To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last three years the proportion of criminal offences that ended in a court conviction. [914]

About 6 per cent., but the percentage for more serious offences was very much higher and many of those convicted will have committed other crimes of which they have not been convicted.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that that figure is a percentage of recorded crime only, that the level of convictions is a disgrace and that the biggest deterrent to crime is the fear of getting caught? Will he accept that it is now three times more likely that a burglar or rapist will escape punishment than when Labour was in power? Will he do something to address that problem, instead of giving us this continual rhetoric?

The hon. Gentleman's comments would carry some conviction if he and his hon. Friends had been prepared to support the measures that we have taken to increase the likelihood of convictions taking place. Let me give an example: if the rate of suspects refusing to answer questions has fallen by half—as it has since we reformed the right to silence—that reform is likely to increase the proportion of convictions, yet the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, including the Leader of the Opposition, steadfastly opposed it, root and branch.

Some of those offences will be knife offences. As my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, I contacted the umbrella organisations for the industry in Sheffield to ensure that none of the manufacturers were disadvantaged. I sent him some of the work done by the Cutlery and Allied Trades Research Association. Has that been taken into consideration when framing any proposed legislation?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall take into account all representations, including those to which he referred, when considering proposals for further legislation on this matter.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, when someone is convicted of a criminal offence, it is important that he receives an appropriate sentence? Will he assure the House that he will continue to work towards his objective of imposing longer sentences on burglars, rapists and other people who commit violent crimes, and that he will not be deflected from that objective by the views of former Ministers, liberal judges and penal reformers? The British public are entirely behind his efforts on this front.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can certainly give him the assurance that he requests. If we are to fight crime effectively, we need both to convict the criminals and to ensure that they are properly dealt with—and properly punished—when they have been convicted. That is one of the purposes of the proposals set out in the Crime (Sentences) Bill—a Bill to which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred on the radio this week, saying that he was leading the opposition to it.

When criminal offences involving the illegal smuggling of tobacco products into the United Kingdom occur, such as the recent large haul impounded in Belfast in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman seek to ensure that the level of fine imposed on conviction matches the value of the impounded cargo and thereby protect our local newsagents and, indeed, the Treasury, which is losing valuable revenue?

I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am not sure that we are yet ready to introduce a series of minimum mandatory fines and, in the absence of such fines, the matter is for the discretion of the court concerned, but I have great sympathy with the argument that the hon. Gentleman makes.

As the Home Secretary issues his soundbite attacks on the Opposition, he knows in his heart of hearts that Labour has worked hard in opposition to be tough on crime, to be tough on the causes of crime and to support the Government when they make constructive proposals. In contrast, would not a little more humility be appropriate when the Home Secretary considers the facts: that recorded crime is double the level it was when the Conservative party came to power, that fewer than one in 50 crimes end up in a punishment by a court, and that, in his county of Kent, violent crime has gone up by 300 per cent.—and robbery by 600 per cent.—since the Conservative party came to power?

We hear these inane generalities from the Labour party, but Labour Members refuse to deal with the specific points such as the example that I put to them a few minutes ago. The number of suspects refusing to answer questions has nearly halved since we reformed the right to silence. When we reformed the right to silence, the Labour party—whose shadow Home Secretary at the time is now the Leader of the Opposition—opposed that reform root and branch. What we have done—not uttering inane generalities across the Floor of the House—is the way to get criminals convicted and to reduce crime.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's latest proposals on handguns. [915]

The Government have introduced legislation that will stop all handguns being kept at home—.22 rimfire handguns will have to be kept in licensed, secure pistol clubs. All higher calibre handguns will be prohibited. I believe that those provisions will give the public the protection that they need.

Is there not overwhelming public support for a ban on handguns? Is it not a pity that the Government are not going even further, as requested by the police and as would certainly be supported by the public—although Ministers are shaking their heads? Is it not disgraceful—almost obscene—that some members of the gun lobby are reported to be urging a dirty tricks campaign against the organisers of Snowdrop? How low and deplorable can one get?

I naturally deplore all dirty tricks campaigns and all low and deplorable levels to which people sink when opposing perfectly sensible legislation. I believe that the measures that we are introducing produce the right balance between protecting the public, ensuring that handguns will not be in circulation outside secure clubs and preserving what has been a perfectly legitimate sport in this country for more than 100 years.

