To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to improve the accessibility of polling stations to people with disabilities. [19782]

We issue advice and guidance to acting returning officers, who are most directly responsible for selecting polling places and polling stations, and provide grant aid towards the costs of purchasing temporary ramps and polling booths specially adapted to the needs of voters who are wheelchair users.

Does the Minister recall that a survey conducted at the time of the last general election revealed that 88 per cent. of polling stations had access problems? Does he accept that the vast majority of disabled people want to vote in person? Does he accept also that many of them will not be able to do so at this general election because simple improvements, such as ramps, better lighting or allowing people to vote at a more accessible location, have not been carried out because the Government failed to do what they could, and should, have done in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure that accessibility is not an option, but a legal requirement?

I am certainly aware of the Spastics Society report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We want to minimise the number of people who have to vote by proxy or by post because of disablement. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, since the last general election, we have paid out £175,000 in grants to local authorities to try to help improve access to polling stations. Many of the buildings concerned are primary schools and libraries at which access arrangements are improving all the time.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that this is another case where the generosity of the Treasury is unlimited, and that the grants available are uncapped? Is he aware that, in common with many colleagues on this side of the House, I wrote to my returning officer some weeks ago asking him to ensure that arrangements for the disabled were in place before the general election?

My hon. Friend is taking a risk in revealing the fact that the budget is uncapped. It is true that any requests for grants for those purposes are met, so long as they are eligible, and that any local authority may seek grant aid to improve access to polling stations.

We welcome that information. Do electoral returning officers act upon the guidance that they are given? We are all aware that polling day is a social occasion, and it is tragic if the disabled are prevented from voting when alternative accommodation may be available.

I assure the House that we have repeatedly reminded electoral returning officers that people have a right to vote, and that the number of those who are unable to vote in person must be kept to an absolute minimum. I assure the hon. Gentleman that improvements are proceeding apace.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent of drug taking in prisons. [19783]

Provisional figures show that of more than 32,000 prisoners tested between April and October 1996 under the random drug testing programme, between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. tested positive. The vast majority were for cannabis. Further research is in hand to provide a more detailed picture.

Knowing how assiduously and effectively my right hon. Friend the Minister of State performs her duties, I ask whether she has found time to visit any prisons in the past few months in order to assess for herself the effectiveness of the work undertaken to cut off the supply of drugs to prisoners. Does she agree that we certainly need to do more work to continue to stop drugs reaching prisoners so that prisons may be austere but reforming institutions, rather than the playhouses that Opposition Members would make them?

Yes, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I have now visited all the prisons in England and Wales. During those visits, I have on each and every occasion discussed the issue of drugs with prison governors. I am pleased to say that I have seen a number of good initiatives, including weekend mandatory drug testing, enhanced use of drug dogs and special initiatives in regard to monitoring visits. All those initiatives demonstrate the clear resolve of prison governors to get on top of the problem, which echoes the Government's own resolve. I fully concur with the sentiment of my hon. Friend—prisons under this Government are decent but austere; that is not what is proposed or has been the experience of prisons under Labour.

I congratulate the Minister on her assiduousness in visiting so many prisons—[HON. MEMBERS: "All of them."]—in visiting all prisons, but does she agree that the level of recidivism among prisoners who continue to be addicted to drugs when they leave prison remains a major factor in fuelling the link between criminality and the taking of drugs? Does she agree that it is a curse on generations of young people that so many people ply drugs on street corners in cities such as Liverpool? Is that not a powerful incentive for crime? Does she further agree that nothing should be done to encourage the taking of drugs—particularly calls for their decriminalisation?

I have good news for the hon. Gentleman on the subject of recidivism. He will be pleased to know that the rate of reconviction for those leaving our prisons is now lower than the rate for those serving sentences in the community. That is a tremendous tribute to what our prisons are achieving in rehabilitating the prison population. He is right to say that there is a clear link between drugs and crime and it is imperative that while people are in prison, we should get them off drugs. This is why our efforts are concentrated not only on the supply of drugs and on stopping them getting into prison, but on offering an extensive range of treatment, counselling, therapy and education.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement—and I remind her of the warmth of her welcome at Lewes prison some months ago—but will she remind and reassure the House that in all the prisons where drug testing takes place, sufficient treatment and counselling are in place so that those prisoners who want to come off drugs are given every encouragement to do so?

