To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to increase the number of CCTV schemes in operation. [25036]

In March 1995, we distributed £5 million to 106 winners in our first CCTV challenge competition. Those schemes are now coming on stream. We are planning to spend a further £45 million over the next three years to promote the use of CCTV in crime prevention. We aim to fund 10,000 more cameras.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the strong support in Southport for the introduction of closed circuit television cameras. Does he agree that, where CCTV has been introduced, there has been a clear reduction in crime? Is not that to be welcomed? Will he pursue the policy with the utmost vigour?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall certainly continue to pursue the policy. When closed circuit television was introduced in Workington in 1994, crime was reduced by 57 per cent. on the previous year, and there was a further reduction of 59 per cent. in 1995. There have been similar reductions across the country. In the words of the chief constable of Northumbria:

"We are leading the world in closed circuit television technology".

Before we all wildly applaud what the Home Secretary has just said, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are more electronic eyes—and that we are under more surveillance—in this country than in any other country on the planet, including all the eastern European countries? Are we not seeing the day of big brother? The fact that we have to have spies on every building to try to limit crime marks 17 years of Conservative government, and is a condemnation of him and everything that he stands for.

There speaks the authentic voice of the Labour party. The country will know that, whereas Conservatives are working hard to protect the public through the use of technology and other ways, all those efforts are being met by the most antediluvian opposition of the hon. Gentleman and his party.

In the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's answer, is he aware that although a number of Labour-controlled Norfolk towns, including the city of Norwich, have CCTV, the Labour-controlled Great Yarmouth borough council has rejected the crime prevention measure? What does that say about the so-called policy of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime that we hear so much from the Labour Front Bench?

It shows yet again that Labour cannot be trusted on crime. Not long ago, I had the privilege of visiting some of the CCTV schemes in Norfolk. They are very successful. It is a great pity that Great Yarmouth council is so blinkered that it is not prepared to follow the example of others in Norfolk.

Will the Home Secretary support the bid of Labour Redbridge council for a CCTV scheme in the centre of Ilford, which is supported by the police and the local business community and would do wonders to cut crime and add to the thriving nature of many Labour-led businesses in our local authority?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the most careful consideration will be given to the bid for funding for CCTV in his constituency. I further give him the undertaking that we shall not hold it against his constituency that his neighbour, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), has such old-fashioned and obstructive views on the subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many European countries have a domestic identity card. [25037]

Eleven of the 15 countries in the European Union have some form of identity card.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the vast majority of the British people want identity cards, not least to identify the thousands of illegal immigrants who are drawing benefit? Is he aware that, if the lot opposite ever came to power, inflation would soon be at 26.9 per cent., tax at 98 per cent. and we would need identity cards not to show that we are entitled to be here but to show that we are entitled to get out of here?

As usual, my hon. Friend put his point in a telling and inimitable way. Of course, his suggestion is right, not least because of the new tax on the family through the withdrawal of family credit from families with 16 to 18-year-olds that is the latest weapon in the Labour party's tax armoury.

The Home Secretary was correct that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) put his case in a telling way, which certainly cannot be said of the Government. Will he say whether he agrees with the Prime Minister when he said during last year's local election campaign that compulsory identity cards were necessary to combat crime, or will he own up to the fact that his officials have told him that a compulsory scheme would be too costly, ineffective and unpopular—even with the hon. Member's constituents in Welwyn Hatfield?

If the hon. Gentleman were to look at what was said by me and others, he would see that we said that we would consult on various versions of identity cards, ranging from the compulsory through the voluntary to none at all. We said that we would invite people's views on those options, as we have done, and that we would announce our decision in due course. That is exactly what we intend to do.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give careful consideration to identity cards with photographs, which would be most helpful? In my constituency, there is a serious problem of a young man's details having being given to the police on three occasions by a small gang. That young man has been dragged to court, yet he has not been identified as the culprit at the scene of the crime. Someone else is using his name. If tearaways driving around in the middle of the night had to produce an identity card with a photograph, that problem would be resolved.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her suggestion. She knows that I always take her suggestions particularly seriously. I shall certainly take what she has said fully into account in working up our proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many robberies were recorded by the police (a) in England and Wales and (b) in Humberside in (i) 1995 and (ii) 1979. [25038]

The figures for England and Wales are 68, 407 and 12, 482. The corresponding figures for Humberside were 680 and 103.

