To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of success in the rehabilitation of young offenders who receive a custodial sentence. [6148]

In 1995, the Prison Service commissioned research to identify measures of behaviour and attitudinal change that could be used to assess the effectiveness of regimes to reduce reconviction. Those measures identified are now being tested at six establishments, and the results will be available early next year.

Will the Minister examine the results of that research and react to it positively and intelligently? Many hon. Members who are concerned about youth crime were disturbed by his reaction to the Audit Commission's recent study of that issue. That dismissal of a perceptive and intelligent review of the youth justice system and what it means for the average person in this country—particularly the victims of crime—did no one in the Government any credit.

The hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. He asked about the measures that we are taking in young offender institutions to ensure that young offenders are rehabilitated upon their release into the community. Of course we shall look carefully and intelligently at the excellent pilot projects taking place. All YOIs hold courses on anger management, cognitive skills, addressing offending behaviour and drugs courses. Much work is going on inside prisons for youngsters who have been sentenced by the courts. I was critical of aspects of the Audit Commission's report—particularly the Opposition's welcome for it—because it suggested alternative activities for youngsters which would mean that they would never get to court in the first place and never benefit from the courses that we are now evaluating.

My right hon. Friend will know that there is widespread feeling in this country that corporal punishment would be more effective than a spell inside for many young people, who often leave prison more expert in the ways of crime than when they entered. What does my right hon. Friend think about that?

I have no proposals to reintroduce corporal punishment to any prisons or corrective establishments—or indeed to the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the levels of criminal activity in recent years. [6149]

Recorded crime levels in the 12 months to June 1996 were 10 per cent. lower than three years ago. That is a fall of more than half a million offences—the biggest continuous fall over three years since records were first kept in 1876. Crime is still far too high and there is much more to be done, but I congratulate the police on their considerable recent success.

I thank the Home Secretary for those figures. I was handed a remarkable statistic this morning, which I ask him to confirm. Is it true that only one in 50 recorded crimes leads to a conviction? If so, does it not suggest a total breakdown of law and order in the United Kingdom?

If the hon. Gentleman is really interested in such matters, he should congratulate the police in Cumbria, who have a 40 per cent. record of clearing up crime. If he is really interested in improving those statistics, he will join us in reforms—such as changing the right to silence—which were opposed root and branch by the Opposition. Research on the effect of those changes shows that the number of suspects refusing to answer questions has almost halved. Will the hon. Gentleman support us in those changes?

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the latest British crime survey—which is wholly independent of Government figures—showed the first drop in burglaries since figures were compiled? Does he further agree that we can assist the police in converting successful clear-ups into successful convictions by giving them greater powers? Will he confirm that changes to the right to silence and the granting of other powers through the national data bank have greatly enhanced the chances of the police converting crimes into convictions?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. We must ensure that everyone is totally aware of the extent to which the Opposition have voted against, blocked and obstructed those increases in powers. When we changed the right to silence, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now Leader of the Opposition, described the change as "an injustice" when he opposed it and led his party into the Division Lobby against it time after time. That is the truth of the Opposition's attitude to the effective way of improving the powers of the police to deal with crime.

After supervising the largest increase in crime in recorded history in the United Kingdom, is it not to be expected that a modest increase will have taken place, even though the vast majority of people in the country will not believe it? Does the Secretary of State not accept that the scale of crime that affects communities like mine is such that more than half the news content of local newspapers week after week is devoted to crime, which to a large extent is caused by the economic and social policies of the Government?

The last observation of the hon. Gentleman speaks volumes about the Opposition's attitude to crime. Crime, according to them, is caused not by criminals—those who break the law—but by economic and social conditions, which he attributes to the Government, overlooking the fact that, since the Conservatives have been in office, the average standard of living in this country, the average take-home pay of the average family, has increased by 40 per cent.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, to reinforce the welcome downward trend in burglary, it is important to show burglars that crime does not pay? Does he agree therefore that it is important to ensure that burglars—particularly repeat burglars—are given custodial sentences, and of a sufficient length? Does he further agree that the public will very much welcome the proposals in his Crime (Sentences) Bill?