Drug testing now takes place in all our prisons, and has done since April 1996. My hon. Friend is right that it is essential to back up that testing by giving prisoners strategies and alternatives to using drugs and the ability to come off them.

Is the Minister aware that Home Office statistics reveal that the use of hard drugs in privatised prisons is 60 per cent. higher than in comparable prisons in the rest of the prison estate? Will she confirm that those private companies that operate private prisons have donated £2.6 million to Conservative party funds? Is it not the case that private prisons are soft on drugs and that this Government are soft on private prisons?

The hon. Gentleman is totally at odds with a number of independent reports, including that of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, who praised Doncaster prison as a model for the rest of the service. He is at odds with Lord Longford, who said on leaving Blakenhurst that but for the fact he does not much like private prisons, he would like every prison to be run like Blakenhurst. He is at odds with the findings on the Wolds, which is now regarded as a model for the service. He does not understand the achievements of private prisons and is about 10 years behind the times. He is driven by Labour ideology and would do well to look at the increase in rehabilitation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) draws circles in the air. He is describing Labour's policy, which is a circle that goes round and round. The Labour party does not know what direction it is going in and it speaks with two tongues on privatisation. No wonder the hon. Gentleman draws circles in the air—Labour's policy is one big circle.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must send a clear message to people who deal in drugs, whether they are in or out of prison: that we will have zero tolerance of drug dealing? Will she therefore guarantee that, when we are re-elected on 1 May, one of the first things that the Conservative Government will do is reverse the wrecking amendments that the Labour party tabled to the Crime (Sentences) Bill, so that people convicted for a third time of dealing in hard drugs will automatically get seven years in prison? Does not that demonstrate that the Labour party is soft on crime?

Yes. I give the House a categorical assurance that we will reverse those amendments when we are returned to power on 1 May. That will be one of the first things that we do, because we are committed to protecting the public; the Labour party is merely committed to making life easy for the criminal. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that we should exhibit zero tolerance of drug dealing. That is why we want seven-year minimum mandatory sentences for people who are convicted for a third time. The Opposition take the issue of drugs so seriously that they appear to regard it as a cause for mirth. I do not think that they will regard it as a cause for mirth when they who have never won an election in 23 years find that they will not win the next one either.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police strength in the Metropolitan police in (a) 1996 and (b) 1992. [19784]

I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will permit me to say how pleased I am sure the whole House is to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) in his place on the Conservative Benches this afternoon.

In the dying moments of the Conservative Government, will the Home Secretary break his right to silence and confess that the figures that are in Hansard of 28 February—column 431—demonstrate that, year on year, police strength in the capital has gone down; confess that, this year, Londoners are paying more for their police service but are getting less; and confess that this is yet another in a long string of broken promises that Londoners have had to bear from a discredited Government?

I have given the hon. Lady the accurate figures and am astonished that she should prattle on in that way when she knows perfectly well that her party's shadow Chancellor has said that not a penny more will be committed to the Metropolitan police. There will be no more money for the police, according to the shadow Chancellor, so the hon. Lady's question is absolutely inexplicable. I should have thought that she would have wanted instead to draw attention to the fact that, in the Dagenham division, which corresponds to her constituency, since 1992, notifiable offences have fallen by 10 per cent., recorded residential burglaries by nearly 30 per cent., recorded sexual offences by nearly 30 per cent., theft of motor vehicles by nearly 25 per cent.; that the clear-up rate for total notifiable offences has risen from 15 per cent. to 22 per cent., for robbery from 12 per cent. to more than 22 per cent. and for domestic burglary from 11.5 per cent. to 29 per cent. That is good news for the hon. Lady's constituents.

While all sensible people accept that to save lives extra police are needed in central London to combat terrorism and drug trafficking, which may mean slightly fewer police officers in outer London, I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that people in outer London remain very concerned about crime and hope that at some time in future, and before very long, additional police officers can be found for outer London.

