To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to implement the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee in its first report of Session 1994–95, HC17, regarding regulation of the private security industry. [30261]

The details of our proposed scheme for access to the criminal records of potential employees in the private security industry are well advanced and I hope to announce the details shortly.

Why has the Minister taken so long on this important matter to respond to the excellent report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs? Does he agree that, alongside many excellent companies, there are charlatans who give bad advice for a fee? Why can we not have quality personnel, vetting procedures and statutory regulations?

This is an important matter and it is vital that we get it right. We must bear it in mind that, although the hon. Gentleman can put up a fairly honest plea for the controls that he wants, many Labour Members have consistently opposed the private security industry, do not like it and would like to regulate it out of existence. Some of the controls for which they call would enormously damage the industry. We want to ensure that it can continue the generally excellent service that it provides, with the proper safeguards.

Although Conservative Members are whole-heartedly behind the Government's deregulation policy and a first glance might show that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs went in the opposite direction, is not the strength of our report this: that this regulation is being called for by the industry itself and that, far from expecting that it will be a burden on the taxpayer, the industry is prepared to pay for it?

My hon. and learned Friend's report from the Select Committee was a valuable contribution to the debate on regulation and control of the industry—there is no doubt about that—but he would be the first to admit that his report, although it made some valid suggestions, did not provide the detailed blueprint that one would require if one were to have proper safeguards in place without damaging the industry, and without heading down the road that many Opposition Members call for, which involves excessive regulation, training, hours of work and every single iota of the private security industry's work.

The Minister did not answer the question and he ignored the recommendations of the Select Committee, whose Chairman has just questioned him. The Minister tells us about plans to vet staff, but runs away from the need to regulate the private security industry as a whole, despite the calls of the Labour party, the Select Committee, the police and the private security industry itself. Why will the Home Secretary not face up to the fact that the Government's refusal to legislate is allowing his friends, the crooks, to masquerade as private security firms?

That carefully rehearsed harangue would be much more believable if it came from someone with a credible record on voting on law and order issues, but this is the hon. Gentleman who argued that someone should be given bail if locking him up was bad for his health, and who voted against giving courts powers to impose longer sentences on violent and sexual offenders. He voted against reforming the right of silence, against increasing penalties for people who are cruel to children, against life imprisonment for hard drug dealers and for people who take guns to crime, and, seven times in a row, against the prevention of terrorism Act. If the House had agreed with him and had implemented the policies for which the Labour party voted, serious criminals would be walking the streets today instead of languishing in gaol. No wonder Labour's own Front Benchers described their policies as absolutely ridiculous and complete and utter nonsense. The fact is that one cannot trust Labour on crime.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources he is planning to give to the Metropolitan police in 1996–97. [30262]

I have approved a budget for 1996–97 that will allow the Metropolitan police to spend £29.2 million more this year than last—an increase of almost 2 per cent. and some 90 per cent. more in real terms than in 1979.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time to visit Fulham and Hammersmith police stations, both of which have been rebuilt at a cost close to £10 million? Does that not show the Government's strong commitment to the Metropolitan police, whose 90 per cent. increase in spending in real terms is starting to pay off in the increasingly successful war against drugs, muggings, burglaries and auto crime?

I would like to visit my hon. Friend's constituency, and I shall do so when a suitable opportunity arises. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be as pleased as I am with the performance of the police in the Fulham division, where there has been not only a fall in overall crime but a substantial increase in the clear-up rate, and a fall in auto crime—the theft of and from vehicles—on the most recent figures of no less than 20 per cent. year on year. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police in Fulham division on their excellent performance in fighting crime.

What additional support and resources are being made available to the Metropolitan police in connection with Euro 96? Our police, unfortunately, have acquired the best expertise in dealing with hooliganism and one wants to see them given all necessary support. Have any additional resources been requested, and what steps has the Home Secretary taken to make sure that the police have adequate support?

Again, as so often happens, we see Labour Back Bencher after Labour Back Bencher getting up to ask for more money to be spent. We have made generous provision for the Metropolitan police, and out of it they are making available resources to deal with Euro 96—as are other forces throughout the country. Only the antediluvian Opposition Back Benchers think that more money is the answer to everything.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the response by the police and courts to those possessing and using drugs. [30263]

All police forces have specific drugs strategies covering rigid enforcement, with co-operation on rehabilitation and the reduction in demand for drugs. The courts have a wide range of discretion, from fines to life imprisonment.

