To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to the extent to which money from the private finance initiative will compensate for the reduction in capital finance originally undertaken for 1996–97. [34517]

Private finance initiative replaces public capital where it offers better value and is a useful addition to any public capital provision.

I am surprised by the Minister's answer because he did not refer to any figures. He must be well aware that the Home Secretary announced with a great fanfare that an extra £20 million would be available in revenue for extra police. By a sleight of hand, there was a £23 million cut in capital provision, compared with the total in the annual report. Can the Minister assure the House that private finance will make up for the £23 million cut in capital provision this year?

We expect £151 million to be spent on capital contracts, most of them already agreed, in the current year. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that all Home Office funding for specific police building projects is being maintained this year. There have been no enforced cuts in major building programmes, but it is open to police authorities to enter into PFI contracts. I recently visited a police force that is making considerable progress down that road. There is no reason for police building in future not to take advantage of private finance.

Has my hon. Friend noticed the vendetta against the private finance initiative launched by Opposition Back Benchers? Is he aware that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) claims to have invented the PFI and that the Leader of the Opposition claims to support it? Is not that another example of new Labour being out of touch with 80 per cent. of its Back Benchers?

It is significant that we have received no complaints about the PFI from Labour Front Benchers recently. Opposition Members who have cast aspersions on the initiative, locally or otherwise, are totally out of touch with their own party.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures he is planning to tackle juvenile crime; and if he will make a statement. [34518]

The Government continue to take firm action to tackle juvenile crime and its causes. In particular, we have strengthened the courts' powers to give young offenders custodial sentences where they commit serious crimes or offend persistently; we have given the police the power to attach stricter conditions to bail; we are proposing to give the police new powers to seize alcohol from young people drinking in public and to destroy it; and we have set up a ministerial group on juveniles, which is working to ensure that all relevant Departments and Government agencies, together with local government and voluntary agencies, co-ordinate their efforts—so as to target children who are at greatest risk of offending and to maximise the efforts made to steer them away from a life of crime.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reply and all the measures that he is taking. Does he agree that if juveniles are set on a life of crime, that will prove disastrous for the rest of their lives and for their families? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that if juveniles receive moral and spiritual teaching, that will assist them to move away from crime? Will my right hon. and learned Friend do all that he can to provide such education, as well as preventing juveniles from reoffending if they commit a crime for any reason?

I agree with my hon. Friend, whose points go far beyond the criminal justice system. Greater emphasis must be placed on the part that teachers and parents can play in educating children in the difference between right and wrong. The greater the emphasis placed on that matter in children's formative years, the less prospect there will be of them becoming career criminals later in life.

I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said. But is the Secretary of State aware that, so great has been the Government's failure over 17 years to tackle juvenile crime, there are countless examples across the country of persistent young offenders who wait for months—in some cases for more than a year—before being punished? Meanwhile, they offend again and again before their cases get to court. Why are these delays continually becoming worse? Does not the Government's inability to tackle youth crime contrast starkly with Labour's proposals to reform the youth justice system, and particularly with our pledge to halve the time that it takes to bring serious young criminals to justice?

The pledge might be just a trifle more impressive if the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers gave the slightest indication of how the pledge is to be maintained—but it does not deal with that at all. What we have seen from the Labour party is a series of attempts to undermine all the measures that we have taken. It has attempted to wreck the steps that we have taken to give police the power to attach conditions to bail, and it has sought to make it impossible for secure accommodation to be made available for young offenders, with Labour-controlled local authorities consistently refusing to provide such accommodation. What we get from the hon. Gentleman is a conspicuous example of the new dangers that new Labour brings.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to combat the use of drugs in prisons. [34519]

Since last April we have introduced mandatory drug testing in all prison establishments. All establishments have also produced local strategies for reducing the supply of and the demand for drugs.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. How successful has that policy been? Does he recall that he received no support in voting for those measures from the Labour party or from the Liberal party? They tried to say one thing in the media but failed to support the policies in the House. Will he confirm that it is absolutely essential that we clean out drugs from our prisons, because a prisoner coming out who is dependent on drugs almost certainly will go back to a life of crime?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it is too early in the mandatory drug testing programme to be definitive about its success, although the latest figures for those testing positive—at 27.6 per cent., which, of course, is still far too high—show a welcome reduction on the 37 per cent. who tested positive in the first month of the introduction of the programme in February last year. Although there is more to be done, the signs are encouraging.