I well understand my hon. Friend's concerns on behalf of his constituents. I know how energetic he has been in drawing them to my attention and that of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis who I know will want to do everything he can to respond to my hon. Friend's concerns in the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to take action to discourage children from taking part in criminal activities; and if he will make a statement. [19785]

The Government believe that it is important to identify as early as possible children who may be at risk of offending and to take action to help them stay clear of crime. We have just published a Green Paper, "Preventing Children Offending", which sets out proposals for action to help children before they become offenders and reinforces parents' responsibility for their children's behaviour.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is totally in the interests of society, and children in particular, that they should be taught the difference between right and wrong from an early age, and that therefore Christian or moral education in schools is absolutely crucial, although it is seriously neglected by Labour-controlled authorities right across the land? Is not it totally wrong for vicars, or clergymen of any kind, not to mention the Leader of the Opposition, to condone shoplifting, for example?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The remarks to which he has referred, both by the clergyman concerned and the Leader of the Opposition, were quite disgraceful. The Leader of the Opposition sought to excuse certain kinds of pickpocketing and shoplifting in a most disgraceful remark in a speech that he made a short while ago. We all have a duty to inculcate a sense of right and wrong in our children, and it is particularly regrettable when those in positions of authority fail to contribute to that objective.

Will the Home Secretary explain to the House why it has taken 18 years for the Government to produce a Green Paper on dealing with youth crime, and why he did not even act upon the recommendation of his own Home Office research study 161 which revealed some months ago that even a relatively expensive early intervention against youth crime can save an awful lot of money later because young offenders' institutions are so expensive and ineffective?

A great deal has been done during the past 18 years to deal with youth crime in various ways. The Green Paper draws together best practice to try to encourage that best practice across the country and to make new proposals for parental control orders which will encourage parents to exert greater control over their offspring.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that crime among youngsters is one of the main worries of the Burbage safe neighbourhood action group in my constituency? How will the child crime teams envisaged in his Green Paper work when the Government are re-elected after 1 May?

I hope that child crime teams will be able to bring all the relevant agencies and voluntary bodies, including, for example, Home Start, to bear on those children who experience difficulties and are likely to become career criminals. I hope that everything that can be done will be done to turn them away from a career of crime, and at an early stage. That will be the objective of the child crime teams.

I endorse the Home Secretary's welcome to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). We are pleased to see him back.

The hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents the current position. It is perfectly possible for 10 to 13-year-olds to be brought to court, to be accused of their crime and to be convicted if it can be shown, as it usually can in those circumstances, that they knew the difference between right and wrong. The Crown Prosecution Service says that there is no evidence of a real problem arising out of the rule to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Government are keeping the operation of that rule under review. If there is any evidence that it is causing a problem, we will act to deal with it.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that more than 85 per cent. of young people who get into trouble do not reoffend because of the measures taken by the police and the courts? The number before the courts has reduced, because of the effect of cautioning. Is not the real problem the 15 per cent. who are not deterred from crime by a caution or by getting into trouble once? That is where the growth in juvenile crime lies, and where tough measures are needed. It is no use the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) nodding his head. We need the secure training units that his party refused to support.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know that he will be particularly pleased to learn that the first contract for a secure training unit was signed on 3 March this year. We can now implement that policy, which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, was opposed root and branch by the Opposition parties. The unit will provide secure accommodation to deal with persistent young offenders in the way that is most appropriate.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning his proposals to restrict the right to jury trial. [19786]

Giving magistrates the right to decide where either-way cases should be tried was one of 33 recommendations in the report of the review of delay in the criminal justice system, which was published on 27 February and is now out for consultation. At this early stage in the consultation period, I have received very few responses.

Has the Home Secretary had time to consider the views of his former colleague, Alan Clark, who wrote in the News of the World dismissing those proposals as a last minute idea? He pointed out that the jury trial is the last line of defence for the ordinary citizen.

I always listen very carefully to what Mr. Clark says, because he is perhaps my most distinguished constituent. It is incumbent on me to take his views on all matters extremely seriously. I agree with him on almost everything, but not on that.