Given the real dangers of drug taking, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the police and courts continue to take a tough line with people who take drugs? Is it not important to get across the message to all young people that taking drugs is wrong and will seriously damage their health?

I can reassure my hon. Friend that this Government will have nothing to do with calls for going soft on drugs, legalisation, decriminalisation or anything else. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the prison population of persons convicted of drug offences has increased from 3,500 to 5,500 in two years. He may be interested to know also that I recently spent a day and an evening with Amsterdam police, when I witnessed the full absurdity of drugs being delivered to the back of so-called coffee shops illegally, then being supplied legally to customers inside. Because the socialists in the coalition that is in power in Holland have absurd policies, that country's police and customs have been undermined and Holland has been turned into the distribution centre for Europe of cocaine and heroin and the source of almost all the amphetamines and Ecstasy that comes into this country. We will not see such policies from this Government, but we would see them from the woolly liberals on the Labour Front Bench.

I congratulate the Northumberland police on their work on drug trafficking in our area. Is the Minister aware that my local authority in Blyth Valley has implemented a policy according to which anyone caught trafficking drugs from a council house will be evicted? I understand that the first case under that policy will go to the High Court.

On the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I visited his local authority, and I congratulated it on bringing that case. I commend this tough line on drug dealers in council estates to all other local authorities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the eight years' sentence on a convicted drug dealer in Torquay has sent a chill through the illicit underworld in that town? Is he also aware that the police have welcomed this stiff sentencing? It is perfectly clear from events after the conviction of that woman that drug dealing has become very limited in Torbay, forcing drug dealers to go elsewhere.

I congratulate the local police on what they have achieved. There is concern about sentencing drug offenders, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has introduced proposals under which all persistent drug dealers will go to prison for a very long time, and they know they will.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet representatives of the probation service to discuss probation issues. [30264]

My right hon. and learned Friend expects to meet representatives of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation on 10 July and of the Central Probation Council on 23 July.

Will the Minister take the opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the probation service and give a commitment to an enhanced and secure role for the service in the future? In the discussions in July, will the Minister respond to the probation service's concerns about the Government's action in removing training qualifications from the probation service? Will the Government also respond fully to the probation service's concerns about the Government's White Paper and the work of the probation service as set out in it?

I am glad to be able to say that Baroness Blatch will meet people in the profession to discuss the new training arrangements. I ask the hon. Lady to request that her allies in politics and in the trade unions desist. They have been seeking to delay those negotiations in a rearguard attempt to keep the outdated social work degree as a necessary part of training. Any further delay will damage the profession.

Does my hon. Friend think that representatives of the probation service will recommend to him a curfew of children under 10, as recommended by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)?

The hon. Member for Blackburn needs to get his house in order and decide exactly what he is recommending to the House. We have heard three different versions of that plan in as many days, which typifies the totally muddled and confused attitude to law and order on the Opposition Benches.

Will the Minister explain to the House how his right hon. and learned Friend proposes to persuade probation officers that that there will be an improvement in penal policy by a 15 per cent. reduction in probation staff this year? Will he also tell the House how the Government will justify the removal from prisons of seconded probation officers, who make an important contribution to the release of prisoners from prison, so that it can be shown—if at all—that prison works?

I do not know where the hon. and learned Gentleman gets his figures, because spending on the probation service has remained constant in real terms. As to prisons, a great deal more work is being done on rehabilitation in prison by prison officers and by drug rehabilitation services, which are now working in prison. A great deal of work is being done.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many false documents were discovered per week in 1995 in the United Kingdom being used by people trying to enter the United Kingdom illegally. [30365]

During 1995, a total of 4,486 forged or falsified travel documents were detected by immigration officers at United Kingdom ports and airports of entry, an average of 86 detections each week.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the British people are sick and tired of immigrants who pay nothing and take everything? Does he agree with me that it is time that immigrants paid tax for five years before they can use the health service or take social security benefits? After all, students have to take out loans and pay for their education. Why cannot immigrants do the same? We know that the lot opposite, if they ever got into power, would let everybody in, and the taxpayer would foot the bill.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his robust remarks. It is important to remember that people who come to this country legally find it highly offensive that some people use bogus documents to try to enter the country and thereby take social security benefits and jobs that should be available for those who are here legally. I also congratulate members of the immigration service's national forgery section and the national intelligence section on their work. Many people come from all over the world to see how they work because we have an excellent detection service to prevent abuses of the system.