Does my hon. Friend accept my total opposition, of which she knows, to this intended Bill? The Government intend to confiscate the personal property of innocent individuals. The Bill will have an enormous effect, not only on those individuals but on numerous businesses and very many others attached to the industry. The proposed compensation is totally inadequate. In a sense of fairness, will the Government accept that they are wrong? Will my hon. Friend ensure that compensation is much fairer and wider than is presently proposed, especially in the money resolution associated with the Bill?

Our current proposal is to compensate people for the loss of their guns at the market value of those guns on the day before the Secretary of State's statement. We shall compensate dealers for their stocks of guns on the same basis. I am always prepared to consider any sensible and reasonable suggestion that any hon. Member on either side of the House may wish to make during the Bill's passage, but I have explained our present thinking to my hon. Friend.

The Minister will be aware that, arising out of the gun Bill, there has been wide public debate not just about pistols, but about other forms of firearms currently used in the United Kingdom. Has consideration been given to airguns, which are commonly in use in many parts of the country? They are often used by young people to intimidate and harass others in the community, and can be purchased by a 17-year-old and used by a person aged 14. Does the Minister believe that there is a case for reviewing the law on airguns, considering a system of licensing, and changing the age at which people can buy or use such potentially lethal weapons?

Licensing is important. That is why, although the Bill is largely geared to handguns, it includes proposals that cover rifles as well. The proposals that we have produced are in response to the independent report by Lord Cullen. It is in the public interest to get legislation on the statute book quickly. We therefore thought that we should tackle the particular problem in hand.

Can my hon. Friend say when she may be able to offer a considered response to the genuine concerns of those who shoot with muzzle-loading, flintlock or matchlock pistols, which could not by any remote stretch of the imagination be connected with contemporary crime?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have made a number of exceptions—for example, for antique guns and trophies of war. We are giving careful consideration to the definitions that we have used. We will take into account the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, and consider our response as soon as possible.

Will the Minister comment on the availability of extremely dangerous shotgun cartridges, which often do greater damage than smaller bullets in handguns? Although everyone in the House accepts the argument that handguns should be banned because they can be more easily concealed, does the Minister agree that we should consider stricter licensing measures for rifles and shotguns as well, and the possibility of including such measures in the Bill?

I have already said that we have tightened up the conditions for issuing certificates, especially with regard to the referees required and the proof of fitness. That applies not only to handguns, but to rifles as well. I also said, in response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), that many issues might have been considered, but, in the interests of getting legislation quickly on to the statute book to protect the general public, we have addressed principally the concerns raised by Lord Cullen.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy with regard to United Kingdom accession to the Schengen treaty. [916]

The Government have no intention of seeking accession to the Schengen treaty.

I am delighted to hear that answer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that border controls are essential in our aim to defeat drug trafficking and all other forms of crime? May I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that there are sufficient customs officers at ports such as Immingham in my constituency, and at Humberside airport in my constituency, which are vulnerable to drug trafficking and the importing of illegal goods?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of maintaining our frontier controls. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have made it clear on more than one occasion that we have no intention of doing anything to dismantle or weaken them. With reference to customs and immigration officers, my hon. Friend will be aware that we are making greater use of intelligence-led action to deal with the importation of drugs and other forbidden substances and articles into the United Kingdom. Those methods are having considerable success.

Does the Home Secretary's opposition to the Schengen agreement extend to the work of Europol, which is essential in tackling international drug trafficking and in which British police officers play an important role? Why has the British Government resisted the development of Europol, on occasion blocking its essential provisions? Is that part of the Schengen argument?

As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has completely the wrong end of the stick. In fact, the United Kingdom Government were at the forefront of progress in establishing Europol. We continue to make progress in advancing it, and we expect to be one of the first countries to ratify the Europol convention.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public representations he has received since 16 October on handgun control proposals. [917]

Since 16 October, we have received upwards of 250 letters on this subject from right hon. and hon. Members. The Department has received more than 700 telephone calls and more than 1,200 letters from the public. The great majority of letters have been from individual shooters.

As to the idea of a total ban on handguns or one so close to being a total ban that it renders unnecessary the creation of new loopholes in the future, does my hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming views of about 56 million people are much more important than those of 56,000 shooters?

