To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people died in official custody in 1995. [7842]

For deaths in police custody or otherwise with the police, the provisional figure for 1995 is 52. For deaths in prison custody, the figure is 117, which includes 60 self-inflicted deaths.

Do not these deaths shame Britain? Are not the Government, by doing nothing about them, supplying a blue touchpaper for future riots? Is it not shameful that families cannot get to see their deceased loved ones and are denied information on how they died? Should not the Government accept the Police Complaints Authority's recommendations that neck choke-holds should be banned, that public interest immunity—it is misused so even coroners cannot obtain information—should be reformed or changed and that there should be a public inquiry intothese deaths, which involve, especially, many young black men?

In any death in police custody an inquest is held, which should bring about inquiries and satisfy the queries to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. With deaths in prison, the most serious concern is suicide. There is a suicide strategy now, which is implemented throughout the Prison Service.

Does my hon. Friend recall a report some time ago from the Select Committee on Home Affairs which investigated deaths in police custody? It was discovered, by listening to the evidence, that a large proportion of the prison population was made up of people who had already abused their bodies, which meant that their health was not the same as that of people outside. They were drug takers, drunks and tramps. It was felt unreasonable to fail to take that into consideration when examining death figures.

It is true both of those who die in police custody and of those who die in prison that there is a clear link in many cases, although clearly not in all, of abuse of substances, of alcohol and of drugs. My hon. Friend is right. Before we jump to any conclusions, we should study the figures, examine the situation and investigate the causes. That produces a rather different picture from that painted by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who tabled the main question.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the change in recorded offences of burglary in London during the 12-month period to June 1995; and what comparisons he has made with the national change over the same period. [7843]

The number of burglaries recorded for the whole of England and Wales for the year to June 1995 shows a fall of 5 per cent. compared with the previous 12 months. The statistics for the Metropolitan police district, which were affected by significant changes to the recording criteria, indicate an increase of 6 per cent. over the same period.

I thank the Home Secretary for that answer. He has confirmed that, at a time when there was a welcome fall in the level of burglary throughout the country generally, there appears still to have been an increase in London. What proposals does he have to tackle the rise in burglary in London? Why is it that, despite the promises that there will be extra police officers, there are 400 fewer in London now than there were in 1992?

The rise in the figures is explained by the recording criteria, as I have said. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the fact that, in the Forest Gate and Plaistow divisions of the Metropolitan police—both areas are in his constituency—recorded burglaries fell by nearly 8 per cent. in the 12 months to October 1995 compared with the previous 12-month period. Burglary clear-ups in those divisions rose by 28 per cent. There are now 21,600 constables in the Metropolitan police, more than ever before, and 5,000 more than in 1979.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that these much-improved figures are achieved at a price and that officers on the beat increasingly have to put their lives at risk? With four assaults on West Yorkshire officers in one recent weekend, the chief constable of West Yorkshire is keen to run a trial of CS incapacitants in the centre of Leeds at the Millgarth station. Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree, as a matter of some urgency, to a trial period for incapacitants and make their use appropriate for each force?

I made it clear some time ago that I was keen for the trials to commence. The relevant committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers is meeting today to discuss the matter, and I very much hope that it will agree to proceed with the trials.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of probation training. [7848]

Probation officers are no longer required to hold a social work qualification. We are now working with the probation service to put in place new arrangements for their training, which my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 2 October.

What is the Government's reaction to the debate in the other place of 5 December, in which the Government were defeated and in which 14 successive participants spoke strongly of the continuing need for a higher education professional qualification for probation officers?

I might well ask the hon. Gentleman what is his reaction to the debate in Committee on the same subject, which the Government won overwhelmingly and in which I made it very clear that we intended to put in place a broad-based programme of education instead of a social work degree. We believe that having only a social work qualification is a disincentive and that it does not give the probation service the broad-based education that it needs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, by changing the entry terms, we will be able to attract more mature people into the service? Most particularly, I would instance high-calibre ex-service men and women.

If I may, I shall agree with my hon. Friend by illustration: if someone comes along who has been in some voluntary organisation that deals with young people, or, indeed, has been in the armed services, and the probation service says, "Yes, you look very suitable, but you now have to do a two-year social work degree," I would regard that as a waste of many talented applicants.