Can the Home Secretary please tell me how he can reconcile, first, an expected expansion of 7,000 in the total prison population by April next year; secondly, an expected 1,200 reduction in the number of prison officers because of the 5 per cent. to 13 per cent. cuts; and, thirdly, a total freeze on recruitment in the Prison Service? When he is reducing the numbers of officers and increasing the numbers of prisoners, how can he ever have an effective drug policy—unless he introduces drug-free wings in prisons, and perhaps uses specialists who can begin to educated prisoners away from the drug habit?

We are doing both of the things that the hon. Gentleman suggests. In particular, a significant increase is under way in the number of prisons in which drug treatment programmes are available. The hon. Gentleman is quite right and I entirely accept that, in addition to mandatory drug testing, we need more treatment available in our prisons. That is exactly what we are providing.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that the largest proportion of drugs going into prisons come from visitors visiting inmates? Does he accept that there is a very real need to stop that, particularly by stopping visitors and inmates touching, which is so often how drugs are passed?

I agree with a good deal of what my hon. Friend says. In particular, we are introducing on a pilot basis closed visits for those who have been found to be in possession of drugs who are suspected of having had those drugs passed to them through visiting, in precisely the way that my hon. Friend has suggests. We are determined to do all that we can to root out the disgraceful state of affairs in which drugs are taken in our prisons, and closed visits may have an important part to play in achieving that objective.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources he will provide to combat drug trafficking in city and urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [34520]

The Government are currently spending more than half a billion pounds a year directly on the fight against drugs.

Is the Minister aware of the launch of the West Yorkshire police community forum, in which a number of very busy people in West Yorkshire are coming together to try to combat crime, drug and alcohol abuse and the causes of crime? The survey of the regions carried out by the Government revealed that West Yorkshire has real social problems. The launch of the police community trust has been spearheaded by the chief constable of West Yorkshire, Keith Hellawell, who is calling for local business people to provide £1 million to help to resource the forum. Will the Minister press the Home Secretary to make a contribution to that £1 million, or even to fund pound for pound the sum that is being subscribed by local people? We need help with the forum.

Drugs are a huge and dire problem everywhere in this country, but in West Yorkshire people have the advantage that the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers drug committee, Chief Constable Keith Hellawell, is providing a model for what should happen elsewhere. As for funding, I remind the hon. Gentleman that West Yorkshire police will receive an extra £11 million in available spending this year. How that money is deployed must remain a decision principally for the chief constable and the authority. None the less, I commend the drug forum and Chief Constable Hellawell for what they are doing. It is exactly what is required to back up enforcement with proper drug prevention. In the end, that is the only way in which we shall beat drugs.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the significant reductions in drug trafficking in the urban council housing estates that are run by the tenants under the Government's right-to-manage scheme? Will he take the opportunity to condemn Labour-controlled local authorities such as Blackpool borough council whichcontinue, by the most underhand means, to deny their tenants the right to manage?

I accept what my hon. Friend says, because I am very aware that the best way to ruin a council estate, or any other estate, is to allow drug dealers to operate within it. Tenants can take decisions; they know who the drug dealers are and they can bring pressure to bear. That is the best way to protect children on those estates.

The Home Secretary has just described the situation in our gaols, after 17 years of Conservative Government, as "disgraceful". In the two gaols that serve my area, Cardiff and Swansea, it has been discovered that 50 per cent.—that is, half the prisoners—are on drugs. Drug use is endemic in every prison in Britain, and if we cannot keep drugs out of our prisons, how on earth do we expect to keep them out of schools, clubs, pubs and raves?

It is a matter of great distress to everyone connected with prisons that many people take up drugs as a result of being in prison. I agree that that is entirely unacceptable. But thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is responsible for prisons, considerable progress has been made in the past two years. If the hon. Gentleman goes to see some of the prisons with drug-free wings and drug programmes, he will find people who are coming off drugs in prison who would not have had the chance to do that outside. That should be applauded, and the more encouragement that can be given to the Prison Service to allocate resources for more drug-free wings, the better.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the incidence of escapes from Her Majesty's prisons and from prison escorts since April 1993. [34521]