As I said in response to a previous question, we are trying to strike a balance between protecting legitimate sporting rights and protecting the public. Lord Cullen produced an independent report with 24 recommendations, 23 of which we have accepted. I assure my hon. Friend that we are trying to get the balance right.

Will the Minister confirm that, under the proposed legislation, individuals who currently own high calibre weapons will receive compensation, and, there is nothing to stop them buying. 22 calibre weapons, so the estimated figure of some 40,000 .22 calibre weapons in circulation after the legislation is enacted is likely to fall far short of the mark, and people may use many more such weapons than they do at present?

That is an impossible prophecy. Perhaps some people who currently own .22 calibre weapons will decide, because of the restrictions on other weapons or the inconvenience caused to some—but not all—clubs, to cease to use .22 calibre weapons. It is quite impossible to make that sort of behavioural prediction.

Will my hon. Friend concede that there is a serious possibility that the judges of the European Court of Human Rights may oblige the British taxpayer to provide compensation on a much wider basis—to those who manufacture pistols, to gun clubs owners, professional shooters and those who supply the ancillary trades? As the object of the exercise is to preserve human life, does my hon. Friend agree that, if the level of compensation were to rise to between £0.5 billion and £1 billion as some suggest, taxpayers might consider that the money would be better spent elsewhere?

Our estimates are nowhere near the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend. We shall take full account of all our legal obligations in deciding how we should compensate and what compensation is proper. There are plenty of precedents for providing compensation following changes in the law. We shall do what we believe is right, and we shall put our proposals before the House.

May I point out to the Minister that, a few years ago, two Glasgow police officers were shot dead by an assassin armed with a .22 calibre pistol. Does she realise that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland demand that any ban on pistols should include .22 calibre weapons?

The statistics for homicides between 1992 and 1994 show clearly that only about 5 per cent. Involved .22 calibre weapons. I agree that 5 per cent. is too much, but it puts the problem into context. I sympathise with the relatives of the policemen to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, but I believe that, by confining guns to clubs, we are tackling the problem of guns in circulation and held perfectly legally by the general public.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce short-term remands to allow fast tracking of cases; and if he will make a statement. [918]

We want to ensure that cases come to trial as soon as possible. All the criminal justice agencies are committed to this end and much is being done. We have also recently set up a review to identify urgently what more can be done to reduce delays, including the possibility of shorter-term remands.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as there are only 349 secure places available in England and Wales, a new sort of secure facility is needed in which juveniles can be held in secure conditions while their needs are assessed by a multi-agency group? The problem that is being experienced quite widely is that juveniles abscond from normal community homes, or sometimes abscond from a car on their way to such a home. We need short-term secure remand facilities.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, in conjunction with the Department of Health, we have been investing sums to ensure that more remand spaces are available, but we must be interested in speeding up the process of bringing all cases to trial, whether in the Crown courts or magistrates courts, whether for adults or for juveniles. A range of studies is under way, which is being supervised by the pre-trial issues steering group. The group is endeavouring to ensure that all parts of the criminal justice system move as quickly as possible in future.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the criminal cases review authority to be established; and if he will make a statement. [919]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimated date by which the body set up for the review of criminal cases will begin its operation; and what criteria will be used to determine the order of review of disputed convictions. [921]

We expect the Criminal Cases Review Commission to be established around the turn of the year. It will be for the commission to determine its own criteria for the order in which it considers the cases that come before it.

Was the Home Secretary aware when he appointed Sir Frederick Crawford as chairman of the commission that Sir Frederick was a freemason—and not just any old freemason, but one of the leading freemasons in the land? May I say to the Minister that those of us who take an interest in miscarriages of justice have always been a wee bit cynical about the role of the Home Office, but even I was somewhat taken aback to find that the Home Secretary was so daft as to appoint a leading freemason to such a sensitive post?

The post was openly advertised. There were 124 applicants, and consideration of them was conducted in a proper manner in accordance with the Nolan procedures, which the House approved recently. Indeed, the appointment was one of the earliest to go through the Nolan procedures. I have no doubt that the appointee, Sir Frederick Crawford, will act with complete integrity and impartiality.