I entirely agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is, of course, why we propose and provide for in the Crime (Sentences) Bill minimum, mandatory sentences for anyone convicted of a third burglary. The truth of the matter is that far too many career burglars regard a short spell in prison as nothing more than an occupational hazard. We have to change the terms of trade against career burglars. We have to ensure that they know what to expect if they continue their career in crime. That is what the provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Bill will achieve.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to reduce illegal drug use in prison. [6150]

We are rapidly increasing the number of drug treatment programmes in prisons. We have introduced mandatory drug testing in every prison and are continuing to develop a battery of other measures to control the supply of drugs into prisons.

Will the Minister, uniquely, listen to the question that I am about to ask and give me an answer based on the question, not on something that he prepared earlier?

There are 59 different drug programmes in prisons. They vary from those that use methadone right through to total abstinence programmes, such as the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust—RAPt—programmes, in Coldingley, Downview, Pentonville and Wandsworth, which use no medicinal drugs following detoxification. We are piloting various drug treatment programmes. The hon. Gentleman may have a preference for those that do not use substitutes, but we have to use all the treatments that exist in getting people off drugs, because there is no single answer to that problem.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, whatever admirable efforts are made to reduce the use of drugs in prisons, it is equally important to provide support services for prisoners who have given up drugs during their time in prison and have returned to the normal world outside? Will he encourage such steps?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Programmes such as Phoenix house provide halfway houses, treatment and support for people coming out of prison. It is no use people succeeding in a drug-free wing, if they then go back to their communities and take drugs. My hon. Friend's point is well taken.

Will the Minister acknowledge that a mandatory drug test can detect cannabis after up to 28 days, whereas heroin and cocaine are held in the bloodstream for two to four days? There is a perverse incentive for people to take the latter drugs. Can he confirm that, between March and September, the number of positive tests for opiates increased by 27 per cent., which amounts to 3,500 people? Does he agree that we need more initiatives in the Prison Service, such as the one at Downview, to deal with these serious problems?

I have been told that we should be conducting hair tests rather than urine tests for that reason. The best medical advice is that it is 10 days for cannabis and five days for opiates, but our figures do not show a switch from cannabis to opiates.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards further extending the powers of the police to stop and search for knives without time or geographical restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [6151]

A police officer may stop and search anyone if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles, such as a knife. We intend to amend the code of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to make it clear that reasonable suspicion includes intelligence that shows that members of a group or gang habitually carry knives. We have also proposed that police powers should be extended, so that they can stop and search anyone in a particular area if they reasonably believe that people are carrying knives in that area. Those powers would have to be authorised by an officer of at least inspector rank for a maximum period of 48 hours.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a change to 48 hours and to authorisation by an officer of the rank of inspector in a area where violence is suspected will be welcome, and will make a substantial contribution towards dealing with the difficult problem of knives in the community?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware that police associations have welcomed the proposals as a significantly useful reinforcement to their powers, which will enable them the more effectively to protect the public.

That proposal is all very well—I am sure that it will be a useful addition—but what do the Government intend to do about the availability of knives to the public? What is the latest Government thinking on the private Member's Bill to be presented to the House a week on Friday? Will the Home Secretary please tell the House and the general public what is being done about the availability of such knives?

We have suggested to the promoter of that private Member's Bill an excellent package to deal with the problem. I hope that he will adopt those proposals and include them in his Bill. If he does so, he will have our full support.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend deal with the problems associated with Stanley knives? It is not only the length and type of knife that matters. Stanley knives can inflict dangerous injuries. How will stop-and-search powers deal with them'? If I were at a dance with a Stanley knife in my pocket, I could be a suspect, but what about people walking in the street?

In the circumstances that I identified in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), the police would have extra powers to search. We have substantially increased the penalties for people who carry knives in public without lawful excuse. We recently embarked on an extensive publicity campaign to ensure that everyone knows that those powers exist, and that if they continue to carry knives in public without a lawful excuse, they run the risk of spending a substantial period in prison. We urge people not to carry knives in public without lawful excuse, so as not to run that risk.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Audit Commission on the prevention of crime contained in its report "Misspent Youth". [6152]

The Government are determined to do all that they can to prevent children turning to crime. However, they do not accept the Audit Commission's recommendation that local authorities be given an enhanced role in dealing with juvenile criminals. Punishment must be a matter for the police, the probation service and the courts.

