To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of under-registration on the electoral registers which will be used in the next general election; and if he will make a statement. [10547]

Figures for the number of electors on the registers coming into force on 16 February are not yet available. In 1996, there were 42.8 million names on the electoral register in Great Britain, compared with an estimated resident population of eligible age of 45 million.

Will the new registers operating from 16 February, which will be used in the next general election, be in a better state than previous registers which had millions of people missing from them? I have raised this matter many times before in the House. Can details comparing the registered and eligible populations in each constituency be published as soon as possible so that we can see what state the registers are in? Will every effort be made to put people on supplementary lists so that, even under the current inadequate system, as many people as possible are on electoral registers before the general election?

We continue to spend substantial sums trying to encourage people to register through advertising and in other ways. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, even after the obvious discrimination was removed from our electoral system, we retained an element of permanency of residence as a condition. That means that those who cannot claim to have been resident in a constituency on a particular date in the preceding October will not be registered there. It does not mean that we are not making the greatest effort to ensure the highest possible level of registration.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, by law, an electoral registration officer may not have his or her register up to date but that it must be at least five months out of date? Can serious consideration be given—perhaps not for the forthcoming general election, but for the one after that—to introducing a system of rolling registration so that people can be registered to vote at the place where they are resident?

A rolling register would be expensive, bureaucratic and unlikely to achieve a higher overall level of registration. The current system of a register which requires people to prove residence in October has served us well.

Does the Minister accept that if democracy is worth having it must be paid for? Is it not embarrassing to our democracy that some 3 million adults will be disfranchised in the election that will take place in a few weeks' time? Should that not be a matter of concern to the whole House? Should not the Government now consider establishing an all-party Committee of the House to see how best we can tackle the problem and enfranchise all our country's citizens?

Obviously ideas can be put forward, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that we cannot force people to register if they cannot be bothered or simply do not wish to register. What we can do, however, is try to encourage all those who are prepared to take an interest to take the trouble to ensure that they are on the register.

My hon. Friend referred to a degree of permanency of residence. In considering that aspect, will he bear in mind the question of constituencies with universities? Students are there for a very ephemeral time and yet they can affect the whole outcome. They need make no effort to get on the register; they are simply put on it by the university authorities. Could they not register in their home towns rather than in those where they are ephemeral students?

Students can register in any place where they can establish a degree of permanency of residence. If any misdemeanours are taking place involving people being registered but not at their own request, my hon. Friend's electoral registration officer should look into the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the proportion of the prison population who reoffend after being released. [10548]

The most recent available information indicates that 51 per cent. of all sentenced prisoners discharged in 1992 from Prison Service establishments in England and Wales were reconvicted for a standard list offence within two years.

Does not the fact that more than half of all prisoners reoffend within two years of release make a mockery of the Home Secretary's claim that prison works? Are not the reoffending rates similar after prison and after probation, whereas the cost per prisoner is £1,800 per month and the cost of probation is less than £200 a month? Are there not strong cost and rehabilitation grounds for putting fewer people in prison?

No, in either case. First, prison reconviction rates at present are better than reconviction rates for those being sentenced in the community. Secondly, it is not merely a question of cost. The hon. Gentleman should understand that prison works by protecting the general public from the activities of those who are kept within it.

Is it not astonishing that the reconviction rate for those sentenced in the community is higher by 4 per cent. than the reconviction rate for those sent to prison? Does my hon. Friend draw from that fact the conclusion either that the probation service is not so effective as it ought to be in rehabilitating offenders in the community, or that prison is more effective than many people think that it is in rehabilitating offenders inside prison?

I attribute the success of the Prison Service in rehabilitation to the tremendous strides that it has made in its programmes over the past few years. The number of prisoner hours in education has increased from 4.6 million in 1979 to 9.4 million in 1995–96.

You have doubled the number of prisoners.

There has been a rise of 21 per cent. in expenditure between 1993 and 1995. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) called out from a sedentary position that the number of prisoners has doubled. If he works it out, he will see that the rise in the number of hours has far outstripped the rise in the number of prisoners. The types of national vocational qualification offered have increased from 24 only three years ago to 48, and there has been a similar increase in offending behaviour courses. That is where the explanation lies.

Is it not important that those who commit the most serious crimes should be in prison in the first place? Is the Minister aware that many of us are deeply concerned that those responsible for the murder of Stephen Lawrence have not been brought to justice? Is it not important that every effort should continue to be made to put those who murdered that 17-year-old lad in the dock? We hope that speedy progress will be made by the police force.

Whereas I can extend my sympathy to the relatives concerned, I cannot comment on the case in the terms that the hon. Gentleman invites. Where serious crime has been committed, it is important that the perpetrators are brought to justice. If the hon. Gentleman feels that as strongly as I do, and if he believes that those who commit the most serious crimes should be in prison, why did the Labour party abstain on the Crime (Sentences) Bill last week?

As was stated in the lead-up to the Prisoners' Earnings Bill last year, Home Office research shows that prisoners released from prison after having proper work experience in prison had a reoffending rate that is 50 per cent. better. As the Home Office supported the Bill, will it go on monitoring the working of the legislation?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing that Bill. I can confirm that it assists prisoners if they have good work opportunities in prison. We shall, of course, monitor that and seek to increase those opportunities.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to allow cannabis to be prescribed by medically qualified doctors. [10549]

No.