Does the Minister not think that there is a contradiction between his stated desire to get rid of bogus documents and his reply to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), and the Government's policy in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, clause 8 of which introduces provisions that mean that employers will have to recognise up to 40 new documents when they make their checks? Will that not create a forgers charter, in that all the people who are currently making money out of preparing forged immigration documents will now be forging employment documents? The Government should withdraw clause 8 if they genuinely want to get rid of forgery in the context of immigration.

If only the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had been a little more supportive of the Government in this vital aspect of legislation, we might be able to deal with some of the abuses rather more effectively. We want to ensure that people who do not have the proper documentation that entitles them to work should not benefit from the economy of this country. I hope that the Labour party will start to think more carefully about what benefits from the economy should be available to people who are in this country legally and to good employers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be possible to detect people who are attempting to enter this country using false documents only if we continue to check such documents at the point of entry? Will he confirm that the Government will not in any circumstances accept any attempt by the European Commission to remove our border controls?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We are extremely effective in detecting forged documents, but it is vital that we maintain our present controls to make sure that illegality is stamped out.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will pay an official visit to the Welford Road prison, Leicester, to discuss conditions of prisoners and staff. [30266]

I will be making a routine visit to Leicester prison on 27 June.

Is the Minister aware that, since the Conservative party came to power, crime in Leicestershire has trebled and the population of Leicester prison has risen from 207, which is permitted, to 324? When she makes her routine visit—which will be very welcome as she has a well-earned reputation for gentle, quiet and caring compassion—will she be kind enough to consider the terrible effect that such overcrowding has, not only on inmates and their rehabilitation but especially on those who are in charge of them and whose life's work it is to work in prison?

Despite the earnest expression on the hon. and learned Gentleman's face, I think that he must be having a little joke at his own party's expense. He seems to be suggesting that we are responsible for overcrowding in prisons, but, during the Labour party's previous term in office, the prison population was rising by 15 per cent. and the party responded by cutting the prison capital programme by 20 per cent. That was how seriously the Labour party took overcrowding.

Before my hon. Friend makes her routine visit to Welford Road prison in Leicester, will she ignore the routine rant of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)? As it happens, crime in the county of Leicestershire—I am sorry about the city of Leicester—has fallen quite markedly. Will my hon. Friend also make a special visit to Gartree prison, which is on the way to Leicester, which she will find is well run and not overcrowded?

I can absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Crime in Leicestershire fell by 5.5 per cent. last year. I congratulate him on giving his constituents the good news and the facts, in comparison with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West, who wants nothing more than to depress his constituents and paint the worst possible picture. I shall of course be delighted to visit Gartree, although I cannot, of course, guarantee to visit it before I visit Leicester. When I visit both prisons, I shall congratulate the prison staff on a magnificent achievement that is always belittled by the Opposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on his evaluation of the introduction of identity cards. [30267]

We are making good progress in our assessment of the responses received to the Green Paper on identity cards. I hope to be able to announce our final decision shortly.

Although my right hon. and learned Friend is awaiting a report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the matter, does he agree that one use of a national identity card would be to provide proof of identity by those about to vote in elections? An ID card would prevent wide-scale abuse and impersonation, which is taking place in national and local elections.

There is almost no limit to the number of uses that might be made of an identity card. We evaluated many of them in the consultation document that we issued. I know that my hon. Friend is sympathetic to the view that we should await the report of the Home Affairs Committee. I hope to be able to announce our proposals shortly thereafter.

Will the Home Secretary give an assurance that, in the event of an identity card being introduced, it will apply throughout the United Kingdom? Will he take account of the widespread forgery of documents that facilitate personation in elections in certain areas of Northern Ireland? That could be overcome by a single document and enable a greater number of people who have been disfranchised due to arriving to vote with only one part of a driving licence, an out-of-date passport, or whatever, to be entitled to exercise their vote? I exhort him to give that assurance today.

The hon. Gentleman will know that whether our proposals extend in due course to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I shall ensure that the views that the hon. Gentleman has expressed with characteristic forcefulness are drawn to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the smartcard, which is required from people who are applying for payment under social security rules, is a form of voluntary identity card? Could not that smartcard principle be applied to a host of other circumstances in which the citizen comes into contact with the agencies of the state?