Does the Minister agree with the Audit Commission's core findings that our youth justice system is inefficient, not working properly and in urgent need of reform? If he is aware of the initiatives that West and South Yorkshire police have taken with regard to young people and crime, will he ensure that such preventive measures are co-ordinated, expanded and resourced, as the Audit Commission recommends? Or are the commission's recommendations too close to Labour party policy for him to accept good advice when he gets it, as would seem to be the case?

I am not surprised that the Labour party grasped at the suggestion that social workers, rather than the courts, be put in charge of justice. I can accept a large number of the Audit Commission's analyses of the problem. What was rather disappointing, naive and unconvincing was its solution, which was to hive people away from the courts and do more cautioning. We are keen on cautioning for first-time offenders because that has about an 80 per cent. success rate. It is naive, however, to believe that a large pool of first-time offenders are wrongly going to court and could be hived off and cautioned instead. That is nonsense and, because the Audit Commission got that wrong, it rather undermines its credibility in the matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a serious aspect of youth crime is that many of the crimes committed by repeat offenders take place while they are waiting for their cases to go to court? More of those young people should be remanded in secure places, where they could perhaps start treatment for crack and other addictions, rather than waiting for months and repeating their crimes while in the care of local authorities.

My hon. Friend is right, but the Opposition voted against our proposals to lock up habitual young offenders when they voted against our proposals for secure training centres. It is not merely that the Opposition vote against measures that would mean people being locked up; they even vote against community punishments. When we increased community sentences to 240 hours, the Opposition voted to cut them to 120. When we introduced curfew orders for the first time, they opposed that. The Opposition are pretending that they are worried about youth crime, but they have voted and argued against all that we have been trying to do to crack down on young offenders.

Why does the Minister not accept that, of all his and the Government's many failures on law and order, nowhere have they failed more than on youth crime? Is it not astonishing that, in the past 10 years, while the number of crimes committed by youngsters has shot up, the number dealt with by the police and courts has dropped alarmingly, delays have worsened, costs increased and the number of secure accommodation places decreased? Instead of all this bluster, why does the Minister not accept that the Audit Commission report confirms the urgent need for Labour's pledge to halve the time that it takes to bring persistent young offenders to court—the Minister laughs at that pledge and the country can see him laughing, complicit in the delays, which have got worse in the past 10 years—and for our proposals to ensure that prompt and effective action is taken to punish, divert and deter young offenders? Or is the Minister going to continue to do nothing, so that too many youngsters stay out of control, blighting their lives and causing misery for thousands of members of the public?

That was a good example of bluster if I ever heard one in this House. The reason why I was laughing and am still chuckling is that we have heard that that much-touted Labour pledge will halve the time that it takes to get kids to court, but the Opposition have not spelt out a single detail of how they will do it. They have not spelt out how they will make the defence move more quickly or how they will expedite the files. They have not spelt out a single detail on those matters.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals who took a gun to a crime have been given a life sentence since 1989. [6153]

Some 123 persons were given a life sentence for homicide offences initially recorded in the years 1989–95, in which the method of killing was shooting. Information for other offences is not available separately.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that taking a gun to a crime is a very serious matter, and that, therefore, every effort must be made to crack down on that type of crime? Does he agree that the tough measures included in his Crime (Sentences) Bill will help stamp out second offences?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his support. Automatic life sentences for those who commit a second serious violent offence will bring home to people the importance of not committing such offences. More importantly, they will protect the public by ensuring that no one who does commit such an offence is released unless and until an assessment has been made of whether they still pose a risk to the public. If they do not pose a risk, they will be released, but if they still pose a risk, they will not be released—even if that means that they will spend the rest of their lives in prison.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals who have used a gun to threaten with intent have received a life sentence in each of the past six years. [6154]