What on earth is so dreadful about allowing medically qualified doctors to prescribe cannabis when it was quite lawful before 1971? Many people with disabling conditions, such as multiple sclerosis and arthritis, claim that cannabis gives them relief. Is it not curious that only two days ago the Minister said that dronabinol, which is an active derivative of cannabis, may be prescribed lawfully by hospital doctors? Some 24 years after cannabis was banned from use in hospitals, it has been discovered that dronabinol can combat nausea suffered by patients undergoing chemotherapy. Is there not a compelling case for allowing the doctors—and not the politicians—to decide?

If there are medicinal claims about cannabis or its derivatives, they must pass through the same mechanisms as other medicines. Unless clinical trials prove that they are safe and efficacious and that there is a consistent level of product quality, they will not be licensed as medicines.

The World Health Organisation made recommendations about dronabinol. A company must lodge a licence application for the product, which must then pass through clinical trials in order to get a licence in this country. In the event of medicinal claims about products, applications can be made to the relevant authorities at the Medicines Control Agency.

Does my hon. Friend recall the words of the late Home Office pathologist, the famous Professor Francis Camp, who said that soft drugs such as cannabis inevitably lead to hard drugs and that hard drugs lead to death—often within seven years? Is that not a warning to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), for the Liberal Democrats and for all who advocate the use of soft drugs?

Although there are some genuine cases, there is no doubt that many of those calling for the medicinal use of cannabis are using it as a stalking horse to promote the campaign for its legalisation. The Liberal Democrat party conference voted for the legalisation of cannabis, and I hope that the Liberal justice and home affairs spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), will withdraw from that decision. If there are medicinal uses for cannabis, they must be proved. In the absence of such evidence, we must not send a confused message to young people when we have told them that cannabis and all illegal drugs are dangerous and should be avoided.

Would not the better message be that all drugs are dangerous, that young people who smoke cigarettes are 22 times more likely to use hard and soft drugs than other groups, and that in 95 per cent. of cases hard drugs are used under the influence of alcohol? Does the Minister recall that, in answer to a letter from three hon. Members representing three political parties—including his own—the Medical Research Council said that it was an established fact that cannabis was uniquely valuable in treating multiple sclerosis, the side-effects of chemotherapy and several other diseases and that there was no replacement product? Why on earth are the Government sticking to their line in order to gain popularity with the voters and thereby denying the sick a unique medicine?

It is open to any producer to apply for a licence for a cannabis product. As to the hon. Gentleman's comments about other dangers, no one disagrees that pharmaceutical drugs and cigarettes are dangerous. However, he should not use them as a front for implicitly calling for the legalisation of drugs. I hope that Opposition Front Bench Members will distance themselves from his remarks.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of hon. Members. [10550]

The full complement of this House stands at present at 651 right hon. and hon. Members. That figure will rise to 659 from the next general election.

After the general election, there will be 34 more Members of Parliament than there were when I was first elected to the House almost 27 years ago. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the time has come at least to stabilise the number of Members of Parliament or, preferably, to start to reduce the number?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The steady increase in the number of constituencies in recent years is a consequence of the way in which the rules for the redistribution of seats have been interpreted. I do not think that that outcome was wholly foreseen when the rules were first agreed, which is why I have announced my intention to conduct a review of them.

As the question on the Order Paper is about "honourable" Members, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he has had brought to his attention the new statements of Mohamed Al Fayed on television, which many of our constituents throughout the country have seen, reflecting the gravest allegations—

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is making a very good point with which we may have some sympathy, but it really does not relate to the question on the Order Paper, which is an important question, and I shall call a couple of hon. Members from both sides of the House.

Does the Home Secretary agree that what is required for this honourable House is many more Labour Members on the Government Benches?

I thought that I was doing the House a service, but it does not appear that I am. However, I am sure that the Home Secretary will want to reply.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to whistle in the wind for quite some time. The truth of the matter is that the House provides a most effective way of representing the views of our constituents, as reflected by a majority on the Conservative Benches. I have every confidence that such a majority will continue after the election.

Would not the creation of a Parliament with tax-raising powers north of the border call into question the number of Scottish Members in the House? Is that not a particularly important issue to address?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not raise the West Lothian question, which he originated and which is central to this issue. The Labour party has still not begun to provide an answer to the question: why should Members be elected in Scotland to come to this place to decide matters of health, education and transport in England when English Members of Parliament will have no say whatever in deciding questions of health, education and transport in Scotland?

Does the Home Secretary not realise that the answer is simple and straightforward? He could reduce the number of seats in the House by 112 immediately by granting proper legislative Parliaments to both Scotland and Wales, which would be to everyone's benefit.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's view of what should happen is entirely shared by Opposition Members who argue the cause of devolution so strenuously. There may well be a logical consequence and a link between the two which the hon. Gentleman identifies, but it is a question and a link that the Labour party has consistently failed to recognise.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on current manning levels and prospects for recruitment during 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [10552]

I regularly discuss with the Commissioner staffing levels and prospects for recruitment in the Metropolitan police. He assures me that the proposed settlement for the Metropolitan police for 1997–98 would enable him to increase officer strength to 27,400 during 1997.