Should not Conservative Members, who are among the group that might be without jobs and take advantage of this change, be declaring an interest today? Is the Home Secretary aware that probation officers deal with ever more damaged and dangerous individuals and that inadequate training will put probation officers and the public at risk? As the Home Secretary knows that Labour will support positive, constructive change in probation training, why is he afraid to put his proposals for change before the House in a statutory instrument?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to do something constructive and serious about this matter, he might note that, next week, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, representatives of the profession and my right hon. Friend Lady Blatch will meet to discuss it. It is certainly nothing to do with the Government that negotiations have not taken place before. I suggest that it has a great deal to do with the Opposition's attitude.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest estimate of the numbers seeking asylum in 1995. [7849]

Our latest estimate of the number of asylum applications in 1995 is 43,963.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the rate of increase demonstrated by those figures were to continue, in a five-year Parliament no fewer than 300,000 people would apply for asylum in this country? Does that not demonstrate the need for the Asylum and Immigration Bill and show that it is incumbent on those who oppose the Bill to say whether they find that figure acceptable?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition have continually condemned the Bill but have not put forward a single viable alternative. In effect, they are saying that we should allow the number of applications to continue to rise, that we should not distinguish between applications, whether genuine or bogus, and that we should just ignore and run away from the problem. That is the Opposition's position. That means that they do not take seriously the worries and anxieties of the British people. They do not take seriously the plight of the genuine asylum seeker who is suffering in a clogged-up system.

Why will the hon. Lady not listen to Church and community leaders in Britain who on many occasions have pointed out to her the damage that they believe the Asylum and Immigration Bill will cause to race and community relations? Why will she not listen to her hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), a previous Home Office Minister, who has made it clear to her that the only proper, fair and effective way to cut the lists of people waiting is to have a more efficient system and to apply the resources necessary to achieve that?

The biggest danger to race relations is the sort of alarmism stirred by the Opposition, who quite deliberately seek to exploit fear on the issue. We have now put in £37 million over three years for extra asylum caseworkers, we have decided 26,000 claims in the past 12 months—a 27 per cent. increase on the previous 12 months and double that in 1993—and the number of asylum staff has increased from 100 in 1988 to 700 now. That is the reality of putting in more resources. But unless we control the flow of bogus claims, more and more resources will be required, and that is not a sensible use of public funds. I cannot work out why, when the Leader of the Opposition talks about not wanting to tax in order to spend more, the Opposition want the Government to go on spending and spending on unfounded and undeserving cases.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that some 70 per cent. of asylum seekers enter Britain as students, tourists or business men? Does that not give the lie to some of the comments of Opposition Members? Does it not also suggest that most asylum seekers do not come to Britain in genuine fear of persecution but that, once here, they decide that it is quite a nice place to stay?

It is clear from the small percentage of asylum seekers who are found to be in genuine need of a place of asylum—only 4 per cent. of claims and another 4 per cent. on appeal—that the vast majority of cases have no foundation. My hon. Friend is right to identify the number of people who use asylum simply to stave off removal when they have exhausted every last avenue. That is not what asylum is about, or what the Geneva convention is about. Britain has a long and honourable tradition of being a place of safety for genuine applicants. I want to help genuine applicants and that means relieving the system of the bogus ones.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which police force region in England and Wales there has been the lowest increase in recorded crime since 1979. [7851]

Since 1979, Merseyside has had the lowest increase in recorded crime, with 34 per cent. I congratulate Merseyside police and all other forces on their commitment in tackling crime.

Is it not a terrible admission that every police force area in Britain has seen record increases in crime since 1979—a doubling across the country as a whole? Is it not also the case that, even if current reductions in crime continue, it will be another 15 years before we return to the levels of 1979? Do not the Home Office figures simply prove that under this Government Britain is less safe?

Sensibly, I took the precaution of checking the previous Labour Government's record. The hon. Gentleman tries to pretend that crime was invented or started to rise only in 1979. Crime rose considerably under the previous Labour Government. The one thing that fell was the number of police officers. When the Labour party left office, the police were 8,000 under strength, and they left behind a demoralised and debilitated police force. That was the task that we had to tackle when we came to office. The hon. Gentleman should also give credence to the fact that police forces throughout Britain are now getting on top of crime and that for the past two years crime has been falling, not least in Durham, which includes his constituency.