It is an offence under the firearms Acts, subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, to be in possession of a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. In the six years from 1990–95, 717 people were convicted of that offence in England and Wales, and 420 of them were imprisoned, with an average sentence of 36 months. None was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my thanks for that answer, which explains the need for his Crime (Sentences) Bill? His Bill will ensure that persistent and dangerous offenders are properly punished, and that the law-abiding majority are properly protected. Should not his Bill be welcomed by all those who claim to be tough on crime?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with him. We still await the details of the Labour party's response to those proposals in the crime Bill, although we know that it will oppose many aspects of my proposals. We shall leave no stone unturned as we remind the public of the proposals that we intend to put in place, which are being constantly blocked by the Labour party.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for limiting the role of the European Court of Human Rights in overruling decisions of the British courts and the Westminster Parliament. [6155]

The Government have made proposals to improve the working of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights. Those proposals are designed to improve court procedures to provide a high standard among judges appointed to the court, and to ensure that proper weight is given—through the doctrine of the margin of appreciation—to the national character, traditions, religious beliefs and moral values of the countries that are signatories to the convention.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the British people are getting fed up with being told what to do by that interfering foreign court, which does not appear to know or care about British culture and tradition? Will he reconsider the Government's refusal to incorporate the European convention on human rights into British law, and cheer the British people by extending the power of British courts over British business, rather than extending that of the European Court?

My hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised to hear that I have considerable sympathy with the first part of his question. I believe that the best way forward is to reform the court in the way in which we are seeking to do, rather than incorporate the convention into our domestic law, which would require our courts to make political judgments about a wide range of matters that are at present determined by our elected and democratically accountable Parliament. Such judgments are the proper function of Parliament, not the courts.

The Home Secretary said just now that he had sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who described the European Court of Human Rights as an "interfering foreign court". Is that really the Government's view?

If the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the immense frustration that that court's recent decisions have given rise to up and down the country, he is severely misjudging the mood of the people.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing whatever to do with the European Union or the European Court of Justice? Will he also confirm that if we were—unwisely—to incorporate the convention on human rights into British law, it would greatly inhibit the freedom of the press? Does he not think that if we were to introduce any laws on, for example, the invasion of privacy, they should be dealt with by the House and not introduced by some other method?

As I said in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), I certainly agree that such matters should be decided in this democratically accountable House and the other place, and not in the European Court of Human Rights. I can certainly confirm that the answer to the first question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is that, indeed, the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union.

If the Home Secretary thinks that the European Court of Human Rights is an interfering foreign court, why are British judges still sent to take part in it? Does he realise that, if the court is made less effective, he will be denying human rights not only to British citizens but to citizens of all signatory countries in the Council of Europe, who are currently protected by it? Does he recognise that incorporation would assist in ensuring that the judgments based on the European convention fitted this country's traditions and character?

I do not think that the reforms advocated by the Government would in any way make the court less effective. If anything, they might make it more effective—but within proper parameters. A number of recent decisions of that court—not least the one it reached on the killing in Gibraltar—have caused widespread offence in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman and his party do not recognise that fact, they too are guilty of a severe misjudgment of the mood of the people.

Should we not bear it in mind that the European convention on human rights was set up at a time when individuals in eastern Europe were being shipped off to the gulags under their communist Governments? Should we not also bear it in mind that the convention was set up due to fears that countries such as France and Italy would fall under communist rule and that therefore a means of safeguarding individuals was necessary? Given the collapse of communism and that threat to human rights, is not the convention and its court superfluous and should it not be scrapped?

My hon. Friend is right about the background of circumstances against which the convention and the court were set up. Those who set the court up would be pretty astonished at some of the judgments that it has made in recent years. I do not, however, entirely follow my hon. Friend along the road to the conclusion that he has identified because I think that it is possible for us to reform the court. We have put on the table specific proposals to achieve that objective, which I very much hope will be accepted.

I welcome the conversion of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) to the policy view that the European convention on human rights should be incorporated into British law. He, like the Labour party, understands that the main problem is not that European courts are overruling British courts but that British citizens have inadequate access to any court to establish human rights.

Order. I have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman.