Despite the very welcome drop in crime of about 13 per cent. in the Metropolitan police area as a whole, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is concern in the outer London boroughs—particularly in south-west area No. 5, which includes my constituency—about proposed changes in manpower? Is he further aware that the need for effective policing means that there is a need to maintain those manpower levels? Will he therefore review the impact of the national funding formula arrangements on the Metropolitan police and provide an appropriate mechanism to ensure that the special needs of the Metropolitan police area are taken fully into account and that manpower continues to be maintained at a high level?

I have, indeed, undertaken to review the application of the national funding formula to the Metropolitan police and the arrangements that we have made for the funding of the Metropolitan police include a recognition of the special needs of the Metropolitan police force. Indeed, the funding that we propose for 1997–98 represents a 3.4 per cent. increase on the 1996–97 allocation—an increase of no less than £55 million.

Will the Home Secretary explain how he reconciles with his declared policy on the effectiveness of police officers a reduction of 755 Metropolitan police officers in the past four years and a reduction nationwide of about 1,000 police officers over the past four years? Those are Home Office figures.

The truth of the matter is that the September 1996 figures showed that there were more than 98,000 police constables in England and Wales, which is more than there have ever been before. The public are interested in seeing police officers on the street on patrol duty helping to create a safer Britain. That is exactly what is happening.

I very much welcome the fact that there are 5,000 extra police officers in the Metropolitan police area compared with 1979. When my right hon. and learned Friend quite properly reviews the national funding formula, will he take particular account of the impact on outer London?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. The internal allocation of funding and officers within the Metropolitan police area is an operational matter for the Commissioner, but I am sure that all relevant matters will be taken into account in the review.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of crimes notified to the police were cleared up in the latest year for which figures are available. [10553]

Clear-up rates vary considerably, depending on the type of crime. The overall clear-up rate for notifiable offences in 1995 was 26 per cent. For the most serious types of crime, clear-up rates were very high: 92 per cent. of all homicides, 77 per cent. of acts of violence against the person and 76 per cent. of sexual offences were cleared up.

Is the Minister aware that since the Conservatives came to power in 1979 the number of offences committed in North Yorkshire has trebled from 20,000 to 59,000 a year? According to the chief constable's reports during that period, the detection rate has fallen from 49 per cent. to 23 per cent., and North Yorkshire now has fewer police officers than it had in 1979 under the Labour Government. Is that not a crushing indictment of the Conservatives' failure to control crime and convict criminals? Is it not time that the Conservatives went?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman brings his facts up to date. According to the figures that we have received from North Yorkshire, the chief constable expects to recruit 20 extra officers this year as a result of the additional funding that we are giving him. If the hon. Gentleman and his party were concerned about crime in North Yorkshire in the 1980s, they did not show much sign of it. They voted against everything that chief constables in North Yorkshire and elsewhere wanted in order to tackle crime. With regard to the power of the Attorney-General to review lenient sentences, for instance, Labour Members voted against that measure then, and they did not even have the guts to vote for the Crime (Sentences) Bill last week.

You are lying, and you know it.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has used unparliamentary language, which is unacceptable. Will he withdraw what he has just said?

The Minister's comments were—[Interruption.]

Order. I will deal with this matter.

The Minister's comments were a total misrepresentation of the position in the 1980s, but if you require me to withdraw the word that I used, Madam Speaker, I do so.

I do require you to do so.

In seeking to cool the atmosphere, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend accepts that closed circuit television has made a major contribution not just to reducing crime, but to bringing people who have committed offences before the courts? Will he continue to give maximum financial and other support to the establishment of closed circuit television systems in town centres, and particularly in the centre of my town of Macclesfield, which has submitted an application that I hope will be warmly endorsed by his Department?

My hon. Friend is well known as one who pours oil on troubled waters whenever he can. He will know of the tremendous funding that we have given to the establishment of closed circuit television. We see CCTV as a means of preventing crime, of catching criminals and of helping to convict the guilty, which is why we put £5 million into it in the first year and £15 million last year. We are reviewing the bids for CCTV in the current round and we shall consider all representations carefully because we want to spend the £15 million as wisely as possible throughout the country. I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome for that initiative.

Can we cut through the Minister's rhetoric and deal with facts? Does the Minister not realise that the only people who are happy with the Government's record on crime are the criminals? As crime has doubled and prosecutions have dropped, the criminals are twice as likely to get away with it as they were under the last Labour Government, and three times as likely to get away with violent crimes. Is the Minister proud of his record?