Is the Minister able to say that the appointment was considered by the officer who has been given responsibility to review public appointments—Sir Len Peach? Is he able to give us Sir Len's view of the appointment? Is the Minister aware that many prisoners, including the sons of some of my constituents, are held without time limit because they have not agreed that they committed the crimes of which they have been convicted? In many instances they have served a longer term than they would have served if they had pleaded guilty. Will the Minister ensure that the authorities are aware of such cases and that they take into account the time that prisoners, who may be innocent, have spent in gaol?

The guidelines of the commission for public appointments were followed. Once the commission is working, I am sure that it will want to set its own timetable for the cases that it will have to consider. Slightly more than 200 cases are awaiting final consideration, and will go to the commission. It is expected that there will be an increase in the number of applications during the commission's first year of operation. Nevertheless, I am sure that it will review the nature of the cases and will have its timetable fixed accordingly.

May I tell my hon. Friend that many Birmingham Members will strongly resent the slur against Sir Frederick Crawford, who did an excellent job as vice-chancellor of Aston university for many years? Does my hon. Friend accept that what a person chooses to do in his spare time should not be a bar if his abilities are such that he will fulfil correctly a job that is offered to him?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is quite right about that. As long as the proper criteria are met in appointments, and they are in accordance with the Nolan procedures, I have no reason to doubt that the chairman will do an excellent job.

As one who is not a freemason and never intends to be, I find it rather distasteful that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) conducts this campaign against freemasons when, to my certain knowledge—and perhaps that of my hon. Friend as well—many of them are among the most upright people in the community and do a great deal of work for charity as well. It is rather unpleasant that hon. Members should use their position in the House to attack people of that quality and calibre.

Our major concern in relation to the commission is to have the best people doing the job. Many hon. Members have called for us to set up a commission. They expect us to set it up in such a way that it will be effective. For it to be effective, we need to ensure that the best people are involved in chairing it and in membership of it. I believe that that will occur.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the measures announced in the Queen's Speech. [922]

The Home Office measures announced in the Gracious Speech have one simple aim—to protect the public. As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House last week, they represent the most radical attack on crime this century. They have won wide support from the police and the public.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Bolton's police force on achieving, against the national trend, a 10 per cent. reduction in crime over the past five months? Should not those figures be published quarterly, as they always used to be?

Greater Manchester police have been successful in reducing crime, as have many other forces, leading in the past three years to the largest fall in crime for 40 years.

"Putting more police officers on the beat will … have little effect in reducing levels of crime".

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the law and order measures announced in the Queen's Speech, particularly those that will ensure that sentences mean what they say, have been widely welcomed in the constituencies? Is he further aware that, even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), that is certainly the case? Sentences must mean what they say, and that is clearly provided for in the Gracious Speech.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key measures in the Crime (Sentencing) Bill—of honesty in sentencing and of minimum mandatory sentences for burglars, drug dealers and serious violent and sexual offenders—have been welcomed and are widely supported by everyone except the Labour party, which dithered and sat on its hands on Monday night, was afraid to vote for them and faced the shame of some of its own members voting against them on Monday night.

Did not the Minister of State expose the absurdity of the Government's attempt to reduce the number of guns when she confessed this afternoon that she did not know how many people who, deprived of their high calibre guns, would transfer to .22 weapons? Does not that mean that, if all of them do that, there will be no reduction whatever in the number of guns in people's homes? Has she not exposed this afternoon the fact that the Bill is entirely futile unless it is improved by the Labour party's amendment?

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He is wrong on many counts. He misquoted my hon. Friend, and handguns will not be held in people's homes. It is clearly our intention that the lesser caliber .22 rimfire handguns will be held in secure gun clubs. It is right to say that it is impossible to forecast whether some people may wish to acquire .22 handguns in future or whether even more .22 handgun owners will decide that it is not worth the hassle of complying with the tough new rules and give up their .22 handguns as well. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to jump to the conclusions that he does.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the policing of big match days at the Rugby Football Union ground, Twickenham. [923]

I am assured by the commissioner that extra officers for the policing of match days at Twickenham will be deployed as and when needed.

I am grateful for that. Rugby football is a sport of great national importance, but is my hon. Friend aware that the combination of the increase in the number of big match days and the growing number of people who arrive by car has inflicted on my constituents who live nearby almost impossible conditions? Will he please ask the commissioner to ensure that the increase in the number of police is as large as possible so that my constituents can get in and out of their homes?