As the Minister does not care to give us the percentage increases, my quick mental arithmetic gives them as 448 per cent. in England and Wales and 560 per cent. in Humberside. Given that robbery is the crime that most exacerbates the atmosphere of fear of crime, is not that amazing increase, which is continuing, a total condemnation of the Government's policy?

Not at all, but it is typical of the hon. Gentleman to focus on robbery in Humberside, which has unfortunately been increasing. It is the duty of Humberside police to deal with robbery on their patch. I would have had more respect for the hon. Gentleman if he had mentioned that, in the past two years, crime has fallen on Humberside by 12,000 offences, or that there are 4,000 fewer car crimes and 9,000 fewer burglaries. How did the people who get involved in robbery on Humberside start? Perhaps they started as shop thieves. They may have been encouraged by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition seems to think that stealing from shops is okay and merely putting a "treat in your pocket".

Is not robbery a crime of violence against the person? Have not crimes of violence against the person fallen nationwide over the past year, for the first time in 49 years?

That is true; crimes of violence have fallen considerably in England and Wales for the first time in 49 years. Of course, the Labour party wants to pretend that crime was not invented until 1979, so I thought that I would look at the figures for 1975, 1976, 1978 and 1979. In those years in Humberside, violence increased by 23 per cent., violence against the person by 34 per cent., burglary by 6 per cent. and vehicle crime by 25 per cent.

What about crime now?

Crime rose under Labour Governments and, yes, it rose for some years under the Conservative Government, but it has been falling for the past three years—and Labour Members do not want to talk about that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage change there has been in the incidence of recorded crime since (a) 1994 and (h) 1979. [25040]

Between 1994 and 1995, recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 2.4 per cent. Between 1979 and 1995, there was an increase of 102 per cent.

Does the Home Secretary now accept that there is a good correlation between unemployment and the incidence of crime? Over the past three years, there has been a significant fall in unemployment and a small fall in the incidence of crime but, over the past 15 years, we have had unemployment rates of 10 to 15 per cent., with the despond, lack of self-esteem and hopelessness that that produces in people, and its corrosive effect in society. Is not that the root cause of the fact that crime has more than doubled since 1979?

The research carried out into the matter does not support the hon. Gentleman's thesis. Furthermore, this is an irrelevant argument, because I accept that we must do everything to bring down unemployment, which is a social evil in itself, irrespective of whether it has anything to do with crime. We have been extremely successful in reducing unemployment at a time when it has been increasing in most of the rest of Europe. Why does the hon. Gentleman not rejoice with me in the fact that, in Dyfed-Powys, in which his constituency lies, recorded crime over the past two years has fallen by no less than 22 per cent.—a decrease of 5,300 in recorded crimes since 1993?

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the campaign to keep recorded crime figures coming down, the possession of identity cards would be a big advantage to the police? The military and the reserve forces have identity cards, and so do Members of Parliament. Many people who work in companies have identity cards, too. Why should we not have identity cards for every member of the public, which would assist the police in their efforts to bring down crime?

I understand my hon. Friend's point, but he will doubtless be aware of the fact that the police do not favour a compulsory identity card. None the less, I shall take what he has said fully into account in working up my proposals.

What is there to rejoice about in a record which shows that, as the Home Secretary has confirmed, recorded crime has more than doubled over the past 16 years? Is he not aware that, as crime has doubled, the proportion of people convicted or cautioned for those crimes has fallen by more than half? Is that not the worst record of any British Government since the war—and, indeed, of any comparable Administration in any western country? Is it therefore any wonder that the British people have so comprehensively lost confidence in the Government's ability to keep communities safe from crime?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out, crime was rising before 1979. It has also been rising in other western European countries and in countries elsewhere in the developed world since that date. In the past three years, however, there has been the greatest fall in recorded crime since records began to be kept in the middle of the 19th century. That is a matter for some satisfaction, and we congratulate the police on their achievements.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will raise at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers the issue of border controls. [25042]

I have no plans to raise the issue of border controls at the next meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the removal of border controls would effectively establish a single European state without frontiers? What constitutional defences are available to us if the European Court determines—as some of us believe it will—that the declaration attached to the Single European Act does not have the status of European law?