My right hon. Friend is right to point to the police service's low morale in the 1970s under the last Labour Government and to the fact that, under this Government, police numbers have risen, but is it not the case that rural parts of Britain are not experiencing the fall in crime that has occurred in inner cities? Will he ensure that, in the arrangement involving the 5,000 extra officers that the Prime Minister has promised, extra officers will be deployed in rural areas, where the need is now greatest?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, since 1979, we have recruited an extra 16,000 bobbies, and an extra 16,000 police civilians to free up more bobbies to go on the beat, but I caution him on this point: crime in rural areas is falling, as it is falling in the cities. If my hon. Friend considers the crime figures, he will find that crime is falling in rural counties, too. Crime there has risen much less than in cities. Despite what many of our constituents say, rural areas are largely low in crime, compared with some inner cities.

When the Minister referred to the last Labour Government's record compared with that of this Conservative Administration, why did he not admit that the rate of increase of crime under the Conservative Administration has been twice as fast, year by year, as under the last Labour Government? It is the worst record of any post-war Government, and of any of the 16 countries surveyed by the Home Office. Does that not show that the Conservative party can be no more trusted on law and order than it can be trusted to keep its promises on tax?

I do not say that, because it is simply not the case. The hon. Gentleman likes to take up his international survey, but he likes to stop at 1993. He does not like to go on to the latest figures, which show that crime in this country has been falling faster than in other European countries.

While we are on international comparisons, is my hon. right Friend aware that there are about 18 times as many murders in Washington as there are in the Avon and Somerset police force area? Is it therefore not disgraceful that the State Department should be saying to American tourists that Bristol is not a safe city? It is a jolly sight safer than anywhere in the United States, including Washington.

I should like to see the statement to which my right hon. Friend refers, because it is the sort of thing that I may to wish to take up with our American friends. It is not just that Bristol and Avon are safer than Washington. Crime is falling in large parts of this country and in most police forces. Not just in Avon and Somerset but throughout this country, we have safe communities, to which we welcome all foreign tourists. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the serious homicide rate in the United States is on average 10 times higher than in the United Kingdom. No country is safer than this for our American friends to visit. They should get to the north of England and the Lake district, too.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Police Federation concerning the proposed increase in uniformed officers. [7582]

I discussed the proposed increase in the number of uniformed officers with the Police Federation at the time of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement. The federation chairman described the announcement as a

"tremendous boost for the Service."

Federation members locally are concerned about the announcement of extra police. The Government are kidding no one but themselves if they think the fear of crime has improved. Crime is as bad now as it was, it is getting worse and ordinary people are suffering.

The reason for the change is that it is what chief constables—including the chief constable of West Yorkshire—wanted. Since 1979, the number of police officers in West Yorkshire has increased by 383 and the number of civilians by 774, and West Yorkshire will receive enough funds to recruit 200 extra constables over the next three years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw those figures to his constituents' attention.

Notwithstanding the facts drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that morale among the well-led police in West Yorkshire is as high as it has been for many years? My constituents like to see uniformed police about. Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to get them away from their desks and on duty?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is largely a result of that morale, or associated with it, that the last crime figures that I saw for West Yorkshire showed a 5.5 per cent. reduction over the 12 months in question: 16,000 fewer crimes had been committed in the area.

Does the Home Secretary recall that, in the 1992 Conservative manifesto, his party promised to provide 1,000 extra police officers in that year? Does he further recall that only 771 were appointed, and is he aware that since then the number has been reduced by 1,333? That information is based on Government statistics that I was given recently in a parliamentary answer.

I do not for a moment accept the figures given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. This year alone, we expect to have an extra 400 officers across the country, and, as a result of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement, we shall have an extra 5,000 over the next three years. As for the Metropolitan police, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman specifically referred, as I said earlier this afternoon there are now 21,600 constables in the Met—more than ever before, and 5,000 more than there were in 1979.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, contrary to the misleading impression created by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), he has ensured that next year alone chief constables throughout the country will be able to create up to 1,000 new posts for bobbies on the beat?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The money has been provided, following agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I hope very much that chief constables will recruit the extra officers.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the allocation of the money announced in the Budget for closed circuit television. [7853]

Fifteen million pounds will be distributed in 1996–97 by means of a challenge competition. Bids for funding are to be received in the Home Office by 29 March 1996. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to announce the results early in the summer.