That was rhetoric if ever we heard it. The hon. Gentleman talks about criminals being happy. I think that it was the head of the Superintendents Association, Chief Superintendent Brian Mackenzie, who said this week—following Labour's behaviour in the other place—that criminals would be clapping their hands with joy because Labour peers had voted for two contradictory amendments. [Interruption.] I have not given the House rhetoric; I have given the House facts. I have given the House the facts of the Labour party's voting record, which has been consistent in the 1980s and the 1990s. Last week, when we discussed the Crime (Sentences) Bill—which gives powers to lock up automatically, for life, the most serious violent and dangerous offenders, powers to lock up drug dealers for seven years and powers to lock up persistent burglars for three years—Labour Members abstained. They voted against such legislation in the 1980s and abstained in the 1990s. That is why they will be rejected in a few months' time.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future of Woodhill prison. [10554]

There are no plans to change the role of Woodhill as a local prison, or its capacity. It will also continue to take category A prisoners, and a programme of work is under way to provide improved physical and procedural security to meet the relevant recommendations of Sir John Woodcock and General Sir John Learmont.

Woodhill will continue to take a small number of disruptive prisoners, and they will be housed in a new close supervision unit. In addition, the same building will include a small unit for holding female prisoners who need to be kept in conditions of high security.

May I begin by saying what a pleasure it will be to address my hon. Friend as my right hon. Friend? I offer my congratulations on behalf of Conservative Members.

My hon. Friend will be aware that there has been great concern in my constituency and elsewhere near Woodhill about constant reports that there is to be upgrading and that money is to be spent to permit Myra Hindley to be held there. May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that although we want Myra Hindley to be held for as long as possible, we do not want her to be held anywhere near Milton Keynes and we do not require luxury facilities to be built for that purpose?

I think that I can reassure my hon. Friend. No decision has been made about the location of any particular prisoner in connection with Woodhill. As for the stories of luxury, they are similar to the scaremongering stories that we often hear from the Labour party. In fact, there is only the most basic provision in Woodhill, in keeping with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's policy that prison should be decent but austere. There will be no in-cell television or radio, normal volumetric control will apply and furniture and equipment will be standard prison issue, including metal-frame beds. Association areas will have standard furnishings and equipment.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the overall levels of recorded crime for the last three years for which figures are available. [10555]

Recorded crime levels in the last 12 months to June 1996, the latest period for which figures are available, were 10 per cent. lower than three years before that. That is a fall of more than half a million offences—the biggest continuous fall over three years since records were first kept in 1857.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the figures that he has given compare favourably with those for any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Will he join me in congratulating the Vale of Glamorgan police, who have achieved a substantial reduction in the rate of recorded crime for the last two years? Will he also accept the plaudits of the people of the Vale of Glamorgan for the contribution made by the additional police whom he has provided? Tougher penalties for criminals have helped to produce that success.

In the last two years for which figures are available, the fall in recorded crime in England and Wales was the highest recorded in a survey of 18 OECD countries. Across the country, the police deserve congratulation on that success. I am delighted to be able to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police in the Vale of Glamorgan on their success.

The Home Secretary must know that the public are suffering from reporting fatigue. They are fed up of reporting burglaries and car break-ins. Real crime is still rising, and rising fast. Is not it time that he spoke to the great British public, who would tell him that time and again?

The odd thing is that when the crime figures were rising, Labour never criticised them. When we introduced the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, the Leader of the Opposition, no less, asked:

"If it does not cut crime, will he accept that it has failed?"—[Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 21.]

Since it has been on the statute book, recorded crime has consistently fallen. I hope that the Labour party will now accept that that Bill and our other measures have succeeded in helping to make Britain a safer place.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the best ways to reduce crime is to introduce closed circuit television'? In the borough of Oadby and Wigston, in my constituency, the predominantly Liberal Democrat council refuses to support an application by schools and the police in Leicestershire for its introduction. Following that application by the police and by Conservative-minded and anti-crime people, £95 million of Government money is to be spent introducing it, to the benefit of the population.

I am not at all surprised by what my hon. and learned Friend said. The attitude of that Liberal Democrat-controlled council is typical of Liberal Democrats across the country. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) likes to pontificate, but the actions of Liberal Democrats in control of local government show that they do not care in the slightest about taking effective action to deal with crime.

Does the Home Secretary recognise that he is no more convincing when he talks about crime figures than he was when he used to talk about unemployment figures? Why does he not own up not to figures for the past 12 months but to those for the past 18 years, during which crime has doubled? The Conservatives have achieved the worst record of any Government since the war. Internationally, they have the worst record of any industrialised country. On serious crime alone, their record since 1979 is 10 times worse than that of the United States. That is a record of abject failure.

Unlike the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the hon. Gentleman seems to set great store by the figures. I hope that he accepts what the figures show for the past three years. He is not in the best position to talk about sounding convincing. Earlier this week, he gave an interview to The Independent, which was reported by no less a person than Polly Toynbee who said, roughly, that she trusted the hon. Gentleman because she did not believe a word that he was saying.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives the Prison Service is taking to control prisoners' access to drugs. [10557]

Specific measures to control the supply of drugs into prisons include enhanced searching, increased use of closed circuit television and sniffer dogs. We are also assessing the results of a pilot scheme on the mandatory use of non-contact or closed visits. In addition, many establishments have taken the opportunity to develop local initiatives for controlling the supply of drugs.