My hon. Friend knows perfectly well—because we have had exchanges on this subject before— that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they are firmly determined to maintain the United Kingdom's frontier controls. That is our position: we will maintain our frontier controls, as we have made clear on numerous occasions.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the percentage of prisons that are free of illegal drug use. [25043]

Mandatory drug testing has been implemented in all prisons, on schedule, by 31 March. The data it will yield will provide, over time, a good indicator of the level and pattern of drug misuse in prisons. However, because the random testing programme involves the testing of only 10 per cent. of a prison's population every month, even when all the tests prove negative, it will still not be safe to claim that an entire prison is free of drug misuse.

That is a disgraceful non-answer. I suggest that the Minister read my question again and the letter that I sent to her Department pointing out that, in my county of Gwent, in two cases, on two different days, convicted offenders were excused prison—which they most certainly would have had—for the serious offences that they had committed because the judge decided that, as ex-drug users, they would be exposed to more drug temptation in prison than they would be in the community. It seems, therefore, that drug users get a better chance of not going to gaol. In what percentage of prisons is drug use endemic? If the Minister does not know the answer, I can tell her what her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State told me before—that drug use is endemic in 98 per cent. of gaols. Why is this the case after 17 years of Tory government?

If the hon. Gentleman wanted an answer to that question, perhaps he should have asked it. The hon. Gentleman asked me:

"what … percentage of prisons … are free of illegal drug use."

Does my hon. Friend agree that there can be absolutely no rehabilitation of offenders in custody so long as they have access to drugs, so removing drugs from our prisons is the single most important priority that the Government could have in ensuring that people do not re-offend when they leave custody? In that respect, does my hon. Friend think that we can learn a great deal from the boot camps in the United States of America, which are no-drug zones? Will she ensure that similar detention centres in Britain are also no-drug zones?

I hope that, one day, we shall be able to ensure that there is no prison, whether for young offenders or for adult offenders, in which there are drugs, and I described the measures that we were undertaking to try to move towards that.

The Minister is aware that there is a serious drugs problem at Buckley Hall prison in Rochdale, and that many of those drugs are coming over the perimeter fence. That is one of the reasons why the perimeter fence is being strengthened at the moment. Is she aware, however, that on Tuesday 23 April, at 2 pm, four prisoners, using construction equipment left lying about by the contractors, escaped over the prison fence? Is it not about time that she listened to the views of the people of Rochdale and instigated a full public inquiry into the running of Buckley Hall prison by Group 4?

First, the hon. Lady says that there is a serious drugs problem at Buckley Hall. It is worth recording that, when the last series of tests was carried out, 19 prisoners were tested and only one was found positive. Although that is one too many, it is not indicative of what she describes as a serious problem.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is no lack of determination on the part of the Government or the Prison Service to eliminate drugs from prisons? Can she confirm that the root problem is that, as a result of court decisions, personal contact between prisoners and visitors is now compulsory, and that internal body searches are not allowed unless a doctor is present and the prisoner consents, which means that, for all practical purposes, substances can be taken into prison and prison staff have no option but to allow those substances to be used?

My hon. Friend is right to identify visitors' contacts with prisoners as being an aspect of major concern. That is why there is now increased use of monitoring by cameras at visiting time, why there is increased use of closed visits where prisoners are found to have obtained drugs, why there are strict search procedures and why dogs are often used at visiting times.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that the mandatory drug testing scheme will be reviewed to discover what, if any, improvements may be made to it? Will she also give the House an assurance that the proposed cuts of 14.5 per cent. in real terms that are due to take place during the next three years will not affect the many effective, well-run drug rehabilitation programmes that are already going on in our prisons? Will she ensure that those programmes are protected? I am sure that the whole House agrees that it is important that people who are into taking drugs are helped to get out of them, especially when in prison.

