my Devon constituency area, unemployment has dropped by more than 20 per cent. since 1992, that crime figures have decreased by 10 per cent. this year and last year, that a new hospital costing more than £50 million is nearing completion and that hospital waiting lists have been reduced to a maximum of nine months? Does not all that, combined with the growing economy, show that Conservative policies are working well in the west country?

My hon. Friend refers again to the minimum wage, with good reason. There is no doubt that the minimum wage costs jobs. I now see that the Labour party proposes to keep the minimum wage, but not set the level of the minimum wage until after the general election. That will be devolved to someone else.

"Some party colleagues have advocated a minimum wage without having the courage of their convictions to state an amount that would make the original commitment meaningful".

Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of acknowledging that what has fallen in this country is the number of unemployed benefit claimants, that the number of people in this country who are without a job remains as great as ever, and that it is impossible to compare unemployment statistics in Britain, France, Spain or any other European country, because they use entirely different methods of counting?

I know the hon. Gentleman would not like the Government to have any credit for anything, even the fall in unemployment, but the fact is that not only has unemployment fallen more dramatically in this country than in any other country in western Europe—far more dramatically than any Opposition Member proposed when the Opposition were talking about unemployment increasing to 5 million—but the number in work has increased.

To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Cirencester and Tewkesbury. [23581]

I have no immediate plans to do so.

If my right hon. Friend were to visit my constituency, he would discover that a large majority of people would prefer a Europe of nation states rather than a European super-state. Will he therefore undertake, at the intergovernmental conference next year, to resist vigorously giving up our opt-outs and the restriction of our veto, which both the President of the European Commission and the Labour party would like to give up?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is for national Governments, not the European Commission, to take decisions on Europe's future at the intergovernmental conference. We will certainly maintain the national veto and we will certainly not accept any attempt to end the opt-outs that I negotiated in the Maastricht treaty.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May. [23582]

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

In this 50th anniversary year of VE day and VJ day and in view of the widespread support across the House, will the Prime Minister meet soon with a deputation from the Royal British Legion to hear the case as to how, at very little cost to the public purse, the four remaining injustices for war widows or service people may be corrected this year? War widows and service people often lose housing benefit or council tax; they may be ineligible for legal aid to pursue claims for injury; they may be unable to hold on to their pensions if they remarry following the death of their spouses who were killed in active service in the past 20 years; and, if they marry someone subsequent to that person's war service, they cannot inherit their spouse's pension.

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the extent to which we have taken care over the years to ensure that war widows and others who faced particular difficulty during the war are treated fairly. In 1979, the Conservative Government corrected many of the anomalies that the previous Government had left untouched for a very long time. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of those four points, I shall examine them.