The percentage reduction from the financial year 1992–93 until the financial year 1995–96 is 79 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House for the entire Prison Service? Is it not justification for the policy of contracting out services therein; and is that not yet another way in which prison works, because according to a secret document that has come into my hands, a copy of which should be placed in the Library, new Labour believes that the Tory policy of prison works is an absurdity?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is also right to draw attention to the operation of private escorts. It is a fact that much of the reduction in the rate of escapes from escort is due to the privatisation of escort services. In the first year of operation, in the initial area contracted-out, there was a reduction of 45 per cent.; in the second year, 71 per cent.; and in the third year a further improvement resulted in a final reduction of 82 per cent. My hon. Friend is also quite right to point to the absurdity of the Labour party's position: that prison does not work. If it does not work, at the same time as we have a rise in the prison population, why do we have a fall in the rate of crime? Why is the rate of reconviction better for prisons than it is for community services? Is not it a fact that every single time we have become tough on law and order, that has been opposed by the Labour party? Will it now admit at last that it was wrong?

Will the Minister tell the House why the Government have been so lacking in openness about the cost and feasibility of implementing the Learmont proposals on prison security? Will she also tell the House how, if the Government are not prepared for that implementation, we can believe anything that they say about paying the price of building new prisons for their sentencing proposals?

I made it extremely clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman when he asked me about our response to the Learmont report, in a written answer, which he has now had plenty of time to read and study, that we will, in due course, produce our response to the Learmont report. At such time as we produce that response, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have no reason to complain of any lack of openness. All there is at the moment is a lack of patience. I suggest that he learns a bit more patience.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker) about the lack of prison places, would it not be sensible to rethink the £2 billion price tag to implement Learmont—if that is the figure, as has been trailed today—and look at spending capital resources on creating more prison places, and in the process of doing so ensure that we build into those prisons at the design stage all the features that will prevent escapes? As my hon. Friend rightly said, the crisis is likely to be prison places, not escapes, because the Prison Service has, as she has said, reduced the number of escapes from prisons by a very substantial amount.

Not only have we reduced the number of escapes, but precisely because we have concentrated on supplying prison places we have rectified much of the abysmal situation that we inherited from the Labour party. The Labour party saw a rise in the prison population of 15 per cent., to which its response was to cut its capital programme by 20 per cent. By contrast, we have built 22 new prisons. We have eliminated the practice of trebling. We have eliminated the use of police cells. We have reduced the percentage of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one. We have done all that because of our determination to get the number of prison places right. The Opposition should admire us and congratulate us, but I have a feeling that they will not.

I congratulate the Minister on her preparations for Opposition, but she will have to do rather better than she has in this Question Time.

I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my previous response to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Since the Opposition are calling for the answer, they shall have it again. We shall produce our response to the Learmont report in due course. When we produce that response, we shall give no grounds for any complaints about openness. That is what I said and I am sorry that the Opposition could not understand it the first time. Now that I have painstakingly repeated it, I presume that they can understand it the second time.

Order. We must move on.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Taylor on the imposition of mandatory life sentences on those convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence for a second time; and if he will make a statement. [34523]

Those who repeat serious violent or sexual offences should not be released until it is safe to do so. Our proposals for an automatic life sentence will achieve that objective.

I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. When will he start listening to senior members of the judiciary, such as Lord Chief Justice Taylor, Lord Donaldson, Lord Justice Rose, and so on, who take the view that the imposition of a mandatory life sentence on rapists is foolish and very dangerous? It will give the rapist an incentive to kill the victim because, at the end of the day, he will get the same sentence. With respect, I would have thought that, bearing in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's appalling record in the courts over the past 12 months, it is high time that he started listening to the judges.