I had hoped that when people were sent to prison, there would be an opportunity to reduce the amount of drugs that they took. I welcome the mandatory drug-testing regime, but its results show that in Cardiff 74 per cent. of tests were positive and in Featherstone and Dorchester the figure was more than 50 per cent. Has any disciplinary action been taken against the warders and governors of prisons that show high levels of positive results from mandatory testing? They appear to be turning a blind eye to the problem, because almost all the drugs must come from visitors, whom they could control.

It is certainly not the case that a blind eye is being turned to drugs in prisons—many initiatives and ring-fenced funding have demonstrated our commitment to combating the problem. A prisoner who was found to have taken drugs could be subject to disciplinary action, resulting in the loss of up to 42 days' remission; a prison officer who was found have brought in drugs would be subject to dismissal; and a visitor who was found to have brought in drugs would be subject to prosecution. We have a firm programme, which is working.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on being made a Privy Councillor. Will she acknowledge that, over the past few months, Ministers have repeatedly given me inaccurate information on the scale and types of drugs being detected in the prison system? Does she accept that as soon as accurate information is available, it should be published so that we can make a proper assessment of what is happening in prisons and informed decisions on how to combat the growing menace of drug abuse in our prison system?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. As I met him this week specifically to discuss the issue, he will be aware that there are some doubts and questions—which are perhaps not particularly large or with a particularly vast effect—on the integrity of retests, which are given after test results have been challenged, and on the impact of that matter on the overall figures. He will be aware—as I have given him an undertaking—that the matter is being examined urgently, that the figures are being refined and that any past statements we have made that may have been based on old and questionable figures will be corrected.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the finding of the British crime survey regarding the proportion of adults who were victims of violent crime once or more during 1995. [10559]

The 1996 British crime survey found that overall 5.2 per cent. of adults were victims of violent crime one or more times during 1995. That percentage includes woundings, robberies and domestic violence.

Are not those figures a shocking indictment of the Tories' record on crime prevention? They claim to belong to the party of law and order, but, during a 12-month period, one in 14 adults were mugged at least once, and very few of the offenders were caught. Does the Minister accept that a Government who are incapable of protecting citizens should go?

The hon. Gentleman has not been paying attention to the substantial falls in crime over the past three years. We do not merely claim to be the party of law and order—we are the party of law and order, because we vote for law and order measures. If the hon. Gentlemen and the Labour party want to inherit that mantle, they had better start voting for such measures, rather than voting against them or abstaining.

Are not the reductions in crime, which are very welcome, a direct result of the measures taken by the Government to ensure that legal obstacles are swept aside, so that guilty people can be convicted? Are not criminals the only group who would welcome the election of a Labour Government, as they would know that a Labour Government would not lift a finger to remove other legal obstacles to imprisoning more criminals?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As Chief Superintendent Brian Mackenzie said this week, criminals will not have been lifting their fingers but clapping with joy at the decision taken by Labour peers in another place. Over the past three years, under a Conservative Government, crime has decreased considerably, which is testimony to the record number of police constables that we now have.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of how many more police officers will be on the beat in 1997 than (a) 1979 and (b) 1992. [10560]

On the basis of chief constables' estimates, by March 1997 there could be over 16,000 more police constables in England and Wales than there were in May 1979, and about 3,000 more than in March 1992.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Do not those figures demonstrate that the Conservative party has consistently supported a policy of getting more police officers back on the beat? Will he confirm that the Government intend to provide ever more funding for ever more police officers on the beat? Is it not true that, on law and order, the British people can trust only the Conservative party—unlike the Labour party, whose Front-Bench spokesman was this week so strongly supported by a fellow 1960s liberal?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not need to look at forecasts to see the record of the Labour party in power on police numbers. In 1979, the police force was 8,000 under establishment; now, we have 16,000 more constables, paid for and provided by the British taxpayer under a Conservative Government. We shall continue with our pledge to have 5,000 more police officers—I notice that the shadow Home Secretary has not acknowledged or promised to commit himself to that pledge.

Will the Minister remind the House how many police forces in England and Wales will have fewer officers on the beat in 1997 than in 1992? If he needs any help in answering that question, I can tell him that one of those police forces will be Cumbria constabulary, which covers his constituency and mine.

The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong on that, too. I have given the House the figures, which show that we have record numbers of constables, and they are constables for operational duty. Cumbria, too, has benefited from the increased funding provided for the 5,000 more officers promised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. A party that left the police force 8,000 under strength is in no moral position to quibble about the present record police numbers.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January. [10577]

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.

Does the Prime Minister realise that for £200 million we could re-equip every primary school in the United Kingdom with books and new computers to the tune of £10,000 per school? Would not that be a more meaningful project for the millennium generation than building a giant dome in Greenwich with a lifespan of 10 years? How does he think people in Birmingham, Swansea or Glasgow feel about the concentration of funds on Heseltine's folly on the Thames?