This is definitely my last question in the House. My right hon. and learned Friend knows of my opposition and the opposition of many lawyers to restricting the right to jury trial. In his White Paper, he gave as the grounds for such a change the fact that there is too much delay and that that delay must be addressed. Has he considered that such a measure would reduce the delay in the Crown court and increase the delay in the magistrates court? That is what will happen, so there will still be delays in the system.

I do not accept my hon. Friend's point. The extraordinary truth is that two thirds of those who elect to go for trial in the Crown court then plead guilty, so they do not avail themselves of the option that they have elected to take. We think that it would speed up justice considerably in the Crown court and the magistrates court if the proposals were accepted. We think that they have merit. We want to listen to what people say about them, and we shall announce our decisions in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in attracting new recruits for the position of special constable. [19787]

Between 1991 and 1995, the special constabulary increased from 15,000 to 20,000. A total of £10 million of central Government grant has been made available to help police forces to improve their training, equipment and recruitment of special constables.

The Minister knows that the Opposition believe that special constables play a special part in bringing law and order to our streets. We want the number of special constables to be increased. In 1992, the Government promised to recruit more special constables. In the past year, they have thrown £4 million at advertising, but have ended up with fewer special constables than they started with.

That shows that the hon. Gentleman is not in touch with the special constabulary, whose cause he claims to espouse. Every time we ask special constables whether they want any form of payment, reward or bounty for what they do, the answer is an almost unanimous no. That view was expressed when we carried out an exercise to boost all aspects of the training and recruitment of special constables last year.

Can my right hon. Friend say how much is now available for the recruitment and training of special constables throughout the United Kingdom, and how much has recently been allocated to West Yorkshire?

I am delighted to say that we have recently made available £10 million specifically to aid recruitment of special constables, and to improve training and equipment. We recognise that those who volunteer for the special constabulary are making one of the greatest potential sacrifices that any volunteer can make in this country. It is a noble calling. The money that we have allocated is improving the special constabulary, and all forces are grateful for it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of CCTV in Newcastle as operated by Northumbria police. [19788]

I understand from the Northumbria police that recorded crime in Newcastle city centre has more than halved since the introduction of closed-circuit television in 1992. There were 15,000 incidents in 1991, and fewer than 7,000 in 1996. The neighbourhood CCTV system in the west end of Newcastle also produced a 23 per cent. reduction of crime in 1996.

Does the Minister recognise that neighbourhood CCTV security schemes were pioneered in Newcastle, by a partnership between the best-led and most effective police force in Britain and people in some of the toughest and least well-off communities and neighbourhoods? Given that record of success, why does the Minister not offer Newcastle more support? Why does he keep refusing it new CCTV schemes, given that it pioneered their development?

Two hundred schemes were funded in the last round. We reckon that the total programme over four years will lead to the installation of 10,000 more cameras throughout the country.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he plans to introduce to combat vandalism against property. [19789]

The fight against vandalism is part of the Government's overall fight against crime. We recognise that the best initiatives against this particular crime are co-ordinated at local level, and we have made available £50 million for the introduction of closed circuit television systems which, wherever they are installed, can be effective in the detection and reduction of vandalism.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority of incidents of vandalism against property in my constituency are carried out by juveniles? Does he accept that the best way to deal with them is to encourage greater parental responsibility, to bring more secure training centres or units into operation sooner, and to make greater use of closed circuit television? I am pleased to report that Macclesfield has been successful in the third round of bidding for CCTV for the town centre.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his activity in connection with the successful Macclesfield town centre bid. The Government provided more than £92,000 to assist with 11 cameras, which I am sure will have a strong effect on crime in my hon. Friend's area. We should like to have secure training centres in place as soon as possible. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, we have signed the first contract, for Cookham Wood, which should be operational early next year. It would have been helpful if Labour, where it is entrusted with power at local level, had been more supportive of our planning applications for secure training centres. If Labour really wants to attack crime and criminals, why does it not take actions that are consistent with that?

The local authority in Newcastle upon Tyne has been co-operative, and vandalism has still soared. Is the Minister aware that criminal damage crimes have increased by 197 per cent. since 1979? What does he say to people who have suffered from the damage that soaring vandalism has caused in their communities? Does he admit responsibility?