In providing the second tranche of money for closed circuit television, will the Home Secretary give special consideration to district councils that were not given a slice of the first tranche but went ahead with their own schemes, paying for them with council tax money, and now wish to extend those schemes?

No, I will not give special consideration to those councils; I will give equal and fair consideration to all councils that may be considering add-on or bolt-on schemes to complement their existing systems. I appeal to councils, police forces, local businesses and partnerships to take advantage of the wonderful technology that is now at our disposal, prepare bids and present them before the end of March. All those bids will be judged objectively and fairly, and we hope to announce the winners by early summer.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the results of CCTV in Maidstone are absolutely first-class? Will he pay tribute to the borough council for its principled refusal to allow any of the material collected on those cameras to be sold or made use of for any other purpose?

The Maidstone camera scheme is excellent, along with hundreds of others in the country. I agree with the council's stance; it is the Government's stance. We insist that any scheme which does not have a proper code of practice on how tapes are kept will not be given funding. I believe that the Association of Chief Police Officers has also come to that view with regard to any special film it may have of motorway incidents.

The Minister will know that the public want their taxes to be spent on reducing crime. Why not invest considerably more in CCTV since we all know that it works? Are not many communities in Cumbria, which contains the Minister's constituency, demanding that?

The short answer is that we are investing considerably more. In CCTV technology alone, investment has ' gone from nothing two years ago, to £5 million last year, to £15 million in the coming year. There has also been investment in other police technology, such as the national automated fingerprint identification computer system and the Phoenix system. Investment in the police service alone has doubled in real terms since the Conservative party came to office and stands at £5.5 billion. That is investment in cutting crime and a successful police service, which is backed up by the best technology in the world.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reintroducing corporal punishment; and if he will make a statement. [7854]

We have no such plans. I am afraid that we are not satisfied that corporal punishment would be useful in practice.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people who were previously opposed to corporal punishment, including Members of Parliament such as me, are appalled at the growing number of crimes committed against elderly people? Is he aware that, in my constituency, a residential home was recently broken into by a young thug? Not content with burgling an old lady of 90, he beat her up. Is it not time that such wicked criminals were given a taste of their own medicine? Will my hon. Friend undertake to set up an inquiry or a commission to investigate whether corporal punishment would be a deterrent and make our streets and communities safer?

I think that we are all sickened to hear the example of gratuitous and sadistic violence to which my hon. Friend referred. I know that he will want to support the Government in their determination to curb such crime. I am sure that he will want to support the proposals that we are bringing forward in our White Paper, such as automatic life sentences for two serious examples of violent crime. It is in that way that we will be able to curb such disgraceful crimes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the level of vehicle crime (a) in England and Wales and (b) in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment countries. [7855]

Recorded vehicle crime fell by 9 per cent. in England and Wales in the 12 months to June 1995. The 1994 volume of criminal statistics contains international comparisons with several OECD countries and shows that in 1994, the 11 per cent. fall in recorded offences of theft of a vehicle in England and Wales was the highest of all the countries listed.

I note and indeed welcome that reply, as I am sure will hon. Members on both sides of the House. Is the Minister not aware that there is still an enormous amount of vehicle crime in England and Wales? We see evidence of it in our newspapers day by day, be they national or local newspapers. Did the Minister see the programme on television last week about Greater Manchester, where vehicle crime is so organised that cars are stolen on order for Australia? In view of that, what kind of interlinking system is there between police authorities so that there is a greater chance of stopping this on-going increase—in not only the vandalism of motors but, especially, the stealing of them?

I cannot accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's comment about "this on-going increase". Car crime has been among the largest categories of crime to fall over the past two years. In the past two years, car crime has fallen by 17 per cent. That is 270,000 fewer offences. Of course we are not complacent about that. Car crime is still too high and we will continue our efforts to cut it.

I welcome the fall in car crime. However, as someone who had his car stolen from outside his house only the day before yesterday, may I ask my right hon. Friend what action the motor manufacturers are taking to make the fitting of car alarms on every vehicle standard, and whether he feels that the insurance companies are offering sufficient discounts on insurance premiums for cars that are fitted in that way?