The hon. Gentleman can of course have our reassurance that mandatory drug testing will be continued, that it will be kept under review so that, if improvements can be made, they will be made, and that we shall monitor carefully the results, especially when they have been up and running for long enough to allow us to perceive a steady pattern. I have pleasure in giving the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the work being done by prison officers throughout the United Kingdom, and especially in my constituency of South Dorset, tackling the drug problem is good news for everyone concerned, not least the prisoners? Will she take further measures, if necessary, to ensure that we can search people going into prisons, and that we can prosecute them with the full force of the law so that we stop people involved in that type of trafficking, which has been going on for many years?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have fairly stringent searching, and when we have reason to believe that there is something untoward we have very stringent searching. We can refuse access, and we can—and do—call in the police with a view to prosecution when we find visitors trying to pass substances of that sort. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall seek to improve those procedures and that we are thoroughly committed to them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the design of British passports. [25044]

The current new-style British passport, introduced from 1988, is in a common format that has been agreed throughout the European Union.

So when people renew their passports, they will, at the Minister's insistence, no longer be able to obtain a traditional British-style passport but must have what is called a "European Community passport". Is the Minister proud of that?

I am somewhat surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The passport that is held by British nationals is quite clearly a British, not a European, passport. On its front cover, it bears this country's coat of arms and the clear and unequivocal statement that it is a passport of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we intend it to remain that way—but I am not so sure that Opposition Front Benchers, with their Euro-enthusiasm, could provide the same guarantee

My hon. Friend is correct: the problem is not the design of the British passport, but designs on the British passport. Will my hon. Friend renew the fight to ensure that border controls and the sanctity of passports generally are upheld?

I am sure that we can give that confirmation. However, the Opposition are apparently unable to do that. If we received more support from the Opposition in our determination in that regard, we would be in a much better position.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for regulating the private security industry; and if he will make a statement. [25045]

We are still considering the case for regulating the private security industry.

Has the Minister noticed that Lowther Construction, a company based in his constituency, has been employing an armed robber as a security guard—or at least it was until he was arrested on charges of supplying heroin? When will the Minister overcome his obsession with deregulation and do what all sensible people of all political persuasions both in and outside the industry are begging him to do: start regulating the private security industry?

The hon. Gentleman and his party are very keen on regulation and more regulation, but they have not thought out the details and there is no blueprint for how it should be done.

Get on with it.

That is the Opposition's response to all regulation issues: they do not care about the details or the effect on criminal law or the industry; they would simply regulate and hope for the best.

Why does the Minister appear so unwilling to regulate the crooks? Does he realise that the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is not unique? What has the Minister to say about the experience of the police? For example, a police superintendent told me about a man with 23 pages of convictions on the police national computer who is running a private security firm. The police, the Labour party and the private security industry want statutory regulation of the industry. Why will not the Home Secretary bring in legislation to protect the public, instead of continuing to act as the villain's friend?

It will not surprise the House to know that I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman might end with that jibe, so before coming to the House I looked up the Labour party's voting record—not on regulation, but on Bills to deal with people who have been convicted of crime. In 1988, Labour voted against the power to increase from two years to 10 the penalty for cruelty to children. Labour voted against penalties for hard drugs. Labour voted against the maximum penalty for taking a gun to crime. Labour voted against every prevention of terrorism Act until this year. Labour voted against many parts of the last criminal justice Bill and sabotaged others. We will produce our proposals for the private security industry in due course, but we will not take lessons from the Opposition when over the past 15 years they have voted against every measure that would have locked up more criminals.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to give reasons for refusing United Kingdom citizenship applications where the applicant has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for over 20 years, has no criminal record and has met all the duties and obligations which fall to be met by a person resident in the United Kingdom. [25046]

No. Section 44(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 expressly relieves the Secretary of State from giving reasons in such cases where the decision is at his discretion

Why will the Minister not give reasons for the refusal of British citizenship to the Fayed brothers, as recommended in February by Mr. Justice Igor Judge, who said that not to do so gave the impression of secrecy and was unattractive, and who called on the Minister to think again? Is not the refusal of UK citizenship to the Fayed brothers, who have been in this country more than 20 years, a calculated act of political spite because the Fayed brothers blew the whistle on Ministers who enjoyed lavish hospitality at the Paris Ritz, allegedly for planting parliamentary questions? Is that not the reason for blackballing the Fayed brothers?