If the hon. Gentleman took that argument to its logical conclusion, he would be against all life sentences of imprisonment. I am not. I think that life sentences of imprisonment have an important part to play because they impose a risk assessment before someone who has committed a serious sexual or violent offence is released to be a danger to the public again. I am not prepared to defend a situation in which 217 offenders committed a second serious sexual or violent offence in 1994. Only 10 of them were given life sentences, which meant that they were subject to a risk assessment before they were released to be a further risk to the public. I put the protection of the public at the top of my agenda. I hope that all of us who are in positions of responsibility accept that.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one reason why his standing and credibility has gone up is that he has listened not to the judges but to the public and my constituents? Does he agree that people who are convicted of serious sexual offences should be properly monitored after their first offence and when they are released? What steps are being taken?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the proposals in the White Paper is for extended supervision of sex offenders, and that goes directly to the point that he raised. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) should pay attention to the views of police officers, as well as to those of the public. The police must deal with serious, violent and persistent criminals at the sharp end of life on our streets, day in, day out and night in, night out, and their opinion on the matter is worthy of special respect.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the two murderers of the late Daniel Handley were second-time offenders? Is he further aware that Daniel Handley and his family were constituents of mine? Can he confirm that his Department is responsible for the national criminal intelligence service? In view of press reports and my correspondence with the Minister of State, will he say categorically whether that service did or did not play an efficient, effective and timely role in the apprehension of those two murderers?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I had no prior notice of that question and I have not seen the whole of his correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am sure that she has looked into the matter, and has given him as full a response as possible.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that extended supervision of released violent offenders is long overdue? Does he further agree that the distress and tragedy of a victim of a serious violent and sexual assault is exacerbated by the knowledge that a first offender has been released to commit an identical crime the second time around? Will he please continue to listen to the public and not to the judges?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the great distress caused to victims in these circumstances. That is one of the reasons behind my proposals for honest sentencing, and also for extended supervision of sex offenders.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the purposes of ministerial visits to prisons. [34525]

I visit prisons to see for myself what is happening at individual establishments and to talk to staff, to prisoners and to members of boards of visitors about matters of concern to them. It is a particularly important part of my role as Prisons Minister and I have so far visited 70 prisons.

What action did the Minister take following her visit to Holloway prison on 27 July last year? Was not her visit well in advance of the decision in December by the chief inspector of prisons to pull out his team because of the appalling conditions he found there? Does she consider that she misled the House on 28 March this year by denying that she had visited the prison six months before the start of the inspection, while conveniently omitting to mention that she had been there more than four months before?

The answer to the second part of the hon. Lady's question is simple. She asked whether I had visited the prison six months earlier, but the hon. Lady could not add up—I therefore pointed out that she had got it wrong. I am sorry that she could not add up. As for what I did when I went to Holloway, it is on the record that I drew my concerns to the attention of the Prison Service, and it is equally on the record that the Prison Service put in an extra £300,000 in October of that year to combat the problems at the prison.

Does my hon. Friend agree that our recent visit to Chelmsford prison was extremely valuable, as we saw at first hand that prison does act as a deterrent and that Chelmsford is an extremely well-run prison?

I congratulate Chelmsford prison on its many achievements, and I confirm what my hon. Friend says. It is a well-run prison, and there was much in it that impressed me.

On the subject of ministerial visits to prisons, when the Minister visited Parkhurst prison several months ago—as I did yesterday—did she look at the special secure unit on which more than £3 million has been spent? Did she also see the additional security measures installed there that have cost many millions of pounds more? Is she aware that no prisoner has ever spent a night in that special secure unit? Is she further aware that the additional security measures are far in excess of the need for the security classification of the prison, because the Home Office and Ministers reduced its security categorisation from A to B?

Just now, the Opposition were complaining that we had not responded to General Learmont's report. We removed Parkhurst from the dispersal system in direct response to a major recommendation in General Learmont's considered report. His reasoning for removing the prison was rather more considered than that just shown by the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the current level of home beat policing in the London borough of Bromley. [34526]

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that all areas of Bromley are covered by home beat officers—and that the number of police officers on duty in the borough has been rising since January this year.

If my hon. Friend agrees, as I hope he does, that a bobby on the beat represents a strong deterrent to crime as well as giving great encouragement to the general public, can he give a firm undertaking that the recent police restructuring in Bromley will not lead to any diminution in home beat cover?

In Bromley, there is great concern that the police presence should be as near the public as possible in the community. That is why there are now 19 home beat officers, plus 25 officers attached to dedicated sector teams in the community and eight attached to the town centre unit. It is the intention in Bromley to meet the target of 481 officers overall long before March 1997, which was the original date intended. The police expect to reach that target by September this year.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he is taking to curb under-age drinking; and if he will make a statement. [34527]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I believe that more effective measures are needed to prevent under-age drinking in public places. When there is a suitable legislative opportunity, we propose giving the police a new power to confiscate alcohol from under-age people drinking in public. That would give the police the means to deal with the problem immediately and at source.

I thank my hon. Friend for that commitment. I draw to his attention the fact that it will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, where alcohol abuse by youngsters under the drinking age is a cause of constant aggravation. Can he assure me once again that there will be early legislation on that matter?