I met yesterday the vehicle car crime prevention group, which is a sub-committee of the National Board for Crime Prevention, and we discussed that subject. It has been in the lead in persuading manufacturers to take car crime prevention seriously. We have now persuaded our EC partners and there will be a directive on car crime, dealing particularly with the fitting of immobilisers, and other car crime prevention measures. Those measures are making a difference, and they will continue to make a difference in reducing the rate of vehicle theft. We are now turning our attention to truck theft and theft of plant. If it is helpful to my hon. Friend, I will write him a letter which sets out the full details of what we are doing and place a copy of it in the Library of the House.

If the Minister is not complacent about the issue of vehicle theft, will he accept that he certainly sounds as though he is? He has just had to admit that we have the highest vehicle crime rate of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Will he acknowledge that, with the exception of Italy, we have the lowest stolen vehicle recovery rate of any country in Europe, and that, in regard to commercial vehicles, we have an astronomical problem? Will he stop coming to the House and denying that Vehicle crime is a problem, and do something about it?

No one is denying that it is a problem. We are taking the matter very seriously indeed. I resent the hon. Gentleman and others today poring through all the crime figures, trying to find statistics from some foreign country or some nugget of information that will enable them to paint a picture of bad news for Britain. Britain has historically had a higher rate of car crime than other countries, yet I do not hear Opposition Members talking about the much higher homicide rate in other EC countries or about their much higher rate of sexual offences. The Opposition like to pick out nuggets which they can use to criticise the success of the British police.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the European Court consideration of the border controls issue initiated by the European Parliament. [7856]

The oral hearing of the case, originally scheduled for 3 October 1995, has been postponed at the request of the European Parliament. No new date has been set.

As the case has meant the publication of three draft directives calling for total removal of border controls—details of which the Home Secretary has—and as it will mean that 18 million foreign nationals, including Algerians in France, Turks in Germany and many illegals, will have open access to the United Kingdom, would the Home Secretary, in the interests of good race relations and preserving our nation, make it abundantly clear that there is simply no way in which the Government would permit such a fundamental change to remove our border controls?

Yes. I have made it abundantly clear in the past, and I make it abundantly clear again, that we shall resist those directives, and we shall maintain our frontier controls.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make it an offence for young people under 18 years of age to consume alcohol in public places; and if he will make a statement. [7857]

I share my hon. Friend's concern that we must do all that we can to discourage under-age drinking. My right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are considering what further steps can be taken.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I point out to my hon. Friend that it is illegal for youngsters to purchase drink, it is illegal to sell them drink and it is illegal to buy drink for them? It seems ridiculous that youngsters can consume alcohol without breaking the law. Will my hon. Friend take that on board in his considerations?

We shall certainly take those matters on board in our consideration. Let me mention something that I do not believe is widely known and remind the House that in England and Wales it is a statutory requirement for schools to educate pupils about alcohol misuse. Similar guidelines exist north of the border. Education plays an enormous part in curbing under-age drinking.

Is the Minister aware that, according to the Royal College of Physicians, more than a quarter of 14-year-old boys became violent after consuming alcohol? Does he agree that under-age drinkers often make public parks and shopping areas a nightmare for respectable citizens, who at best suffer from abuse, and in some cases are threatened with violence? Will the Minister monitor the schemes that have been introduced in Liverpool and Coventry and look at some of the experiments that have been conducted in the United States to see what further measures might be introduced to combat a serious and growing problem?

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that we can take on board all the advice and experience that he relates as well as being vigilant in looking for ways of curbing the problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent scheme that was on trial in Weymouth, where the police liaised with local television and radio stations to ask parents whether they knew where their children were on Friday and Saturday nights, when many youngsters drink alcohol in the streets? Will he consider making it an offence for an under-age person to be in possession of alcohol in the street and support such initiatives as the one that has worked so well in Weymouth?

I compliment that partnership scheme with the local television station. Hon. Members may wish to suggest similar liaisons between the police and their regional television stations. We shall certainly take that experience on board and consider taking action in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage change there has been in incidents of robbery as reported by the police in the 12 months to June 1995 in South Yorkshire. [7858]

Recorded offences of robbery in South Yorkshire increased by 75 offences or 8 per cent. in the previous 12 months, although recorded crime overall fell by 2 per cent. in South Yorkshire.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the incidence of robbery in the South Yorkshire police area has increased by 553 per cent. since 1979? That increase is 150 per cent. above the national average. What will he do about it and when will he take action to tackle robberies in South Yorkshire?