I say to those people, "Beware of a party which has never supported the Government's attacks on criminals, vandals and all such people." People should beware of that, not of a Government who have done so much to attack crime.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister responsible for prisons most recently visited a prison, and what was the purpose of the visit. [19790]

Earlier this week I visited HM prison ship Weare, and before that I visited Spring Hill prison Buckinghamshire, on 11 March. That completed my tour of all prisons in England and Wales. I visit prisons to see for myself what is happening at individual establishments and to talk to staff, prisoners and members of boards of visitors about matters of concern to them. It is a particularly important part of my role as prisons Minister.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her commitment to the Prison Service. She is the first Minister to visit all the prisons in England and Wales. Does she agree that, since the Prison Service became an agency, there have been considerable improvements? For example, the degrading exercise of slopping out has been abolished. There is now a much more constructive, but austere, regime. In short, prisons should not be hotels in which prisoners relax.

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I can confirm that, since achieving agency status, the Prison Service has made remarkable strides. Not only has it achieved that which my hon. Friend has outlined, but there has been a reduction in the escape rate of some 80 per cent., a rise in purposeful activity of some 7 per cent., an increase in education, and elimination of the practice of placing three prisoners in a cell designed for one. Those achievements have been brought about because the Prison Service, its management and staff and the Government have been committed to such improvements despite the endless catalogue of damnation by the Opposition, who do nothing but point to the bad news. They demoralise the service with their constant criticism. They never acknowledge and praise the service for its achievements. I am pleased to do that and I suggest that Opposition Members join me in so doing.

When the Minister was visiting the prisons in Britain, did she take her handcuffs with her, and how many times did she bump into that well-known recidivist the Home Secretary?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what I am sure will be his forthcoming retirement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in keeping with his own policy, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on turning round our attitudes towards public protection, again in the teeth not only of ignorant opposition from Labour Members, but of nothing from them but concern for the criminal and for being soft on those who repeatedly prey on the public. When my right hon. and learned Friend returns on May 2, he will carry on that programme to the shame of Opposition Members and to the great benefit of the people of this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning delays in the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement. [19791]

I frequently receive representations about delays in the criminal justice system, which is why my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I set up the review, the report of which I published on 27 February.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the speeding up of the criminal justice system that will flow from his review paper will be warmly welcomed by the public, and that they will not be taken in by Opposition Members who side with all the vested interests that simply do not want to speed up criminal justice? Will not people conclude that it is the Home Secretary who is interested in speeding up criminal justice and that Labour wants only to sound as if it wants to speed it up?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The potential benefits of these proposals would lead to almost all defendants being in court the day after they are charged, compared with fewer than 20 per cent. now, about 50 per cent. of defendants being convicted the day after charge, compared with 3 per cent. now, and young offenders appearing in court within days of committing their offence, instead of the present average of 10 weeks. I have yet to hear expressions of support from the Labour party for the measures in that review.

As one who campaigned for an ending of the delays in criminal justice for many years before coming into this place, I am amazed by the Home Secretary's response. After 18 years, why has it taken an imminent general election to get the Home Secretary to admit what we have been telling him for years: that justice delayed is justice denied to victims, to offenders who need to be punished and to ordinary people whose communities have been damaged by crime under the Conservatives? Why have the Conservatives failed to cut the scandalous delays, particularly as proved by the Audit Commission, in the youth justice system?

Here we have it again. The Labour party pays lip service to the objectives, but says nothing about the way in which those objectives can be achieved. Why did the hon. Gentleman not tell us whether his party agreed or disagreed with our proposals? Why did he not tell us whether it would support their implementation? Labour Members are not prepared to tell us what their attitude to these matters is. They simply get up and offer platitude, after platitude, after platitude.

Is not the worst delay in the criminal justice system the delay in catching the criminals once they have committed their offences, and before they commit the next offence? Will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate the Burton upon Trent police, who this year have increased yet again their rate of detection and who have reduced the rate of crime by 20 per cent. in the past three years? Does he agree that the Burton police and every other police force is now better trained, better equipped, better led, better paid and better supported by the law than they have ever been in our history, and will continue to be so only when we are re-elected?