Many different projects will come out of the millennium fund—all of them worthy—including that to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not a question of having only a single project for the millennium. As a result of the lottery, which we established, about £1.8 billion will be available for the millennium. It will be spent in a variety of ways, and I think that, in one way or another, it will benefit almost every part of the country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since the last general election, unemployment figures have fallen dramatically and without resort to a windfall tax? If anyone was minded to impose one, should not we be told which companies would be subject to it, on what basis they would be subject to it, how much it would cost them and what revenue would result?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the desirability of knowing precisely what the windfall tax might amount to and who would pay for it. There seems to be some confusion about who would pay for it. I gather that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition's office said that British Airways did not fit inside the terms of the windfall tax but that the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary said that, as far as she was aware, no one had ruled out the fact that British Airways would have to pay a windfall tax. Remarkably, having contradicted the leader's office, she went on to add that she did not think there was any confusion about that policy.

The Prime Minister seems very keen to ask me questions and have me answer them. I suggest that if he is really keen on that, he goes ahead and calls the general election. However, let us do things in a more conventional way to begin with.

After this morning's Cabinet meeting, will the Prime Minister confirm unequivocally what he said unequivocally in December: that he will not rule out the option of joining a single currency in the next Parliament, even in the first wave, and that that will remain his party's position at the next general election?

I can certainly confirm that point and I will explain to the right hon. Gentleman what the Cabinet did and decided this morning. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has conducted a review of the criteria for a single currency and that was looked at in depth in Cabinet this morning. We have concluded, on the basis of that detailed examination of the criteria and on the basis of the information currently available, that it is very unlikely, although not impossible, that a single currency will be able to proceed safely on 1 January 1999. I am talking not just about Britain's participation, but about the single currency itself. If it did proceed without reliable convergence, we would not, of course, be part of it.

Let us just—[Interruption.]

Order.

Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister means there. Is he saying that it is unlikely—

What is your policy?

Order. This is not a time when the Opposition answer questions; it is a time when the Opposition ask questions.

Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister is saying, particularly in light of the interview that the Chancellor has just given on television. Is the Prime Minister saying that it is unlikely that the whole system will go ahead on 1 January 1999? Is it clear that if the system does go ahead on 1 January 1999, he retains the option to join?

If the right hon. Gentleman reads what I have said, he will find that I answered that question quite explicitly just a few moments ago. I said that on the information currently available, it was very unlikely that the single currency would proceed safely on 1 January 1999 and that if it did proceed without reliable convergence, we would not be part of it.

The Prime Minister is not answering the question of whether he agrees with the Chancellor that if the single currency does proceed on the right criteria, he retains the option to join. Let him answer that question specifically and then let him answer this question, too. If that is the position of the Conservative party, is it the position of the whole Conservative party? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] "Yes", they all chorus. Will he then tell us whether he will prevent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bye bye."] I know quite well why Conservative Members want this question to be shouted down. Will the Prime Minister undertake to say that if that is the position of the whole Conservative party, he will prevent any group of Conservative party candidates from standing on the manifesto of ruling out the option altogether?

If the right hon. Gentleman had had a mirror in front of him so that he could see the faces behind him, he might just have settled on my first two answers, both of which I am happy to reiterate to him.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if any politicians try to persuade voters that living standards and pay packets are safe in their hands by making a few pledges about income tax rates, and if those politicians do not simultaneously and unequivocally rule out any tampering with the ceiling on national insurance contributions, they are guilty of a gross and serious fraud on the British people that only he and a continuing Conservative Government can prevent?

It was an extraordinary speech by the shadow Chancellor the other day, and one I greatly enjoyed reading and will greatly enjoy revisiting time and again between now and the election. The reality is that it is not a case of whether a Labour Government would increase taxes; it is simply a question of where a Labour Government would increase taxes. Would it be by increasing national insurance contributions, changing the rate of national insurance contributions, cutting tax allowances or raising inheritance tax? The scope is very wide.

What about the 22 tax rises?

Twenty-two tax rises says the Leader of the Opposition. Which of those would he repeal? Which of those would he reverse? What about the 25 tax reductions that he never mentions?

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January. [10578]

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that, in my constituency, one in five primary school children are taught in classes with more than 30 other children? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Lucky."] A Conservative Member says, "lucky." Does the Prime Minister agree with that? I presented the Class Size (Reduction) Bill, and Labour has made a firm election pledge on the matter. Why have his Government done nothing except preside over ever-rising class sizes? Why do his Government prefer silly status symbols to sensible class sizes?

I am not sure whether that counts as an expenditure commitment; it will be interesting to see in due course. The proportion of children in classes of more than 31 has fallen since 1979. Beyond that—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen might wait a moment. Beyond that, there is evidence that parents agree that class size is not the most important factor. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, let me tell him that the average class size for 11 to 16-year-olds in Islington is smaller than at the London Oratory.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is less expensive to keep good youngsters good, which is why any initiative to expand the cadet forces must be welcomed? Such an initiative would impose on left-wing authorities the cadet forces' right of access to school property and buildings.

I saw the speculative stories in the press this morning about cadet forces and must say that they were a touch overblown in the way in which they were printed. I strongly encourage participation in cadet forces. They provide young people with the opportunity to develop qualities of responsibility, self-reliance, resourcefulness and endurance.

Why did the right hon. Gentleman not join, then?

I did not join because I was playing cricket, which provides exactly the same qualities for people.