It is rather pathetic for a Yorkshire Member of Parliament to attack his own police force. South Yorkshire police are in charge of crime in South Yorkshire. In the past year, they have been remarkably successful in reducing burglaries, vehicle crime and other crime. South Yorkshire police know that more needs to be done about robbery and it is an utter disgrace for the hon. Gentleman to come here and complain, without uttering a word of thanks for the excellent job that bobbies in South Yorkshire are doing.

My hon. Friend will be aware that violent crimes occurs not only in South Yorkshire but in West Yorkshire. Violent crime deserves strong punishment. As my hon. Friend told the House this afternoon that corporal punishment has no effect, can he explain why in the Isle of Man it is most rare for young people to be birched more than once?

I do not have the figures for the Isle of Man, but, on robbery, we have seen in today's press the phenomenal success that Sir Paul Condon is having in London with his campaign against street robbery, cutting such crime by about 40 per cent. I am sure that chief constables throughout the rest of the country will have noted that, if one tackles a problem such as burglary, one gets it down, and if one tackles robbery, one gets it down. Sir Paul's success is to be applauded and copied elsewhere.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress on the implementation of the incentive scheme in prisons. [7860]

Ninety-one per cent. of establishments will have implemented the scheme by 1 February.

Is it true that Full Sutton, near York, was the only prison in which there was any resistance to the introduction of the incentive scheme? Is it also true that those responsible for the disturbance have now been moved out and that the scheme is working well? Does my hon. Friend agree that early release from prison should be earned by good behaviour and should not be an automatic right?

The simple answers are yes, yes and yes. My hon. Friend has got every question absolutely right. The earned incentive scheme is a useful tool of control for prison officers. As such, it should be welcomed on both sides of the House and, as such, it is making a real contribution to promoting good order and discipline in our prisons.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January. [7875]

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.

In view of the renewed speculation about the right hon. Gentleman's leadership, can the Prime Minister tell the House what difference to his party or the country was made by his decision to precipitate a leadership contest last year?

We have this silly speculation almost every week in which there is a Thursday. It has been nonsense in the past and it is nonsense now.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January. [7876]

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are more shareholders today than trade unionists? Indeed, many trade unionists are shareholders. Is he further aware of the Labour party's cynical plans to introduce shareholding for workers? Is not that a case of attempting to justify a tired and meaningless Slogan?

My hon. Friend is quite right about the growth in the number of shareholders and the fact that they now exceed the number of trade unionists.

Resign.

Well, the trade unionists seem to have been doing that—that is one of the reasons why there are more shareholders than there are trade unionists. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is equally right about the slogans from the Labour party. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said last night:

"It is amusing that Labour's new slogan might be a long way round to rediscovering clause 4 and common ownership."

Can the Prime Minister confirm that, on the latest statistics, since 1989, when the Government changes to the health service were introduced, the number of nurses has fallen by 50,000 and the number of senior managers has risen by 18,000? Is not that a mistaken set of priorities for the health service?

The mistake is the misleading way in which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and now the right hon. Gentleman talk nonsense by distorting figures in the health service, as elsewhere. What the right hon. Gentleman clearly has not been advised about, or has chosen to ignore, is that there are more than 50,000 more nurses and 4,000 more midwives today than when the Government took office. They are providing effective health care close to where people live and work. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I take pride in the national health service and its achievements, and I very much regret that all that he and his colleagues can do is to take statistics, misuse statistics and try to run down the health service.

We take pride in the health service—we created the health service. We just do not like it being undermined by the Conservative party. The statistics that I quoted are from the Department of Health. The Prime Minister said that an extra 50,000 nurses had been created. Will he confirm that if one takes the full-time equivalent of nursing and compares like with like, there are fewer nurses now than there were in 1979? Furthermore, has not the decline happened entirely since 1989, when the changes were introduced? Does that not show that one is the consequence of the other and that there is a mistaken set of priorities in the health service?

The right hon. Gentleman is still distorting, and he overlooks the extra 1.5 million patients who are being treated. Patients statistics do not concern the Labour party. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a statistic that really shows what is happening in the health service—66 per cent. of health service staff are now involved in direct patient care, up from 60 per cent. only 12 years ago. That is because we have invested directly in front-line care and that is why more patients are being treated, and treated better and more speedily than ever before. I hope that, one day, the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the improvements in the health service, congratulate the people in the health service on making the improvements and acknowledge that we have repeatedly put more funds into the health service to enable those improvements to take place.