I am sure that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In doing so, I congratulate him on the way in which he has campaigned vigorously for a change in the law. Only a few days ago, at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting, my hon. Friend once again referred to the matter. We do not quite know the vehicle that could be used—perhaps a private Member's Bill would be the most appropriate—but we are keen to see that change in the law, because it will have an impact on what is undoubtedly a considerable nuisance.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the promise of action to tackle the possession of alcohol by young people follows the initiative taken by Labour-controlled Coventry city council to limit drinking on the streets? Will he also consider stiffer penalties for those who sell alcohol to under-age young people, to ensure that action is taken on the issue and that we do not just have words? Given that the Minister has had legislative opportunities coming out of his ears with the number of Bills that the Home Office has introduced in recent years, does he accept that he would have the co-operation of the Opposition if he were positive about bringing forward legislation at an early date?

I am almost gobsmacked by an offer from the Opposition to support Government measures to bring about greater law enforcement—it is rare for them to do so, but I welcome it. Perhaps in the meantime, I might tell those local authorities that are concerned with the problem, as Conservative Members are, that they now have the ability to take action under byelaws if they so wish. Although prosecutions of those who sell alcohol to underage people continue, the number of such offences, I am glad to say, has been dropping in the past few years.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to hold discussions on sharing of police information with the United States Secretary of the Interior. [34528]

We co-operate closely with the United States in tackling organised and international crime at both governmental and operational levels. Sharing police information on this and wider policing issues will be an important subject of discussion during my visit to the United States later this month when I shall meet the US Attorney-General, who is responsible for policing matters.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer and wish him well on his important forthcoming visit. Will he confirm that the experience of senior US officials has been that police intelligence information sharing and anticipatory surveillance are more important than the outward appearances of phenomena such as border guards? Will their interest in Europol be confirmed by his enthusiasm now for the Europol arrangements, after recent hesitations?

There has been no hesitation on our part on Europol. I fully expect that we shall be among the first countries to ratify the Europol convention. On intelligence in relation to border controls, we need the benefits of intelligence but we also need border controls. That is why we have said that we have every intention of maintaining our existing system of frontier controls.

Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the News of the World on exposing the growth in Britain of the Ku Klux Klan, which is controlled from bases in the United States? Will he hold urgent talks with his opposite number in the United States to try to eradicate the growth of that evil and odious organisation in the United Kingdom?

I am not sure that the United States Attorney-General will be able to assist to any great extent in that matter. The agenda for my discussions with her has not yet been formalised, but I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend, in his discussions with his opposite number in the United States, place a high priority on how best we can control child pornography in media such as the Internet? Does he believe that that is a vital subject, that we must protect our children and that ways must be found for our two countries, and other countries, to co-operate to cut the number of paedophiles?

My hon. Friend knows the high importance that I attach to that subject. She also knows that we have already been able to convict people in Britain who have been using the Internet for the transmission of pornography, including child pornography. The police will remain vigilant so that those who use the Internet for that evil purpose can be brought to justice.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the firefighters unions about the regulations regarding diabetes. [34529]

Guidance to chief fire officers on the employment of diabetics in the fire service was issued in February 1995. There have been no recent discussions with firefighters unions on this issue.

Does the Minister think that it is sensible or just that firefighters who become insulin dependent are invariably dismissed from front-line services? Should not such decisions be made on the ground of individuals' medical records, not under a blanket policy that is based on ignorance?

Perhaps I can correct the hon. Gentleman. Until recently, there was a blanket ban on insulin-dependent diabetics serving in the fire service. Last year, it was decided that each case should be taken on its merits. For that reason, the joint working party on medical and physical standards has ruled that, if people who develop diabetes during their service pass certain standards of fitness and control of their diabetes, they can remain in the service. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been recent judgments by appeal panels to that effect.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage increase in resources to the Dorset police authority for the current year. [34531]

The Dorset police authority's spending power for 1996–97 will be 6.2 per cent. more than last year, an increase well above the national average.

On behalf of my constituents, I thank my hon. Friend for that real increase in the resources of the Dorset police this year. Will he confirm that, since 1979, under the Conservatives, spending on Dorset police has increased by 112 per cent. in real terms and that the number of police officers and civilian support staff has increased by 467, as a result of which crime is coming down in Dorset? Can he say by how many he expects the number of police officers in Dorset to increase in the next three years?