There are now more than 130,000 young people in the cadet organisation. I would certainly wish to encourage wider voluntary participation in the cadets. That of course requires more assistance from adult volunteers, but I hope that it will be possible to increase the scheme.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January. [10579]

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that one of his reasons for wanting school children to join the cadets is that they can learn the qualities of loyalty, self-discipline and leadership? Is it not therefore regrettable that the Defence Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister were never members of the cadets, as the first needs lessons in loyalty, the second in self-discipline and the third in leadership?

That was very well rehearsed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Author."] One scans the sides to my hon. Friends' cries of "Author". The hand behind the words can readily be discerned.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January. [10580]

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that businesses need certainty and stability when planning investment? Do not the conflicting statements about which companies would pay a windfall tax prove yet again that there is a gaping hole at the heart of Labour's spending plans that can only—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about the Government's policies. If he can do that, I will hear him, but if he cannot he must resume his seat.

Is the Prime Minister aware that any windfall tax would lead to higher gas, water and electricity bills for my constituents?

It is undisputed that if there were to be a new tax at an undisclosed rate on an undisclosed number of companies at an undisclosed time, it would have an impact not only on the price of the products those companies produce, but on the dividends that the shareholders legitimately expect from having invested in those companies. At the moment, there is complete uncertainty about any windfall tax proposals. Clearly, the proposals are coming apart at the seams. It is a case of give Labour spokesmen the facts and let them draw their own confusions.

Can the Prime Minister say why he is spending hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation for farmers in the BSE crisis and is preparing to spend more than £100 million in compensation under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, yet adamantly refuses to pay any compensation to those infected with hepatitis C by contaminated blood transfusions? Where is the justice in that? Will he take personal charge, show some compassion and, even now, ensure that legitimate compensation is paid?

Everyone has great sympathy for the people who suffer from hepatitis. The underlying point is essentially whether action was taken that could have been better done at the time that then created the problem faced by the sufferers from hepatitis. If one accepted that principle, it would be a wholly new principle for the national health service and not one that any Government have accepted in the past. The hon. Gentleman himself understands that.

I would have wished to move amendment No. 8. Is that not in order? May I have some guidance, please?

That amendment was not selected. The debate is on clause 40 stand part.

I am grateful for that information. I can make the points in this debate that I would have made on our amendment, had it been selected. I hope that that is in order.

The notes on clauses explain that clause 40 clarifies how members of VAT groups, who have a special status, are treated, and prevents potential tax avoidance. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget statement on 26 November 1996, he made several important points that relate directly to this clause and to a number of others. He said:

"Inland Revenue tax experts will be redeployed to investigate even more rigorously how some big, sophisticated companies seem to pay so little tax. They will make sure that companies are paying what they owe, and what we"—

the Government—

"intended they should owe…

There will be more resources in the Revenue and Customs to stem the growth of the shadow economy … There will be more Customs and Excise officers to tackle value added tax and other tax abuse, including … more to target the smuggling of alcohol…

The 'spend to save' package will cost £80 million over the next three years to secure … revenue and expenditure savings of well over eight times that amount—£6.7 billion."—[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 163.]

Given the Chancellor's explicit statements relating specifically to companies, I feel that we should seek further scrutiny of the arrangements to allow VAT groups of companies. I also seek an assurance that the Government have considered the possibilities for tax avoidance that may be created by the existence of such groups. Although we do not propose that the present arrangements should be disturbed at this stage, we think that an assessment should be made, as problems have occurred in the past.

In this and previous Finance Bills, the Government have expended considerable effort on trying to close VAT loopholes, some of which have been potential loopholes rather than giving rise to significant loss of revenue. At the same time, the Government have allowed VAT group treatment to continue virtually unchanged. In discussing the relationship during debates on previous Finance Bills, they have told us that this treatment of groups costs the taxpayer some £400 million, because VAT that would otherwise be chargeable has not been charged. Clause 40 addresses the position again.

It should be put on record that the amount of revenue that would be involved if the present arrangements were disturbed might not be £400 million for very long, because companies could reorganise themselves in order to realign their tax affairs. The withdrawal of VAT group treatment might well impose a greater administrative burden on both the taxpayer and Customs and Excise, and in that sense it would not be a sensible strategy. None the less, the arrangements should be scrutinised.

Clause 40 is designed to ensure that, when a VAT group includes a company that is entitled to zero rating or exemption as a result of some special status, that zero rating or exemption does not extend to the rest of the group. Special status companies include insurance companies, education institutions and charities. Customs describe the provisions as dealing with a potential problem. If he is in a position to disclose the information, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the potential problem and say how much revenue may have been at risk.

Overall, clause 40 appears to achieve its objective, and seems unlikely to cause significant problems. Several universities rely on their education exemption not extending to their trading subsidiaries. The debate revolves around the loss of VAT receipts. The Government have had problems for several years in forecasting likely income from VAT receipts. It would be helpful if the Government could show that the group companies arrangement does not continue to provide loopholes.