I notice that the Prime Minister did not dispute the statistics on nursing. If he wants an objective view, why does he not ask the doctors and nurses in the health service? Does he not understand that many people fear that money is being pumped into bureaucracy rather going to front-line nursing care, and that they are angry that the party that the Prime Minister calls a one-nation Conservative party is breaking the health service in two?

Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman distorts and twists reality to make his political point. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept what I say, I advise him to listen to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who told the Fabian Society,

"Labour's health policy will not look credible at the general election if we do not commit ourselves to matching the rate of growth delivered by the Conservatives."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why unemployment is falling is that British firms are now able to compete free from overwhelming union control? Does he further agree that that would all be thrown away under the Opposition's plans for a stakeholder society, which would simply hand power back to the unions?

That certainly seems to be the view of the trade unions, as Mr. Monks, the general secretary of the TUC, has confirmed. He said:

"This country needs more influential unions",

"I think ultimately we need changes in legislation."

"Labour cannot govern without the support of the trade unions."

"I am at heart a trade unionist before a politician."

When the Prime Minister's predecessor, Mrs. Thatcher, said last week that his Government had lost touch with the hopes of ordinary people, whom does he think she was blaming?

It hardly loses touch with ordinary people if one removes what wrecked their savings by producing the lowest inflation levels for 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest unemployment rate of any major European country, the lowest basic tax rate for 50 years, and the biggest fall in crime for more than 40 years. That is what my right hon. Friend, when Prime Minister, sought to achieve; it is what we have delivered.

When my right hon. Friend next meets his fellow Heads of Government in Europe, will he do all that he can to persuade them to make progress on liberalising the energy market within the European Union? Is not one of the Government's great successes the fact that we have created a competitive market in the UK, and would not our firms benefit from a competitive market throughout the European Union?

Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely right. While the single market has been an enormous success, both for us and for the rest of Europe, there remain areas across Europe where it is still not operative, and my hon. Friend mentions one of them. We shall continue to press to spread the single market to that area and others.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January. [7877]

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

I am sorry to see that the bastards are plotting again. The Conservative party's current difficulties are not the Prime Minister's fault. He simply has the bad luck to be Prime Minister when the bills for the Thatcher decade are coming in. May I offer him a word of advice? He should offer members of his party not a leadership election but a general election. That would shut them up.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has some experience of leadership elections. If I remember accurately, he ran the leadership election of a losing candidate in a previous Labour party leadership election, so although I take what he says with some interest, I shall not follow it to the letter.

He got 49 per cent., though.

Maybe, but it was not enough.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January. [7878]

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

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will respect the constitutional freedoms of this country at all times and will not seek to undermine them by entering into shabby, shoddy backroom deals, like those promised by the Leader of the Opposition with the Liberal party, British Telecom and the trade unions?

I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires without reservation.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January. [7879]

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Has the Prime Minister seen the figures produced by the Royal College of Nursing, which show that the number of nurses qualifying each year has fallen from some 37,000 in 1983 to only 13,000 last year? The resulting staff shortages have caused a crisis in our accident and emergency and intensive care units. Do not those figures confirm that the NHS is no longer safe in Tory hands, and never was, or is the Royal College of Nursing distorting the figures?

I will just give the hon. Gentleman the figures. There are 22,000 more doctors than there were in 1979, and 34,000 more qualified nurses. It is not the Conservative party or the Government who have cut back on the health service. The only time that that has occurred was when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office. He should recall that and bear in mind that the Conservatives have delivered increased investment to the national health service, which means better service, more front-line care, which is better and earlier, and a wider range of care.

My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall the excitement and pride shared by millions of children, including him and me, at the Festival of Britain, part of which for me meant visiting the capital city for the first time. May I, as a non-Londoner, assure him that it is unthinkable that the millennium celebrations should be held anywhere other than in our capital city, and that the best possible place would be Greenwich?

My hon. Friend touches on a matter that may be controversial in the west midlands and elsewhere. The reality is that the decision will be taken by the Millennium Commission, independently of the Government, and it is therefore not appropriate for me to comment on particular bids or to speculate about the outcome. I am sure that many others will do so, but I will await the decision of the Millennium Commission.