That is indeed a possibility. My hon. Friend has identified one way in which identity cards might develop. The smartcard technology might not be available for general-purpose use for some time, but we shall clearly bear it in mind.

Crime has doubled in the past 17 years, which represents the worst record of any British Government since the war, and the worst record among the Governments of 16 western countries surveyed by the Home Office. Against that background, we can all understand the synthetic hysteria that we have heard from the Government Dispatch Box this afternoon. On 1 April last year, the Prime Minister, opening the Conservative party's local election campaign, said that compulsory identity cards would

"deter crime and make it more likely that we will catch criminals".

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman talks about synthetic hysteria, because he is an expert in the real thing. The shadow Chief Whip says that his proposals for a curfew are unworkable, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) says that they are ridiculous, and the Association of Chief Police Officers' spokesman says that they would give rise to huge practical difficulties. The only curfew that the Labour party is ever likely to impose is a curfew on the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) himself. It all goes to show that the Labour party cannot be trusted on crime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The hon. Gentleman began his question by talking about crime, so I am answering about crime.

Order. Perhaps I might at this juncture refer the Secretary of State to answers that I gave yesterday to points of order concerning the answering of questions. They are recorded in column 609 of yesterday's Hansard.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent action has been taken to make prisons better at reforming prisoners. [30270]

It is central to the Prison Service's mission statement that it helps prisoners to lead law-abiding lives both in custody and after release. Recent action to reduce reoffending and reform prisoners includes the introduction of a scheme of incentives and earned privileges, an increase in the number of hours that prisoners spend in purposeful activity, mandatory drugs testing, and strengthened offending behaviour programmes.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind the low level of education of many prisoners, does she agree that every penny spent on education for those in prison is well spent, and is especially helpful in reforming them and in enabling them to lead useful lives after prison?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why we have brought about a massive increase in education spending in our prisons, and in the amount of education spending per prisoner, and why the number of student hours in our prisons is nearly double the number that we inherited from the Labour party.

Despite what the Minister says, is it not important that the opportunities offered at prisons such as Risley for prisoners to be trained into jobs, and to be able find employment when they leave prison, should be available to every prisoner in every prison, so that there is a real possibility of reducing crime and prisoners do not have to end up back in prison?

Proper employment opportunities for prisoners do indeed play an important role in rehabilitation, and preparation for employment in outside life is certainly part of that role. That is why there has been a vast increase in employment opportunities for prisoners, and such a substantial increase in the number of hours of purposeful activity spent by prisoners and in the number of national vocational qualifications and other qualifications gained by prisoners. The hon. Gentleman was right; he merely failed to congratulate us on what we are doing in that respect.

My hon. Friend outlined improvements in the Prison Service and in the welfare of prisoners in answer to an earlier question. Is she aware that, in evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday, it was noticeable that the privately run prisons were at the forefront of those improvements, and that the welfare and well-being of prisoners was better in private prisons than in the public sector? Does that not show that our policies are the right policies?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that private sector prisons have an excellent record of achievement, with one being praised by the chief inspector of prisons as a model of good practice. My hon. Friend did not mention that that has been achieved with more cost-effectiveness and greater value for money than we currently achieve in the public sector. But there are also excellent examples in the public sector and it is in the interests of the Prison Service as a whole that good practice should be disseminated, no matter where it originates. I hope that the Opposition will bear that in mind when pouring scorn on private sector prisons that have achieved so much.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he has used to decide on the allocation of Government grant to closed circuit television schemes. [30271]

Bids made under the CCTV challenge competition are being assessed against the criteria set out in the bidding guidance issued on 22 November. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library. We shall be announcing the results of the competition in early summer.

In the first round of grants, we had the absurd situation of a grant being offered to the then Conservative-led Wokingham district council, which then refused to take up the scheme, while no grant was offered to Newbury—then led by the Liberal Democrats—which went ahead with the scheme anyway because it was determined to push ahead with crime prevention. Will the Minister assure us that the criteria will not allow such a ridiculous situation to arise again and that, this time, grants will be given to the authorities that want to use them?

The hon. Gentleman is being rather careful in his use of language. Throughout the country, Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled councils have been consistently hostile to CCTV. Those councils may now be queuing up to take money from a Tory Government to set up CCTV schemes, but they have been hostile to its use in the past. We will judge all bids for CCTV fairly and honestly. If a council does not make use of the money, it will lose it and the money will go into the Treasury coffers. If a council can use the money allocated to it, it can hang on to it. Newbury will be treated the same as the other applicants—they will all be treated fairly. But the hon. Gentleman should not pretend that the Liberals have liked CCTV, although they are keen to take our money now.