Under schedule 1 to the 1981 Act, certain requirements must be met for approval to be given to citizenship. Some are objective matters and some are subjective, subject to discretion. Mr. Justice Judge's pronouncement, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, made it clear that the British Government have always acted lawfully in respect of the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The judge found as a matter of law that there was no obligation either to give reasons or to invite representations, and that the Home Office in no way acted unlawfully

Having received a pretty shabby letter from Mohammed Al Fayed, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that he is not fit for British citizenship. People who are fit for British citizenship include children born in Germany of parents serving in the British forces. Why are such children subject to such an onerous burden of proof in obtaining a British passport?

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I will be pleased to look into that matter and reply to him. I remind the House that we take British nationality extremely seriously. It is a very special status, not to be conferred in a flippant or easy manner—as suggested by the Labour party

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he plans to increase the revenue finance for police forces in England and Wales in each of the next three years in order to increase by 5,000 the number of police officers. [25047]

Police authorities will receive an extra £20 million this financial year, £60 million more in 1997–98 and £100 million more in 1998–99. That will enable them to recruit 5,000 additional police constables over that period

Is the Minister aware of the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), drawing attention to the increasing level of violence and use of firearms on Merseyside? Is he also aware that under the constraints imposed by the Government, Merseyside fire authority—this year, not in three years' time—will have to reduce its officer numbers by 130? How will the Merseyside authority cope with the increased levels of crime? Will the Minister put the elderly people and other vulnerable groups on Merseyside at ease with some statement of comfort, and will he agree to meet a delegation from the Merseyside police authority?

People on Merseyside might be put more at ease if the authority did not waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on leaflets claiming that its budget will be cut by £19 million when in fact it received an increase of £8 million or 5.1 per cent. this financial year. I would be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman if he quoted from the latest Audit Commission report which shows, among other things, that Merseyside has almost 50 per cent. more money per head of population to tackle crime than the average police force. As a result of all that extra money, Merseyside has 50 per cent. more bobbies available for ordinary duty than the average police force. I should be delighted to meet a delegation from Merseyside on any occasion to remind it of the success of that force in that regard.

Is the Minister satisfied that the police establishment of the county of Kent is sufficient to deal with all the manifestations of the channel tunnel rail link, in view of the huge increase in traffic moving through the county from the north to the coast and from there to Europe?

Yes, I am. We no longer set establishments, but in view of the generous funding that all forces, including Kent, have received and the success that Kent police have had in tackling all aspects of crime, I am satisfied that Kent's excellent chief constable will be able to deploy the resources that we have given him in the most effective way to tackle any problems arising from the channel tunnel and any other problems of crime in his county.

When will sufficient resources be given to the police in Derbyshire so that they can secure the return of their certificate of competence? Why is that force still suffering as a result of a past policy of civilianisation when that policy is now recommended by the Home Office?

I will tell the House what Derbyshire is suffering from: it is suffering from a legacy of Labour control in Derbyshire in the mid-1980s—from Bookbinder and hostile Labour councillors who hated the police and did everything to do them down. Derbyshire's success is improving because the Tory Government have given more money to Derbyshire than its Labour council in the 1980s took away from it. Derbyshire will get about 5 per cent. more this year. It has had generous capital funding and if Labour councillors in the past had shown some respect for their county force, it would not have its problems.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about sentencing policy for crimes of burglary, car theft and shoplifting. [25048]

I receive many representations about sentencing policy, including widespread support for the proposals set out in the White Paper, "Protecting the Public"