Here comes a question.

Now.

Now. In the week before United Nations Human Rights Day next Tuesday, should not patriotic parties support Labour's policy that human rights should come home?

That would lead to the disadvantages that I identified in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, who, long before the Labour party, came to the opinion that the convention should be incorporated. The assertions in the lengthy introduction to the hon. Gentleman's question about the access of citizens of this country to our courts were preposterous. Our courts afford full protection for human rights.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that convicted prisoners serve their full sentence. [6156]

I believe that there should be greater honesty in sentencing. Accordingly, the Crime (Sentences) Bill contains provisions that will ensure that the sentence actually served matches more closely the sentence imposed by the court.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those excellent proposals, which will ensure that those who commit crimes serve a full sentence? Do not those proposals prove that the Government have responded to widespread public concern on the issue, in contrast to Labour Members, who talk tough in soundbites, but for ever abstain on or vote against measures that will put criminals behind bars?

My hon. Friend is right. The core elements of the Bill will bring in mandatory minimum sentences for persistent burglars and for those who deal in the worst drugs, which are killing and destroying our children, and life sentences for hardened killers and rapists. The Labour party decided to abstain. It is scared to vote for the proposals, but it dare not vote against them. Labour Members sit there, not having an opinion.

Is it not important that prisoners should be convicted in the first place? Is the Minister aware that my constituent, Raghbir Singh, was held in prison for 20 months without a charge being made against him? He was released on Monday afternoon, after I had repeatedly raised the matter, only because of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights—an institution that Tory Members have today criticised. If it were not for that decision last Friday, my constituent would, quite possibly, have remained in prison for months or years to come without charge.

I do not accept that the detention of those regarded as a threat to our national security should be determined by a foreign court.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to have honesty in sentencing, we must reform the present arrangements on how time served on remand is taken into account when calculating a prisoner's sentence? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent decision on concurrent sentences defies logic? Will he confirm that the Crime (Sentences) Bill will be used to put that right?

It is a source of concern that a course of action that has been confirmed by four court judgments since 1967 should be overturned by another court judgment. However, I confirm that the relevant measures in the Crime (Sentences) Bill have been passed in Committee, so we shall now have suitable powers to make the amending regulations.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the percentage of crimes which ended in a conviction in (a) 1993 and (b) 1995. [6157]

About 6 per cent., but the percentage for more serious offences was very much higher. Many of those convicted will have been responsible for other crimes.

According to the British crime survey, the number of offences went up by 400,000 and the number of convictions went down by 13,000. Does it not take a special kind of incompetence to reduce convictions at a time of soaring crime?

No, but it takes a certain kind of hypocrisy for a party to complain about those things and then vote against all the measures that we have put forward to deal with them.

How many of the crimes involved the use of legally owned handguns?

Offhand, I cannot give my hon. Friend that figure, but I shall happily do so and, if necessary, lay the answer before the House. I speculate that the figure is very small indeed.

Can we now have some honesty on crime figures from the Minister? Last month, the Home Secretary said that 6 per cent. of crimes ended up in punishment by a court. That would be bad enough; but, since then, the Government have had to admit to the House that only 2 per cent. of crimes ended in a conviction in 1993, and suddenly it is too expensive to work out the figures for last year. Will the Minister now accept the truth? The Government's British crime survey shows that crime is up, although fewer crimes are reported. The right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary replies show that convictions are down. No longer does one in 50 crimes end in punishment; now—as confirmed to me by the House of Commons Library analysis today—only one in 54 crimes ends in punishment by a court. Will the Minister face up to his responsibility for that harsh reality?

More bluster to hide the voting record. The conviction rate depends on two crucial things. The first is the rules of law under which the courts have to operate; every time we have tried to change the balance more in favour of the victim, such as by removing the right to silence, the Opposition vote against it.

Will my right hon. Friend refuse to listen to the siren voices of Opposition Members and the judiciary who, between them, have let down the people of this country by ensuring that criminals who commit major crimes that threaten people's everyday lives do not spend sufficient time in prison and are not, in the public's eyes, punished? Although rehabilitation is important, the public know that rapists cannot rape, muggers cannot mug and robbers cannot rob when they are in gaol.