I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents, who are, after all, victims of rugby's success. I have sat in a huge traffic jam on the A316 more than once, having the misfortune to arrive at the same time as a match is exiting, and I am aware of the effects of that and of the parking problem to which he referred. I am assured that the police will continue to take what measures they can in order to obviate that distressing problem.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to speed up the system of youth justice. [924]

We welcome the action being taken by all criminal justice agencies to speed up the process of bringing young offenders to justice—for example avoiding unnecessary adjournments, co-ordinating their approach and sentencing persistent offenders promptly without waiting for other changes to be heard. The review on expediting justice, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned earlier, is also examining this specific issue.

Is the Minister aware that, despite the painstaking work of the local police, it took more than six months to bring to trial some young hooligans who were terrorising the residents of the Downham estate in my constituency, and that, once tried and convicted, two of them were fined a pathetic £7 and £15 respectively? Does that not send out all the wrong messages to victims and offenders, and is not justice delayed, justice denied?

I am sure that the hon. Lady, herself a justice of the peace and a former teacher, will be well aware of the need for us to have a co-ordinated approach to the way in which we deal with young people. Therefore, I hope that she will support the Government's proposals to speed up such matters and bring criminals to justice.

How soon will the first new secure training unit come on stream? Those units will do a great deal to improve the behaviour of young people convicted of offences. Is it not odd that one of the Opposition's five core pledges is to speed up youth justice, yet they have obstructed the development and construction of secure training units at every turn?

The Conservative party has decided to follow that course and I am glad that my hon. Friend is so supportive. I only wish that all Labour-controlled local authorities were doing their best to assist us in opening such centres. Bassetlaw council has decided to block a planning application for such a unit, when it well knows that such a move can only have an adverse impact on our ability to get such units in place and operational as quickly as possible.

Is the Minister not aware that there is no better, or worse, example of the failure of this Government after 17 years to deal with law and order than the decay and negligence now apparent in the youth justice system? The case that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) cited, in which after six months those young hooligans were fined a derisory £7 and £15 for terrorising a neighbourhood, is all too typical of the current chaos in the youth justice system. Instead of initiating studies, why does the Minister not impose clear limits on the time that it takes to get such matters to court, and ensure that in no case is the court allowed to issue another warning after previous warnings have been given?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The weasel words that he is spouting do not fit very neatly into the policies and attitudes of his party. The Labour party has just published another piece of paper on the issue, but what have Labour Members been doing all these years, because they have not supported the Government in their attempts to make the justice system tougher? If the hon. Gentleman wants to help us to deal with such matters, he should support us totally by calling for tougher sentences and by supporting my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to improve the investigation of crimes across police force boundaries. [926]

My right hon. and learned Friend's proposals for a national crime squad will significantly enhance the police's ability to investigate organised crime across police force boundaries at home and abroad.

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that a national crime squad will build on the already considerable regional success that the police are having in tackling organised drugs crime? Does he agree that that, coupled with my right hon. and learned Friend's tough sentencing proposals, will send a clear message to those who destroy lives by peddling drugs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national criminal intelligence service and the regional crime squads are a great British police success story. Last year, the total number of drug-related arrests was about 1,400, the total value of confiscated assets was more than £2 million and the total value of street drugs seized by the regional crime squads was more than £250 million. That was their success last year, and they have had even greater success this year. When the Police Bill is on the statute book, we shall have the new national crime squad, which will build on those outstanding successes.

Does the Minister accept that one way of improving cross-border activity among the police is the early development of the database HOLMES 2? Will he ensure that the specification for that project includes the most far-reaching data mining processes, which have been used in experiments in Warwickshire and in his authority and by the FBI? Will he also ensure that that specification is out to tender at the earliest possible opportunity?

I shall ensure that the specifications for HOLMES 2, Phoenix, Quest, the national police information system strategy and the huge automatic fingerprint system are along the lines of what the police want. That is why we are creating PITO, the police information technology organisation, to ensure that the specifications are not drawn up just by politicians, but by the police service according to its needs. With the private finance initiative, we intend to deliver many of those schemes as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the thinking behind this welcome new national squad is along the lines of intelligence-led policing pioneered by police forces such as Kent? Does he further agree that it will operate most effectively in conjunction with the measures on minimum sentences for persistent drug dealers that the Government are introducing, apparently against the wishes of the principal Opposition?