Many clauses contain anti-avoidance provisions, which are especially important given the Minister's declared objectives. The previous Minister responsible for VAT, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), wrote to me on the matter on 31 May 1996. I had sought an assurance on potential VAT anti-avoidance problems with the group relationships. He said:

"Customs give a high priority to anti-avoidance activities. A new Headquarters branch has been set up to co-ordinate anti-avoidance policy as a response to more aggressive tax planning and marketing of avoidance schemes. Additional resources have been deployed to enable the branch to monitor and evaluate new avoidance schemes and propose measures, including possible legislative changes, for countering them. The branch is supported by a national network of Tax Avoidance officers whose role is to identify and report avoidance schemes and to provide advice to local visiting staff."

So far, so good.

Specifically, the group relationship is being examined—big companies that make tax returns individually and, in particular, companies that are grouped for tax purposes. A shortfall of some £5.5 billion has been identified—no small amount—from three possible causes. The first is a shift in consumer spending; certainly the group relationship would give an opportunity to build on that. The second is an increase in tax avoidance, or, as it is politely called, tax planning. Thirdly, it could be straightforward non-compliance and evasion—the growth of the shadow economy.

As the Government have spent so much time and effort establishing the unit and explaining the problems of VAT collection, and given the considerable press speculation, we need more guidance from the Minister about why he does not intend to scrutinise the group arrangements more closely than is provided for in clause 40.

The issue of VAT receipts and companies' ability to minimise their obligations to pay VAT is building up considerable pressure, and not only because VAT is now set at 17.5 per cent. and is a significant revenue source. In his reply on clause 40, I should be grateful if the Minister would make a clear statement on VAT-grouped companies; on whether the Government will continue to monitor and investigate VAT relationships; on whether it may be necessary to revisit the issue of VAT groupings, on precisely which potential loophole clause 40 is intended to close, on how much revenue will be protected, and on whether alternative tax-planning strategies will be open to companies so that they can minimise payments to the Exchequer—which would only be bad for citizens.

Clause 40 is important because it provides the Committee with an opportunity to examine the issue of tax loopholes. The clause deals with

"Groups containing bodies of different descriptions"

and the way in which those groups are able to manipulate VAT payments. It also sets out the way in which loopholes or potential loopholes—perhaps in the insurance industry, or for educational institutions—could be closed. The sum involved—potentially £400 million—is not insignificant.

I was impressed by figures provided in the Red Book, on page 69, on the shortfall in VAT receipts. Halfway down the page, it states:

"VAT receipts in 1995–96 would have been £6 billion higher."

It also contains lengthy speculation—on which I should like the Minister to comment in his reply—on the various reasons why VAT receipts have been much lower than predicted.

The Red Book goes on to state:

"VAT receipts have picked up this year, and it looks likely that 1996–97 will see the first rise in the VAT/consumer spending ratio since the late 1980s".

I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm whether that is likely to happen.

Among the various reasons given by the Red Book for VAT receipts falling so far short of predictions, one is particularly applicable to clause 40. It states:

"better tax planning and increasing tax avoidance by companies"

is a significant factor. The clause potentially closes tax loopholes, but it leaves it open to companies to review the situation and to indulge in reorganisation. I suspect that tax planning consultants will give advice on that matter.

There is an interesting tension in that the Minister, his advisers and Customs and Excise are engaged in combat with a group of highly paid and well-organised professionals. I do not think that they would put it in those terms, but it is the reality. It is important that the Government have the people necessary to be on the winning team.

I was particularly interested in some comments that the Chancellor made in his Budget speech. He said that he recognised that there was a problem and that some measures needed reinforcing. He talked at some length about a range of "spend to save" initiatives, and said:

"As part of our continuing fight against tax and benefit fraud and tax loopholes, I am introducing a package of measures called "spend to save" … There will be more resources in the Revenue and Customs to stem the growth of the shadow economy … There will be more Customs and Excise officers to tackle value added tax and other tax abuse".—[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 162–3.]

The Chancellor said that his proposals would cost the public purse £800 million, but would bring in eight times that amount—£6.7 billion.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that clause 40 will close the £400 million loophole, but the "spend to save" package is extremely ambitious—spending £800 million over three years to bring in £6.7 billion over three years will take a great deal of doing. I support the commitment—it is right that we should go for it—but it is an ambitious target, which, if not met, will leave a hole in the finances which will have to be filled by a future Government.

How many Customs and Excise staff will be working specifically on the technical issues of VAT avoidance? I am conscious of the fact that I am an outsider, a non-professional, but I read the financial press and I see the advertisements from and publicity surrounding VAT consultants. I am anxious about the impression given and the rewards that appear to accrue to such consultants' clients.

In summary, I support clause 40. I am pleased that the Government are closing the loophole, or the potential loophole. I believe that companies will employ experts to try to find a way around the proposal. It is right that we attempt to tackle fraud and abuse, but the targets that the Government have set themselves are very ambitious. I hope that they can be achieved, and I am pleased that resources are to be put into Customs and Excise to tackle the problem.

There seems to have been a real change in the Government's approach. In the past, they appeared content to allow Customs and Excise staff to decline in number, but there is now a change of emphasis—perhaps a recognition that civil servants such as Customs and Excise staff are valuable in dealing with this highly technical problem. I hope that the Government succeed, but I remain slightly sceptical.