May I commend to my right hon. Friend the grant application from the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames? Kingston has one of the most vibrant and successful shopping centres in the south of England, but that centre provides opportunities for crime. CCTV would ensure that the crime rate in Kingston fell, as it should.

Of course, the police in Kingston have been successful in ensuring that the crime rate is reduced. I repeat that all applications for CCTV funding from the extra money that we have made available—an increase from £5 million to £15 million—will be carefully considered before we come to a decision.

We all recognise that CCTV is an innovation and that its success in the prevention and detection of crime has yet to be proved. The Minister, who knows my constituency, may realise that there is a danger that the application of CCTV may drive organised criminal gangs out of city centres and into rural areas. What action will he take to ensure that rural areas are not subjected to increased crime as a result of what is happening in city centres?

The hon. Lady's question would have been better directed to the Scottish Office, but I can refer her to Scottish Office and Home Office research which shows that the displacement that she fears has not occurred. I can speak with authority for England and Wales on this matter, as I am the Minister responsible. The latest crime figures in those countries show that the police in rural areas have been every bit as successful in cracking down on crime as the police in metropolitan areas. In 1995, crime fell even more in rural or non-metropolitan areas than in metropolitan ones. I cannot give the figures for Scotland.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to discuss developments in the Schengen agreement treaty procedures with his EU counterparts from the relevant participating member states. [30272]

I frequently discuss developments in Schengen when I meet my European Union counterparts, and I make it plain that the United Kingdom has no intention of signing the convention as it would be inconsistent with the maintenance of our frontier controls.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact, that, once we have the strict original entry control procedures for the common Community frontier and the proper Europol arrangements for intelligence information sharing, he will have no reason to have such a lack of self-confidence in his attitude to the excellent Schengen agreement? This country should keep an open mind about the agreement and join it. Pending that, will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider the bureaucratic, cumbersome and slow entry procedures for many entrants at our ports, especially Dover, where it is much slower for foot passengers than for motorists?

I certainly disagree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. We have natural advantages in frontier control because we are an island, and we have absolutely no intention whatever of dismantling those controls or doing away with them, whatever improvements may be made in the external frontier of the European Union. Our intention is in sharp contrast with the policies of the Liberal Democrats especially, and also with the Labour party.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister of State last visited a prison in the south-west of England to discuss prison education. [30274]

I have visited a number of prison establishments in the south-west, including of course the Verne and Portland in my hon. Friend's constituency. My most recent visit to a prison in the south-west was on 8 January and I will be undertaking a further series of visits to the south-west in September. I discuss a wide range of issues, including education, whenever I visit a prison establishment.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for her welcome visit to my constituency. Does she feel that the greater link between prison education and local education facilities—for example, Weymouth college in my constituency—has been beneficial in ensuring that the education that prisoners receive is in line with that received by the community, so that qualifications can be transferred when they re-enter the community after their sentence?

Indeed I can confirm that. Further, the arrangements that we have made to contract out education locally give greater flexibility and greater clarity and have generally been welcomed as an initiative by governors and staff.

The Minister may be aware that I visited the young offenders institute in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) yesterday. I have visited a number of prisons, as has the Minister. Is she aware that a recent survey, which covered the south-west and the rest of the country, revealed that on average 14.5 per cent. will be cut from prison service education—in some prisons, the figure is as high as 83 per cent. —which will lead to the loss of 300 jobs and 16,000 prison education hours? Is that what the Minister means when she says that she is committed to rehabilitation through education? The reality is that there will be fewer hours, fewer teachers, less education and less chance of education stopping reoffending. Is the Minister not ashamed of that record?

As ever, the Opposition are totally incapable of distinguishing between quality and quantity. I will give the hon. Gentleman some of the facts. We inherited from the last Labour Government— [Interruption.] The House is going to hear this. We inherited a real-terms expenditure of £17,800 per prisoner and we have increased that to £26,000 per prisoner. That is what we have achieved, and that shows the callous neglect of prisoners by the Labour Government. They neglected overcrowding, they neglected purposeful activity, they neglected education—

This is a world record.