I congratulate Kent on its initiatives on intelligence-led policing. The success of NCIS and the national crime squads will be obviated if the Labour party do not support measures to ensure that the most dangerous and persistent criminals who are caught by the police are locked up for sufficiently long. We are aware of the two-faced attitude of the Labour party. No doubt, over the next few months, we shall hear Labour Members boasting that they have supported the Police Bill—which sets up NCIS and PITO—whereas on Monday night most of them sat on their hands. Some of them went through the No Lobby to vote against the measures that will ensure that this country's worst drug dealers are locked up for a minimum of seven years. We should not be surprised at that. They voted against every measure like that in the 1980s as well.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents which involved fireworks have been reported to the police in each year since 1992. [927]

The police become involved in a wide variety of incidents involving fireworks, such as illegal sale, misuse and nuisance and serious incidents of fire or injury. The statistics on injuries caused by fireworks are collected from hospitals by the Department of Trade and Industry.

I am sure that the Minister will want to join the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in expressing his condolences following the death of a constituent of mine, 10-year-old Dale Mitchell, who died because of the misuse of fireworks. Given that a third of firework injuries are not accidents but are caused by illegal misuse, why are there not more prosecutions for illegal misuse, and why are more people not prosecuted for supplying fireworks to under-age children?

I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in condoling with all who have been injured. There are restrictions, and there is a wealth of education each year in an attempt to avoid such incidents. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said yesterday, he is conducting a root-and-branch inquiry into the whole issue. There is a good deal of evidence that changes are needed: every injury is an injury too many.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [944]

I have been asked to reply.

May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on the damage recently caused to his property by a gang of criminal thugs, which included two Labour councillors? Will he take this opportunity to contrast the Government's record on law and order with the pathetic performance of the smarmy army on the Opposition Benches? That smarmy army has not even criticised, let alone disciplined, those two Labour councillors.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I must say that, when I looked out of my window, it seemed like old times—the winter of discontent, with the Labour party on the streets; the mobs of the 1980s, with the Labour party on the streets; and then, in the 1990s, Labour councillors on people's private property, causing damage and disruption: and the characteristic of all three? Not a word of protest from the parliamentary Labour party. Labour Members talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but they do not even have the energy to walk through the Lobbies when we are fighting crime.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why, 50 years ago this week, the Tories voted against the creation of the national health service?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that, after 50 years, the health service has been administered and supported by Tory Governments for longer than by Labour Governments. Because of that, we have made it one of the best health services in the world.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand—[Interruption.]

Order.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that the people simply do not believe the Tories on health? Does he not remember that, before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to cut taxes year on year? They went up year on year. Now the same Prime Minister is promising to increase health spending year on year. Is that not like the tax promise? Should not all Tory pre-election promises carry a Government health warning?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that, under this Government, health expenditure has gone up every year. If he really cares about the health service, why will he not, on behalf of his party, now give a commitment to match our pledge to increase, year on year, real-terms expenditure on the health service?

The Deputy Prime Minister fails to understand that our national health service, set up by a Labour Government 50 years ago, was the greatest peacetime achievement of any Government this century. Is not the simple truth this: the British people know that the only way to safeguard our health service for the next 50 years is to elect a Labour Government, and the sooner the better?

The British people know that the Labour party will not give the pledge that the Conservatives have already given. After all, we hear all about windfall taxes. If they are so profitable and so available, why cannot windfall taxes finance the health service? The reason is, of course, that there is not an easy killing of a windfall tax any more than there is a genuine commitment from Labour to the health service.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a seminar in my constituency, the chief economist for the National Westminster bank predicted that small businesses would be particularly vulnerable to a minimum wage? He warned that a minimum wage would cost thousands of jobs in Essex. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will never introduce a minimum wage?

Any fool knows that a minimum wage costs jobs. After all, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the shadow leader of the Labour party, has already said so.

Don't get too excited.

