To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce mandatory minimum sentences. [914]

I am considering the relevant provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 against the need to ensure that sufficient provision is available within the Prison Service.

I am afraid that that answer does absolutely nothing for me. The Labour party talked tough in opposition and, apparently, is already acting soft in government. Why will not the Secretary of State join us in sending a clear signal to serious repeat offenders, by agreeing today to introduce minimum mandatory sentences?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I dare say that it will be the first of many occasions when I do so. The hon. Gentleman, however, is way behind the times. I made it clear on 19 May, in the debate on the Loyal Address, that I fully intended to implement section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 relating to life sentences for serious violent and sexual offenders as soon as possible and, I hope, within the time frame laid down by the previous Administration.

What is the Home Secretary's estimate of the number of new prison places that would be required to implement each of the mandatory sentencing provisions of that legislation? Is he seriously prepared to contemplate the massive diversion of resources from policing and crime prevention that would be involved in building another 10 or 20 new prisons over and above those required to deal with the present trend in prison numbers to implement that legislation, which had much of the character of a confidence trick by the previous Administration, willing the end without willing the means?

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right in his last point. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made several undertakings about the future of the prison population without the backing of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—a habit which he has not broken out of in opposition.

I remind the Home Secretary that, in Committee, there was much talk about the need for a working definition of "exceptional circumstances" in which a judge could exercise discretion not to impose mandatory sentences. In view of the considerable time spent on that subject in Committee—I remember that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spent much time, as I did, trying to knead that out—does the Home Secretary have any information on that very important aspect?

My view is that section 1, which sets down the special circumstances that would apply to sections 3 and 4 of the Act relating to drug dealers and repeat burglars, is in satisfactory order. When he was Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe denied that. He put his argument to the people of this country at the recent general election. It was the only law and order issue that he argued about throughout a six-week campaign; the people of the country gave a clear answer in that regard.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to address the circumstances that lead to criminal activity. [915]

As well as speeding up youth justice, we plan to implement a wide range of measures to divert potential offenders away from criminal activity. We intend to have parental responsibility orders to ensure that parents face up to their responsibilities when their children misbehave and new child protection orders to help keep children off the streets and out of trouble late at night. We are also determined to break the vicious circle between crime and drug and alcohol misuse, and, through our welfare to work programme, enable young people to find work and stay in work.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to the Front Bench. This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to do so. Does he recall the series of meetings held both in Coventry and in the House of Commons to discuss juvenile crime and, in particular, community safety orders? Can he give us an idea when those safety orders will be introduced so that we can satisfy people in Coventry, who have been extremely concerned about that?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know of the great interest that he took in this matter during the last Parliament. I was grateful for his active support on a number of Committees dealing with legislation. We should also pay tribute to the efforts made by Coventry city council, working with the local police, to find a way, despite the gap in legislation, to control some of the difficult problems that have arisen. I agree that there is a problem. When we were in opposition, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched a chord when he proposed community safety orders, which will enable the police and local authorities to tackle the real problems experienced throughout the country, and he was applauded for that. We intend to make allowance for introducing those orders within the crime and disorder Bill, which will be debated later in the Session.

Will the new Labour Government honour the pledge of the last Conservative Government and introduce more closed circuit television cameras in towns and villages, as they have had a devastating effect in reducing crime?

The hon. Gentleman's question would have been more impressive had he checked the Home Office budget. He would then have seen that although the previous Home Secretary made statements during the election period, he made no financial allowance to fulfil those manifesto commitments. He has not put the money in the budget.

Is not one of the principal reasons for the rise in youth crime pointed out by many licensees and suppliers: under-age drinking is on the increase? Does he agree that the best deterrent would be to introduce some form—voluntary or compulsory—of identity card, to include photograph and age?

A voluntary identity card is still under consideration, but my hon. Friend is right to identify the problem of youth drinking and rising youth crime. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has taken up the issue of alcopops with the industry and is pursuing it vigorously. Alcohol-related crime is a serious problem. The steps that we intend to take in relation to youth crime will have a significant impact, but the problem of drink-related crime among young people, as among older groups, is serious.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to curb the rate of growth in the prison population. [916]

Within a broad sentencing framework laid down by Parliament, who is sentenced to imprisonment and for how long is a matter for independent decision by the courts. On present trends, the prison population is likely to rise in the foreseeable future. In the longer term, the growth in the prison population should be affected by action that we are taking to deal with the appalling delays in the criminal justice system and, above all, by our policies to tackle youth crime to stop so many young offenders graduating to adult crime and adult prisons.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. He will have heard the earlier exchanges on the importance of differentiating between dangerous criminals and society's demands for their incarceration. Does he accept that we simply cannot go on building prisons for ever? Will he take the longest and most careful possible look at the distinction between those who must be in prison for the public's safety and those for whom alternative approaches may be appropriate, whether or not he gets the benefit of his social policies in due course? Will he undertake to look carefully at the situation in Onley in my constituency, where his proposal for a second prison is giving rise to a great deal of concern on the part of my constituents?

I thought that there was a reason for the question, and it emerged right at the end. Everybody wants criminals locked up, but not in his own backyard.

Does the prison system that my right hon. Friend inherited from a Conservative Government really work, or will there have to be revolutionary changes in it?

My hon. Friend is right to say that prison works for some prisoners. It plainly works to incapacitate prisoners. Of the 60,000 people currently in prison, the courts have made their own independent judgment that that is the most appropriate place for them to serve their sentence. Like almost every other hon. Member, I do not want people to be sentenced unnecessarily to prison, but sentencers will not use community sentences to the extent that perhaps they should, unless and until there is more public confidence in those sentences, and the public can be assured that their safety is guaranteed as far as possible when people serve community sentences.