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, I could go on for a long time detailing the Opposition's neglect. By contrast, we have reduced overcrowding, increased purposeful activity, increased education, increased qualifications and introduced and increased offending behaviour programmes. We actually care about rehabilitation because it protects the general public. You cannot trust the Labour party to protect the general public.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his latest initiatives to combat crime. [30275]

We are taking a wide range of effective action to reduce crime and create safer communities. Record funding for the police, money for 5,000 more officers, the encouragement of closed circuit television and crime prevention partnerships and changes in the criminal law have already cut crime by more than 8 per cent. over the past three years. Our new sentencing proposals will create safer communities in future.

In my right hon. Friend's efforts to combat crime, does he intend to introduce a curfew for children up to the age of 10 after 9 o'clock at night? If so, will he consider extending it to members of the shadow Cabinet in view of their many public embarrassing disagreements?

The shambles that now passes for Labour policy creation has given us three different policies in three days on the issue, and I suspect that if President Clinton made another speech tomorrow we would see a fourth version of the policy proposed by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). A fourth curfew policy will probably also be imposed by the Labour Chief Whip, stating that the shadow Cabinet team should not be let out in public after 2.30 pm.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June. [30291]

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.

Will the Prime Minister join the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in rejecting the idea of sixth form vouchers, or will he give in to the chairman of the Conservative party who has been telling newspapers that the right hon. Lady should be sacked?

"Oh, yes he has."] No, he has not. I know that the Opposition are a pantomime and I am tempted to say, "Oh no he hasn't." I saw the story in the press this morning and fair old nonsense it was.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our overriding attitude towards Europe should be to persuade our partners against further integration? If so, does he think that his tactics on beef enhance or diminish our powers of persuasion?

I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's support against further integration of a federal nature in the European Union. That is right. The issues are dealt with on their own merits.

With reference to what the Foreign Secretary described as a turning point in the beef crisis, have the Italians simply agreed—as I understand it—to try to use their best endeavours to secure agreement with other European Union countries, or have the Italians now agreed to support the lifting of the ban and the British position?

No—the Italians, who have the presidency, have now seen the framework document that we have produced and are using their best endeavours to see whether we can reach an agreement in advance of Florence. We have not finally discussed every aspect of that agreement with the Italians—that is happening at the moment, as it is with others. I hope that, as discussions continue over the next few days, we shall be able to reach an agreement. It is not certain, but I think that we have made a good deal of progress in the past few days, which is encouraging.

May I then ask the Prime Minister whether it is still his clear policy and expectation that by the Florence summit there will be a firm agreement to lift the ban completely within a specified time scale?

As I indicated when I announced the policy at the outset, we required two things before the ban is lifted completely. The first was the removal of the ban on beef derivatives, which has been obtained, and the second was a framework so that we were aware of precisely what needed to be done before the ban was lifted entirely. I very much hope that that will be achieved before Florence, but it is not solely in my hands. We can advance the case, and we are doing so; we need the agreement of the Commission and our partners across the European Union, which is what we are seeking to obtain.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I gather from what he is saying that a time scale is not necessarily part of the negotiation.

The beef crisis is a very serious crisis. There is no doubt that it is expensive for this country. That has been the case from the outset. We set out what the costs were at the beginning. To reassure people on public health, there is a substantial price to be paid, and we see that in the destruction of animals and in the consequent compensation to farmers. We wish to get rid of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, first, on public health grounds; secondly, to restore consumer confidence; and, of course, for the overriding reason that we wish international confidence in British beef to be fully restored.

A retreat is on the way.

This is what I said at the outset. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not understand very much. If he understood a little more, he would probably interrupt a little less.

Does the Prime Minister recall that, during the Napoleonic wars, Samuel Whitbread, the founder of the modern business, was always predicting defeat and urging the Government to open negotiations with Napoleon? Will the Prime Minister ignore the successors to Samuel Whitbread in the Confederation of British Industry who want to throw in the towel and who seem so indifferent to the plight of small businesses and farmers? Will he tell the chairman of Unilever to stick to cream cakes and detergents?

My right hon. Friend puts the point with great clarity and precision. As he rightly says, there are a large number of small businesses—650,000 people are dependent on the beef industry, and it is in the interests of the people whose livelihoods are in the beef industry that we need to reach a satisfactory conclusion to this affair and restore the confidence in the international beef trade, which has been lost because of the lack of confidence and, frankly, the rather over-exaggerated response to the problem that we have had in the past. My right hon. Friend is entirely right to say that that is the priority.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June. [30292]

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

Has the Prime Minister seen reports in the Daily Express that his predecessor, Baroness Thatcher, is calling for non-payment of bills to the European Union? Will he condemn that bizarre, foolish and reckless attempt at law breaking?