I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend and I am delighted to join him in congratulating the Burton police on their performance, which mirrors the performance of the police service throughout the country, which has reduced recorded crime in the past four years by the largest amount since records were first kept in 1857.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of crimes committed by young people. [19792]

The best indicator we have of youth crime is the number of young people known to have been involved in offending. In 1995, 179,000 persons aged under 18 were either cautioned by the police or convicted by the courts.

Does not the Minister realise that young offenders commit some 7 million crimes, yet only 1.3 per cent. of them are ever prosecuted, and that half of those who are prosecuted find that their criminal charges are dropped or that they get absolute or conditional discharges? Does he not realise that, by the time the young offenders reach court, the offence is a distant dream? Does he now accept that our policy of fast-track punishment for young offenders is the only way to solve the problem?

If the hon. Lady is concerned about juvenile crime, she should welcome our Green Paper. All the Opposition have produced is a ragbag of incoherent soundbites and wish lists and no idea about how to make them work in practice. The Government have a carefully thought out strategic approach which goes to the root of juvenile offending. From what we have heard this afternoon, a party that thinks it can solve juvenile crime by abolishing the rule of doli incapax is not living in the real world. Perhaps the hon. Lady should take up the issue with the shadow spokesman who voted against curfew orders in 1990, voted to cut community sentences from 240 hours, voted to cut the sentence at attendance centres, and said that holding parents responsible for controlling their children's behaviour would only make matters worse. We cannot trust a word Labour says on crime.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 March. [19812]

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that he could, if he wished, without any impact on the date of the general election, extend the life of this Parliament by the few days necessary to allow Sir Gordon Downey to publish his report? If so, I suggest that as soon as he leaves here, he nips down to the palace, has a quiet word with Her Majesty and puts an end to this distasteful business once and for all.

There has already been a Privy Council to determine Prorogation, and I have no intention of changing it. Prorogation always follows within days of an election announcement. When I announced the date of the election and Prorogation, the House was not surprised—[Laughter.] There was no surprise about the date of Prorogation, and when I announced it there was no representation then or at any time in the past, publicly or privately, from the Labour party about changing the date—not once. It was not until the unemployment figures were leaked that this became an issue.

During the campaign, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be coming to the south of England and, we all hope, to Dorset. When he comes to Dorset, will he pass on to the people there and all those in the area served by Southern Electricity the good news that, as from Tuesday, they will have had an 11 per cent. cut in their electricity bills during the past nine months, which amounts to £40 to £50 off their bills? Is not that proof that privatisation works, and would it have happened if we had had a windfall tax?

rose—

Do not travel by train.

The hon. Member for Bolsover says that I should not travel by train. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has indicated to his constituents that he may be retiring from the House now that he is 65—we shall miss him. If so, he will have plenty of time to travel by train and the fares will be lower, following privatisation, than they were before—just like water—

There will be no trains.

The deputy leader of the Labour party says there will be no trains. As he is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, he knows a great deal about strikes. I did not notice him offering much condemnation of strikes last summer, when they were threatened. He stands for strikes; that is his whole history. The reality is that customers are benefiting from falling prices and the improved service levels created across the board by privatisation. From memory, I think that it was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who once said that, after electricity privatisation, there is no doubt that "prices will rise". Since privatisation, prices have fallen.

May I remind the Prime Minister of his firm and unequivocal promise, made last October, to do all that he could to have the report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges published? May I suggest to him two ways in which that could be done? The first is to seek a postponement of Prorogation. The second is to agree with the Labour party and other Opposition parties a one paragraph Bill to allow the Committee to sit from now until Dissolution, on 8 April. Will he co-operate and allow us to do that—to fulfil his clear and unequivocal promise to the people of this country?

As ever, the right hon. Gentleman quotes partially, but I shall deal with the substance of what he said. Of course I would have preferred to have had the matter finished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said that months ago. I would have liked to have had all the inquiries finished. I would have liked to have had the inquiries into the funding of the Leader of the Opposition's office and the deputy leader's office finished.