I am always excited by the right hon. Gentleman. The whole House is excited by him. He is an exciting person. Never has someone been so wrong, so often, on so many subjects.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [945]

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming the support given by players of Leeds United, of Leeds rugby league club and of Yorkshire county cricket club to the urgent appeal for funds by Leeds general infirmary for essential equipment, which, it says, it cannot afford because of the national health service funding level? Is it not an absolute scandal that, after 17 years of this Government, that hospital, having closed 40 beds only last month, is forced to beg to survive?

I would overwhelmingly support anyone who sought to raise funds for charitable purposes for the health service. One of the most exciting additional supports to health funding in Britain has come from the idea of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that part of lottery proceeds go to charities in Britain. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members are prepared to sneer at charitable giving in Britain. I realise that they would rather tax people into a position where charity was compulsory, as opposed to relying on people's natural instinct to give, but I cannot believe that the purpose of such a generous decision by the various players to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred is designed to turn the health service into a party political matter.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [946]

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend have a chance to speak to the Prime Minister while he is in France preparing for the summit and get him to bring back a few souvenirs for Opposition Members? I have in mind in particular some recent issues of Le Figaro newspaper, which extolled the virtues of what had happened to French companies that had come to the United Kingdom to invest in British firms, highlighting particularly the low cost base here and the stable, growing economy.

My hon. Friend is right to draw to the attention of the House the remarkable article in Le Figaro. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew my attention to it earlier today. The House will be pleased to know that copies of the article are on their way to this country. For the benefit of many Labour Members, translations will be freely available.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [947]

I have been asked to reply.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of the new rules that were introduced to curb the abuse by former Conservative Ministers such as Peter Walker and Norman Tebbit, who left the Government and moved to the boardrooms of companies that they privatised while in office? Does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Minister who privatised London's buses—the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—has moved from his boudoir at the Department of Transport to the profitable and sweet embrace of Capital City Bus?

The House will want to take that question extremely seriously because a most serious allegation has been made against my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). My hon. Friend has not accepted any job with Capital City Bus or any other company. He has consulted the advisory committee on business appointments and, of course, he will follow any advice that that committee gives.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [948]

I have been asked to reply.

As next year will be the 50th anniversary of the independence of India, and as relations between India and Britain have never been better, do the Government intend to supplement the Queen's visit to India, the visit of our Prime Minister to India as guest of honour on Republic Day and my right hon. Friend's visit to India to launch the Indo-British partnership initiative, with events in this country to mark the jubilee? Will he bear in mind that a large proportion of Indian people who are resident in Britain are natural supporters of the enterprise economy?

My hon. Friend has left out of his list the distinguished role that he has played for 25 years as an officer and chairman of the all-party Indo-British group. He will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited my noble Friend Lord Cranborne to chair the group to determine how we can progress with such an important anniversary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have rejected the recommendation of the Employment Committee that, in the unemployment statistics, the Government should include details of the 12 categories excluded from those figures? In those circumstances, does he recognise that the true number of unemployed is not just over 2 million, but nearer 4 million, and that the Government's present figures are a complete sham and a fiddle?

I seem to remember the hon. and learned Gentleman producing reports saying that 100,000 jobs would go in the aftermath of the closure of the mines. Unemployment has fallen every month since.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [949]

I have been asked to reply.

Has my right hon. Friend seen recent reports that about 40 per cent. of those leaving the jobless register are now setting up as self-employed to provide work not only for themselves but for other people? Does he agree that that augurs well for the present and future competitiveness of the country, enabling us to look forward to levels of unemployment continuing to fall in my constituency and throughout the nation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is, of course, right. We have the highest proportion of our population at work of any major European country. The forecasts are that our position will continue to improve. I am delighted to recognise the announcement this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of a significant extension of project work to concentrate particularly on those who have been unemployed for more than two years.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [950]

I have been asked to reply.

Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen advertisements for articles such as the Vindicator knife and the Rambo short sword? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to make it illegal to advertise or offer for sale such weapons in a manner that appears to condone or encourage violence?

As the whole House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in discussions with Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, but those discussions have not led to a simplistic definition that would have enabled the law to be changed. In other words, my right hon. and learned Friend was correct to say that this is a complex matter to which a satisfactory legal outcome has not so far been found. The whole House will be glad of my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement yesterday about strengthening police powers of stop and search, particularly of those people who are likely to be carrying knives.