My hon. Friend is right. Siren voices can be rather attractive, but the Opposition's voices are not siren but rather shifty. They are shifty, because they are saying one thing now but do another when they go through the Lobbies. The Labour party voted against the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, reforming the right of silence, imposing longer community sentences and imposing curfew orders. With that criminal record to its name, the Labour party has no credibility today in claiming that it is tough on crime or tough on the causes of crime.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the adequacy of the policing of football matches. [6158]

Policing of football matches is an operational matter for chief officers, but I am satisfied that it is done professionally and efficiently—the whole world saw the evidence of that during Euro 96.

I hope that, this evening, the Minister will have a chance to watch the drama on Carlton Television about the Hillsborough disaster, because many football supporters are angry about what they see as the failure of policing at Hillsborough and the lies and cover-ups that followed. The Minister should be prepared to talk with the football clubs and the police to allow the clubs to have more of an input into the policing decisions in grounds. The police rely far too often on historical background for policing levels rather than on new technology, the new seating and the new arrangements in clubs. Will not the Minister allow the clubs to have greater involvement, because sometimes policing charges for football clubs are more than the gate receipts?

It is for the football clubs to discuss with the chief officers in their areas the nature and extent of policing both inside and outside the grounds. I am satisfied that there have been considerable developments since the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. Great progress has been made, and one has only to go to an excellent match—as I did on Sunday, when an excellent team beat the hon. Member's team 2-0—to see that the standards in grounds are now enormously high.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of electronic tagging. [6159]

More than 230 offenders have now been sentenced and tagged under curfew orders. The trials show that the curfews are increasingly valued by the courts as a flexible and effective punishment.

I thank the Minister for his reply. As the shambles opposite have got the number 22 on their minds, will my hon. Friend tell me whether on no fewer than 22 occasions they voted against every piece of legislation that we tried to introduce to put criminals inside, where they belong? Can he tell me whether tagging works in Barbados or on safari, because that is where that lot send the pint-sized Rambos to get their corrective training? Does tagging work in Barbados? That is what I want to know.

My hon. Friend can be assured that electronic tagging is a tough punishment, and goes down extremely badly with criminals, which is why the courts are imposing it for the upper end of the offences for which it is intended. I suspect that we shall hear many voices among the Opposition moaning that it is bad luck on the criminal.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of unemployment in the EU. [6178]

Yes, I expect to do so as part of the discussion on the intergovernmental conference.

As unemployment in the rest of the European Union has risen by 5 million in five years, which means 3,000 individual human tragedies every day, and as Britain alone has falling unemployment, partly because of our exclusion from the exchange rate mechanism, does the Prime Minister appreciate why a growing percentage of people in Britain consider the European Union a rather inadequate organisation? In the light of those alarming figures, is he willing to consider the possibility of letting the people of Britain have a say in their future? Can he at least guarantee that, in any referendum on the European currency, the decision will be taken before sterling is linked in any way to the euro?

As my hon. Friend says, unemployment is falling consistently across the United Kingdom, and is either rising or static in the rest of the European Union.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6179]

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 Prime Minister seriously pressing ahead with Budget measures that would deprive between 7,000 and 10,000 ex-service people of their entitlement to war pensions, and cost thousands more their entitlement to benefit paid for deafness resulting from war service? It is only a few weeks since we saw disabled war pensioners determined to march, limp or be pushed in wheelchairs past the Cenotaph. Surely the Prime Minister has not forgotten them now.

Of course not. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has been misled by reports in The Guardian and by the conflation of two separate and distinct matters. The first involves proposals to simplify about 19 complex measures. No pensioner will lose money as a result of that. The second concerns new independent medical advice on pensions paid for loss of hearing. The purpose of that independent advice is to determine what disabilities have been caused, so that people can be compensated accordingly. Those changes were—[Interruption.] That independent medical advice is the normal way of dealing with these matters. It has invariably been accepted. It usually puts up entitlements—that has always been the case in the past. I know of no circumstance when it has not been accepted. It was discussed this morning with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, which will now consider the details.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great rejoicing today in the knowledge that A-level standards will be retained and strengthened? Does he agree that that is one of many reforms introduced by the Government for the benefit of British education?