My right hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to learn that there is widespread support in my constituency for his proposals for greater certainty in sentencing. Is he aware that businesses in my constituency which have suffered through burglary or shoplifting—not just the theft of a tea cake but the theft of hundreds of pounds' worth of household or DIY equipment—expect the courts to provide at least loss of liberty or custody, not just probation, for persistent offenders? Will my right hon. and learned Friend contrast that concern with the lightness with which the Leader of the Opposition recently treated such matters?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about sentencing. I am sure that he will have drawn the attention of his shopkeeping constituents to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been going up and down the country making speeches which excuse shoplifters. The Leader of the Opposition will go down in history as the pilferer's friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest recorded crime figures. [25049]

Recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 2.4 per cent. in 1995 and by 8 per cent. in the three years to the end of 1995. That is the largest ever continuous fall in the number of annually recorded crimes. Those figures are a testament to the achievements of the police and local communities in helping to prevent crime.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the stupendously good news in Norfolk with regard to recorded crime? Is he aware that recorded crime and burglaries have fallen during the past year in Norfolk, and that car theft has fallen by 14 per cent. during the past year in Norfolk? Will my right hon. and learned Friend pay tribute to the police and the crime prevention panel in Norfolk for that really good work, and will he say that there will be more resources for more police and more special constables in Norfolk in the coming year?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to the record of the police in Norfolk. Norfolk has had a 20 per cent. reduction in recorded crime during the past two years, with some 9,000 fewer victims—the biggest fall of any county. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Norfolk police on that achievement.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April. [25066]

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

Did the Prime Minister hear his Chancellor on the "Today" programme this morning deriding the claim that economic and monetary union would necessarily mean the end of the nation state? Is that the Prime Minister's view, or will he be giving another shambolic free vote to his Cabinet?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think that on matters of conscience it is right to have a free vote in the House. I understand that last night's debate was of a very high quality, as is frequently the case when we have a free vote in the House, and I believe that it was the right way to deal with the problem. With regard to the nation state, my right hon. and learned Friend is a strong supporter of it.

May I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government's announcement earlier this week on the abolition of anti-personnel mines has been widely welcomed both within and outside the House? Bearing it in mind that some 2,000 innocent people are killed or maimed every month as a result of those diabolical instruments, will my right hon. Friend please use his considerable influence to obtain their abolition worldwide?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have stated for a long time our aim to eliminate anti-personnel mines and we hope that through international agreement that aim can be achieved. I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will work for a total worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines

Does not the fact that four of the Prime Minister's Cabinet Ministers—[Interruption.] I am well aware why Conservative Members do not want to talk about this. Does not the fact that four Cabinet Ministers voted against the Prime Minister himself on a Bill from his own Lord Chancellor show the humiliating state to which his authority has been reduced?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recall what I said when I announced the Bill last November in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I made it clear at that time that this was a matter of personal conviction for all hon. Members and that I had no intention of riding roughshod over the convictions of any hon. Member, in the Government or beyond, on the matter. I said then that we would propose free votes on matters of conscience. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is right to have a free vote on a matter of conscience, does he equally think that it is right that those members of any Administration who feel strongly on these matters should be excluded? Presumably he does. If he does, he has a strange view of what forms a matter of conscience.

I think that most people have an increasingly clear view of the Government. Is the Prime Minister not aware— [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order and listen to what is being said.

I remind the Prime Minister that that was a Government Bill, proposed by his Lord Chancellor. Last night's vote was not only about the amendment—it was fundamentally about the ethos of the Bill and about the direction of the Conservative party. Does not that vote show the advanced state of decay of his Government—that he now has to rely on Opposition support to carry that messed-up measure through the House of Commons?

The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately misleading, and he knows that he is deliberately misleading— [Interruption.]

Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not intend to use unparliamentary language. I refer to the words "deliberately misleading". Will he please rephrase that?

Of course—as Madam Speaker wishes it. I will simply say that the right hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous in the way in which he addresses this issue. He has known from the Bill's outset that I have made it clear that, on the issue of fault and on other issues of conscience, there was to be a genuinely free vote of the House. A free vote was not forced on the Government. I announced it from the Dispatch Box last November when I spoke about the Bill in the Queen's Speech. I have honoured that promise, for every member of my party.