I agree entirely with the statistics that my hon. Friend has just put to the House. Crime is coming down in Dorset. Spending is going up in Dorset. Police pay has gone up in Dorset. Indeed, the spending power of Dorset has increased dramatically. On top of that, Dorset is one of the beneficiaries of our closed circuit television challenge competition and has done extremely well out of it. That will help to curb crime even further in the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July. [34546]

This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is the Minister aware that, in the next two or three days, Members of Parliament and Ministers will be voting to set a new and increased national minimum wage for Members of Parliament and Ministers? If it is good enough for them, why can we not have a national minimum wage for everyone else? If those increases go beyond the pay barrier, will the Government give a guarantee that workers, including nurses and others, and pensioners will all receive the same?

I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman carried every Opposition Member with him with that particular remark.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence exports earn this country billions of pounds every year and guarantee thousands of jobs in Lancashire and elsewhere? Is it not, therefore, an absolute disgrace that Labour Members now oppose the sale of British defence equipment to Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and, some of them, even to the world's largest democracy, India? Does not that show that workers in the defence industry face a real danger from the Labour party?

Defence is a very important industry in this country and one that plays a very important part in our economy, both in export earnings and, of course, in job provision in many parts of the country—the north-west, the west country and many parts of the home counties as well—so it is extremely important. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the policies of the Labour party. It is also right for the House to note that the further defence review promised by the Labour party promises to cut sufficient from the funds to ensure that there would be no money at all for the Royal Navy.

Are this morning's newspaper reports correct that the selective slaughter scheme for beef is now to amount to 120,000 cows, which is a higher figure than previously thought, and that an additional £100 million, £200 million or possibly more will have to be paid in compensation on top of the £2 billion that the Prime Minister has already mentioned? Are those reports correct?

It is not possible to be entirely clear precisely how many animals will be slaughtered. What is clear is what was set out in the 30-months-plus scheme, with which I think the right hon. Gentleman is familiar. Beyond that, we are asked from time to time to make estimates of precisely what the figures are, and an estimate of about 120,000 is the best that we can make—that figure has been around for some considerable time. The cost is the cost that we have set out on previous occasions.

I think it is clear that the number is to be greater than originally anticipated. When the Prime Minister made his statement to the House earlier, he suggested that the reports of additional slaughter schemes were incorrect. Will he confirm whether, as a result of the Florence summit and the statement from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last night, the 1989 to 1990 cohort is to be included in the selective slaughter scheme, which will increase the number of cows involved? Last night, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food apparently said that it would take six to nine months for the scheme to be implemented. Does the Prime Minister still hold to November of this year as the date by which the ban will be completely lifted?

Yes; on the information we have, we still hold to the dates that we set out, but, as I said at the time, those dates depend on our meeting the requirements, which I previously set before the House and which we believe we can meet in the time scale that I set out. Long before I went to Florence, there was a lot of discussion about the 1989 to 1990 cohort involving both my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture and me. There is a distinction between the compulsory slaughter and the voluntary scheme that exists for the 1989 to 1990 cohort—it has to be voluntary, because there is no means of determining precisely which animals would qualify for it.

With due respect to the Prime Minister, the Agriculture Minister had said that the 1989 to 1990 cohort was not to be included and it is now clear that it is. The Agriculture Minister now says that the lifting of the ban may or may not take place at the end of the year. As more details emerge, is it not clear that the costs will be greater, the number of cattle slaughtered will be higher and the time scale will be longer—those prices are all to be paid by the British people?

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight of the two fundamental reasons why the policy is necessary. The first is to ensure public health—a point that has not crossed his lips at any stage of the questions that he has bothered to ask me on the subject. The second reason is to ensure that the British beef industry will be able to recover and recapture the markets around the world for prime British beef. That is the point at stake: the livelihoods of 650,000 people. It would be helpful if, for once, instead of the pedantry that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, he acknowledged, first, the need to deal with the matter in the interests of the beef industry and, secondly, the need to deal with it in the interests of public health.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will never introduce a policy which, as the price of a sell-out to Scottish nationalism, would bring in the compulsory dismemberment of England into regions? That latter policy would be purely to justify the continued presence of Scottish Members of Parliament in the House. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that such a policy would set in trend a series of developments that would be bad for the cohesion of England, bad for Scotland and bad for a Union that has served our people so well?