My right hon. Friend speaks for many people, including many millions of parents. Standards are at the heart of the Government's policies on education and will remain so. Our national qualifications must remain at the highest standard, and A-levels are central to that.

May I return the Prime Minister to the subject of war pensions? Future pensioners will lose as a result of the changes. Those changes to war pensions were described in the Government press release on Budget day as proposals

"to simplify policy and procedures",

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is just plain wrong. If the House will permit me to repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I shall take the Labour leader through it gently, so that he understands. Two issues have been run together in a simplistic and misleading way by The Guardian. If the right hon. Gentleman relies on The Guardian for his information, that explains why he is so often inaccurate in his questions.

Let me deal with each part in turn, so that the Prime Minister can answer each part. The first involves hearing disability. The Prime Minister says that the changes were made on independent medical advice. If the reason for the changes was independent medical advice, why were all his Social Security Ministers opposed to them, which they were, and why did not the Budget press release mention the fact that the changes reduced expenditure by £35 million?

As I told the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago, he has completely misunderstood what has happened. He has not seen the full range of correspondence, and as usual—despite his piety about a leak a week or so ago—he relies on leaked correspondence. If he had seen the correspondence, he would not have misunderstood the matter in the way he just has.

If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the specific points that were put to him, he will stand condemned out of his own mouth. I must ask him why—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"]. This is a question—"why" is normally the start of a question. Why, if it is all just administrative procedures, does one Minister talk about a storm that is about to break about the Government's head?

indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister shakes his head. A Minister said that. Why do the Government talk of "sweeteners"? They talk of these things because they know that they have been caught doing something shabby and mean-minded. If he cannot be trusted with British war pensioners, why should he be trusted at all?

As is typical, the right hon. Gentleman has quoted out of context and wrongly, and he has drawn the wrong conclusion from what he has said. One day, he might find out what he is talking about before he starts to talk about it.

My right hon. Friend knows that, when he vetoes the Commission's new proposals on borders—as Conservative Members know he will—the European Parliament has said that it will renew its action in the European Court. My right hon. Friend's own advisers say that the court will rule our borders unlawful, as the treaty now stands. Will he therefore explain to the House the contradiction, in that he says that our borders are not negotiable but his Ministers say that we will not break European law?

We have made it clear to our European partners on innumerable occasions that we will not accept any form of treaty change that alters the sanctity of British borders. Treaty change will need to be by unanimity, and we will not give our consent to it. There should be no doubt among any of our European partners that we are not prepared to accept any change whatsoever to the present system of safeguarding Britain's borders and, hence, our immigration controls.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6180]

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that his absent Chancellor of the Exchequer has been briefing journalists on the Prime Minister's failed attempt to change Government policy on Europe? Does he agree with the Chancellor, who has described the Prime Minister's failed attempt as a boomerang wrapped in high explosive which has blown up in the Prime Minister's face?

The hon. Gentleman may know that I have a statement in my hand that denies the report to which he refers.

Following the excellent Budget speech by the Chancellor last week, my right hon. Friend will have heard stupid statements from the Labour party about a lower basic rate of tax than 20p and lifting the ceiling for the 40 per cent. tax rate. Will not these unfounded pledges or promises—call them what you will—only give rise to higher taxation—

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister answers questions, not about the Opposition but on behalf of the Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister might turn the question around and attempt to answer it.

It is certainly—[Interruption.] It is nice to welcome back the deputy leader of the Labour party. I thought that he was in Scotland answering focus groups.

Out of order.

Order. The Prime Minister.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6181]

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

Can the Prime Minister tell us where he has hidden those economic jewels that he referred to in a speech last week? I went to the Treasury chest to find them and I found a big IOU that said that the country owed a £380 billion national debt which had doubled since the Prime Minister took office. There was another IOU showing a £19.5 billion public sector borrowing requirement shortfall.

I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury basement the other day, he did not leave a match behind him.