I do not mind the Prime Minister talking tough with me, but it is time that he also talked tough with his Cabinet—that is all that we ask. Is this not all of a piece with the defiance that we heard—[Interruption.] We heard the Chancellor this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"] Conservative Members are all shouting— [Interruption.]

Order. Sir Ivan and other hon. Members who are shouting, come to order.

They are all asking where I was. That is a novel constitutional proposition—that it is now my duty to turn up and vote with the Government to save them from their own Cabinet Ministers. After hearing the Chancellor this morning, and with two Cabinet Ministers sitting in silent support of the European Communities (European Court) Bill, is not the Prime Minister's real problem that every member of his Cabinet has a future agenda but him? Until he gets an agenda and asserts it, this country will continue to suffer from the most feeble Government in living memory.

The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that I set out the agenda last November, and I have kept to that agenda. I realise that in the new autocratic Labour party—where party henchmen oversee everything that Front Benchers and Back Benchers say and, should they stray, a signed statement is put out in their names later on the same day—the concept of a free vote is alien to the right hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend share the universal disgust that, despite the clear way forward that has been mapped out for enduring peace and stability in Northern Ireland, the IRA's bombing campaign continues unabated? Does he share my outrage that a proposal to condemn the ending of the IRA ceasefire was rejected by the Labour party in Islington?

I can only hope that the Leader of the Opposition will bring his own party in Islington into line on a matter of importance to everyone in the United Kingdom. It puts into proper context the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman has just been talking to the House.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April. [25067]

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

Given the President of the Board of Trade's gloomy prediction that manufacturing firms are set to shed jobs in the coming months, and remembering that almost 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared from Britain since his party came to power, does the Prime Minister realise that his claims to have made Britain the enterprise centre of Europe have no credibility whatever?

I am afraid that the hon. Lady has slightly misinterpreted, first, what my right hon. Friend said and, secondly, the facts. Perhaps she would care to acknowledge that manufacturing employment is 50,000 higher now than at the beginning of 1994; that this is the first time that a downward trend has been reversed for many years; that manufacturing output has risen by more than 8 per cent.; that exports have risen by a quarter to record levels; that total manufacturing investment in plant and machinery is up by 16 per cent.; that across the economy as a whole 5,000 new jobs have been created every week since the recovery began—almost three quarters of a million in all. While the policies of the Labour party would destroy jobs, the Government are creating jobs faster than any other comparable economy in western Europe. We have a lower level of unemployment than any other such economy in western Europe. The policy of the minimum wage and similar policies would certainly increase unemployment. As the deputy leader of the Labour party said some time ago, any silly fool knows that—even the deputy leader of the Labour party.

Contrary to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent speech that he made yesterday on Britain as the enterprise centre of Europe and on his vivid comment that those who think that Britain can be a trading haven on the edge of Europe without being in the European Union are in cloud cuckoo land. Does he recall that the original cloud cuckoo land was an imaginary city built in the air by the birds? Would that not also be a suitable destination for those who think that they can vote Labour without seeing their personal and business taxes go sky high?

That does not apply only to personal and business taxes. It now seems that anyone who is ill advised enough to encourage their youngsters to stay on and take A-levels will lose £560 in child benefit every year. Those who happen to have two children aged between 16 and 18 doing A-levels will lose more than £1,000 a year. There is no purpose in the shadow Chancellor's shaking his head: that is his policy—that is his response to people on low incomes who want their children to take A-levels, proceed to university and do better.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April. [25068]

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government's statement earlier this week about anti-personnel land mines was a case of three steps forward in PR terms and two steps backward in terms of reality? It will greatly disappoint people all over the world who can take no steps at all because their limbs have been destroyed by those inhumane weapons. Will the Prime Minister not support the recommendations in today's left-wing The Daily Telegraph, which suggests that the Government and Britain should take a moral lead in calling for a unilateral ban on the production and use of such weapons?

I just wonder where the hon. Gentleman may have been about 13 minutes ago, when I made it perfectly clear that we would work for a total worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines. I would have hoped that he could support that.