I responded to that point several Question Times ago, and my response would not change today.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June. [30293]

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that gas bills, electricity bills and telephone bills have been slashed since privatisation? Does he welcome today's news that there will be a windfall rebate of £38 for gas consumers? Did he welcome the £50 rebate for electricity consumers? Does this not show that the regulator has already altered the proposals for a windfall tax of £3 billion into a shortfall tax?

My hon. Friend is entirely right: privatisation and the regulator are reducing the prices of a large number of utilities. There has been a rebate of £50 on electricity bills and there will be a rebate on gas bills. The regulator is blowing to pieces the prospect that there might be resources for an artificial windfall tax to fund putative expenditure by any other political party. Opposition Members below the Gangway may not know that the Labour party's industry spokesman is claiming that his party should embrace competition. I will not comment on the look of horror on the faces of the Opposition Members below the Gangway after hearing that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June. [30294]

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is totally unacceptable for Yorkshire Water to show a profit of £162 million when it had a dreadful record on water supply, on leakage, on charges to customers and on investment during that period? Does the Prime Minister not think that it is time to revisit that regulator for tougher sanctions so that we can slake the fat cats and their thirst for profits? It is time that we had tougher regulations.

In that case, the hon. Gentleman will support the water regulator, who took action against Yorkshire Water to cut its prices earlier this week.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to spare a moment during his busy day for the plight of people involved in a small section of the beef industry, the cow head de-boning sector? Is he aware that this small industry, which is made up of about a dozen mainly family-owned companies, has been driven out of business by the Government order of 28 March banning head meat? I ask my right hon. Friend to take the modest step of authorising the Ministry of Agriculture to discuss the amount of loss with the industry involved.

I will invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture to examine that matter and then to contact my hon. Friend.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June. [30295]

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

Is it not time that the Prime Minister put a stop to the hypocrisy of the Tories being the party of the family? Perhaps he could take a tip from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and impose a curfew on his Ministers in the hope that they might sleep in their own beds rather than someone else's.

The policy of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) —which does not seem to carry the support of his Chief Whip—is for a curfew for people under the age of 10.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the advertisement in today's paper supporting a new political party in this country? Will he take the opportunity to confirm that he will always heed the views of the British people to stay part of the European Union so long as it is a part of a Europe of separate states and never part of a federated super-state of Europe?

Yes, I did see that advertisement this morning and I am happy to confirm that no Government that I lead will enter into a federal Europe. I have argued for a Europe of nation states and I shall continue to do so. I am delighted to see that there seems to be some support for that in other quarters as well, as was highlighted by the advertisement.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June. [30296]

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

If money is available for tax giveaways in the next budget, will the Prime Minister guarantee that it will be put into the health service and the education service of this country?

We have increased the resources for the health service above the level of inflation year after year after year. I shall not make any projections about what will happen in the Budget some months hence, but I note the hon. Gentleman's expectation that the economy is doing well enough to mean that it might place us in a position to reduce taxes or increase expenditure. I am grateful for that unsolicited commendation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's management of the economy.

Has my right hon. Friend noted that the Rover Group, which is based partly in my constituency, has put in figures for the first quarter of this year showing an increase of 10 per cent. in production, and that the group's exports are up even more? Can he confirm that it is his policy to encourage enterprise, and that that sort of improvement would be severely damaged by the Labour party's policies?

I can certainly confirm that. I can also confirm that, in terms of growth, inflation, falling unemployment, investment and many other areas of economic management, this country is now leading any of our competitor countries in Europe as a result of decisions that the present Government have taken in recent years.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June. [302971

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that the Labour party proposed an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to tighten up on the sale of handguns by mail order? In view of the evidence given at the Dunblane inquiry that one of the guns used to kill those children was sold by mail order by a firm in my constituency, will the Government reconsider their policy and introduce legislation to tighten up or even to ban the sale of handguns by mail order?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have indeed strengthened firearms controls in recent years. Most self-loading and pump action rifles have been banned and a range of other changes have been made. As the whole House knows, we have given Lord Cullen a very wide remit and he may make recommendations to the Government. We will consider those very seriously, discuss them with other parties in the House and then decide what action needs to be taken.