The Prime Minister says that I quoted partially his comments of last October. Last October, in the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, he said:

"Well I'll tell you now, I will tell that committee I believe they should publish the report … I want it settled, I want it settled David."

"reported and … published before the next election",

£2 million blind funds.

If the objection is based on time, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that he let the Committee sit? If it cannot finish its report for genuine time reasons, so be it. What is surely outrageous is for the Committee—

£2 million blind funds.

Order. I call Mr. Shaw to order.

The Committee is able to sit, and the Commissioner's report will be ready on Monday. The hon. Members concerned want the report to be published. It is absolutely outrageous not to let the Committee have the time even to try. If the Prime Minister continues to stonewall, people will believe that the reason is not technicalities or can't, but won't.

The right hon. Gentleman is still quoting what I said selectively. I made it clear that although I wanted the report to be published speedily, and I did, it was a matter for Gordon Downey and he would have to take the time he needed to deal with the matter properly. Perhaps his task would have been easier if some people had not delayed handing over important evidence—but that was not the Government. The fact of the matter is that this needs to be dealt with impartially, not in an atmosphere in which it could be selectively leaked to damage people who may have nothing whatsoever to hide.

Justice demands that this report be published. That is what justice demands. Any members of the public watching that interchange will conclude that the Prime Minister simply does not want it published because he fears its publication. Has not this Parliament ended as it began—[Interruption.] It has ended as it began, with the Government breaking their word. If the Prime Minister fails to have this report published, when everyone knows that he could, it will leave a stain on the character of his Government that will be erased only by a new Government with a fresh mandate, who will restore confidence in our public life for good.

The stain, if stain there will be, is upon a Labour Front Bench that has smeared and smeared and smeared again. The Labour leader has traded in double standards from the moment he took up office. This is the Labour leader who sells policy to the trade unions for cash—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who refuses to comply with the code of practice on party funding—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who calls for party openness but will not publish the secret funds of his own office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who attacks share options but takes money from millionaires for his own party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who attacks business men and asks them to fund things for him, who flew Concorde and failed to declare it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; who has a deputy leader who spends a weekend at a five-star hotel and does not declare it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]; and who flies to the other side of the world to do newspaper deals and never admits to them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If there are any double standards, they sit there—on the Opposition Benches.

Game, set and match.

Order. I would like to hear the next question and the next answer.

Before taking what I hope is only a temporary leave of the House, may I, on behalf of my Manchester constituents, thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for making the United Kingdom the best functioning economy in all of Europe, with half the levels of unemployment of France or Germany? Is it not precisely because those two countries have not had the benefit of a Thatcher-Major revolution that they are suffering from what, in Labour days, used to be known as the British disease?

Before I respond to my hon. Friend, I should like to say that I noticed when I last sat down that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) is back in the House following his dreadful accident. My right hon. Friend will be retiring at the end of this Parliament, but he will leave behind him reforms to our procedures that have greatly improved the workings of the House. I am delighted to see him here and I wish him a speedy and full return to complete health.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order—both sides.

We raised this matter on Tuesday and I am raising it again now. Can I bring the Prime Minister back to the central question? There is clearly both provision and precedent to give the House the opportunity to clear up the cash for questions scandal once and for all next week if the Prime Minister wishes it, but he does not. Sir Gordon Downey regrets that, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges regrets it, Conservative Members who are still under a suspicion of sleaze regret it and the nation no doubt deeply resents it. Is the Prime Minister to be the only person who will use a technicality to stand in the way of truth? If he does, he should not be surprised that the country will conclude that he enters the election as he conducted his Administration—on a broken promise, on a slippery evasion and with his party mired in accusations of sleaze.

The right hon. Gentleman ends as pious and pompous as he has been throughout this Parliament. If what he said were correct, why did not his member of the Committee ask for what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield asked for—for he did not? Why did not the Labour members of the Committee ask for what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield asked for—for they did not? This has been a political stunt by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and the leader of the Liberal party and they both know that it has been a political stunt from the moment they learnt what the unemployment figures were.