I believe that my hon. Friend speaks for millions of people in every part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The dangers that arise from the Opposition's policies are self-evident and many people are beginning to see them. [Interruption.] Why are the significant questions not answered? If Scotland has its own Parliament, why should there be continued over-representation of Scottish Members in the House? What about the position of hon. Members who represent Scotland? If they determine some issues in a Scottish Parliament, by what logic or equity should they vote for those matters as far as they affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland? If the Labour party has no interest in introducing new taxes, as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) says, why is he having a referendum to try to approve them in Scotland?

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July. [34547]

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

Does the Prime Minister fully realise how much the Labour party in Scotland looks forward to his visit? Will he today, or at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Dumfries tomorrow, answer my question, which his deputy dodged last Thursday? Why is it all right to offer Northern Ireland devolution, with a Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet and no reduction in the number of Members of Parliament at Westminster, while denying the same to the people of Scotland? How does he justify treating the two countries so differently?

How does the hon. Gentleman justify tax raising in Scotland and not in Wales? That is the distinction to which the hon. Gentleman must bend his mind. If he cares to read the speech that I made a week ago—I shall send him a copy—he will see in detail a series of reasons why there is a clear distinction between Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The hon. Gentleman had better bend his mind to his own policy: why a tax-raising power in Scotland but a non-tax-raising assembly in Wales? What has he got against the Scots, and why not not he trust the Welsh?

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July. [34549]

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

Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm his commitment to the assisted places scheme and to doubling it? Does he agree that, if the scheme were abolished, those children would still have to be educated in the state system, thus producing a small net saving? Does not that simple piece of arithmetic demolish the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy to abolish the scheme and spend the money in the primary sector?

I fear that some of the figures issued by the shadow Chancellor this morning are shown to be wholly wrong, even on cursory examination. It was already clear before today that the windfall tax is unravelling before the Opposition's eyes, and it certainly could not pay for the new pledges that they make. Sadly, the shadow Chancellor seems to have got his sums wrong. He has inflated the amount that he hopes to raise by forgetting to include the cost of sending the children who were in assisted places schemes back to the state sector. It can be seen simply from a cursory glance at the Opposition's new plans that the sums do not add up. The new Labour party's policies mean new taxes: taxes in Scotland; taxes on people with children aged between 16 and 18 who would lose child benefit; taxes for living in London; and taxes on jobs, with the social chapter and a minimum wage. That is what is offered by the Labour party. No wonder we talk of new dangers.

The Prime Minister has rightly condemned those who oppose the rule of law and those who fail to follow the courts' decisions. Will he unequivocally condemn Governments who refuse to implement, or threaten to refuse to implement, the European Court of Justice's decisions?

The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government implement the regulations. Where we think they are wrong—in some cases we do—we shall raise the matter at the intergovernmental conference to change the underlying European Community law. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so keen on ensuring that the law is obeyed. I hope that, in the interests of providing good, strong law enforcement, he will now apologise for the number of occasions on which he and his colleagues voted against law enforcement measures introduced by the Government.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July. [34550]

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my Lincolnshire constituency, those who work in the seaside resorts and on the land are in the habit of working far more than 48 hours a week during the summer, although often less in the winter? If the Brussels Commission is to impose its directive limiting the number of working hours to 48 hours a week with effect from 23 November, will that not seriously reduce the standard of living of many of my constituents? If the European Court of Justice seeks to overturn that part of the social chapter from which we have opted out, will my right hon. Friend take steps to reassert it?

My hon. Friend has neatly picked up the point to which I alluded in response to the previous question, which was asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). I share my hon. Friend's concern on behalf of his constituents.

The Prime Minister is coming to Dumfries tomorrow to speak at the Burns supper and to celebrate the bicentennial of Scotland's national bard. Is he aware that the lines that he has twice quoted in the House from "The Dumfries Volunteers" were written when Burns was under investigation by the Government of one of his predecessors for sedition as a radical and a Scottish nationalist? Will the Prime Minister demonstrate his knowledge of all things Scottish—stretching from stones to poems—and remind the House of the first two lines of Burns' most famous poem "Tam o'Shanter"?

I have no intention of regaling the House with poetry. I enjoyed listening to "Tam o'Shanter" last time I attended a Burns supper—and, with a bit of luck, I will hear it again tomorrow night. Rabbie Burns had a varied political career during his lifetime. As the hon. Gentleman would know, Burns' political career was varied as to where he gave his affections—and they were not affections that the hon. Gentleman would follow.