Before I call the next speaker, may I ask Ministers to remember that they are addressing the House and not the individual who put the question? We would all like to hear the answer, and I like to see handsome faces, even if they are only in profile.

I invite the right hon. Gentleman to note that I have two prisons in my backyard, of which I am extremely proud. Considering that he will have to house the population growth and additional prisoners as a result of the previous Government's very apt sentencing policy, will he clarify once and for all what hitherto has been fudged on a number of occasions? Will he tell the taxpayer and the public at large whether he will honour current private sector contracts and let all prisons be privately managed in future under the private finance initiative?

I apologise for the fact that I was turning away from you, Madam Speaker. That was a serious omission on my part.

When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drafts his welcome new law which will apply to hon. Members and introduce prison sentences for acts of corruption, will he ensure that that Act applies retrospectively?

Much as I would be tempted to make such an Act apply retrospectively, it is an important principle that Parliament should not pass retrospectively Acts which make into crimes previous acts that were not crimes.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the changes which the Government propose to make to immigration policy as regards the primary purpose rule and the admission of elderly relatives. [917]

We announced the abolition of the primary purpose rule on 5 June in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). We have no plans at present to change the rules relating to the admission of elderly relatives.

Will the Minister confirm that that extremely important policy change will apply to current cases, that is, ones in which the refusal took place before 5 June or the appeal was made before then? Bearing in mind the fact that many of the people concerned have waited a long time already and have been subject to considerable delays, will the Minister examine the representations of the Immigration Advisory Service, which provides an excellent service? The IAS believes that there may be further delays stemming from the difference between a genuine marriage and the primary purpose rule. Will the Minister make sure that having sorted out one problem, we do not create another?

We are glad that the hon. Gentleman supports our proposals, and we hope that he will continue to support us in future. We shall review all outstanding appeals. Where the refusal was based solely on primary purpose grounds, we shall return the papers to the entry clearance officer who will issue the clearance. Where the refusal was based on primary purpose and other grounds, we shall examine the case in full. However, we shall lodge appeals in most cases.

I thank my hon. Friend for making the change, which will be widely welcomed. The press release that announced the change suggested that the 12-month probationary period for marriage would remain. Will my hon. Friend look sympathetically at cases where women are forced by violent relationships to leave the marriage within one year? We would not wish to see the deportation of people in that situation. Will he consider also the plight of elderly dependants? EU citizens living in Britain have more right than British citizens to bring elderly dependants into the country.

My hon. Friend raises several important points. The one-year rule will remain. As to domestic violence cases, he will be aware that I was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee that made recommendations in that regard. We are currently examining the issues relating to domestic violence cases and the operation of the one-year rule.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Does he recognise that the changes will open up a substantial loophole in our system of immigration control? Our excellent race relations record has always gone hand in hand with firm but fair immigration control. Does not the change put that record at risk?

It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not share the views of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), who supports our proposals. The primary purpose rule was a rule without a purpose: it was unfair and arbitrary. Too often, it caught genuine marriages where the parties intended to live together permanently in the United Kingdom. The abolition of that rule without a purpose enables us to focus resources on the remaining three marriage rules that deal with bogus marriages more effectively. Compared with the last Government, our policy will be firmer but fairer. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to do something about bogus marriages, why did he not deal with the immigration advisers and other such scandals? He refused to address those problems year upon year.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions have been held with representatives of the Scottish Prison Service concerning the circumstances surrounding the detention of persons awaiting deportation. [918]

Discussions took place with the Scottish Prison Service last summer about the detention of persons awaiting deportation. These discussions found that, due to the relatively small number of persons held in Scottish prisons under sole immigration powers, it would be difficult to justify a custom-built facility solely for Immigration Act detainees.

In my view, such persons should not be detained in Greenock prison, where a serious disturbance took place recently involving convicted prisoners and persons awaiting deportation. Will my hon. Friend consider establishing a detention centre, like those in England and Wales, for persons awaiting deportation from Scotland?

I am looking again at the rules regarding detention in prisons. The Scottish situation involves several issues—for example, the numbers: approximately 20 to 30 persons are held in Scottish establishments at any one time. It would also be unfair to lodge all immigration detainees in one establishment, as they would be away from friends, relatives and perhaps legal representatives.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of crime he estimates to be linked to drug abuse. [919]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the university of Cambridge is conducting an investigation into the links between drugs and crime. Not surprisingly, the preliminary findings are that such links exist, but we shall have to wait until October for the final version of the report, which we hope will be published by the end of the year.

I welcome those comments and add my congratulations to those given earlier to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that previous studies have shown a distinct link between drug abuse and crime—so much so that the police estimate that two thirds of all crime is drug related? Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the public will welcome the measures that he is proposing to reclaim the streets in the fight against crime and the fear of crime that flourished under the previous Government?

I very much agree. A raft of anecdotal evidence from chief constables and others shows strong links between drugs and crime and disorder. Our proposed treatment and testing order will address that problem. We hope that it will give the probation service and others a means to provide treatment for addicts and therefore break the link with spiralling crime. I hope that that measure will have the support of the whole House.

Does the Minister accept that a huge amount of crime is linked to drug abuse—not just the drug takers but burglars who sell the goods to feed their drugs habit? Does he agree that we should adopt a much tougher attitude towards first-time drug takers, many of whom are dealt with in the courts more leniently than those convicted of minor traffic offences?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I am sure that he agrees that the most important issue for the Government is to deal with drug offenders and other offenders in ways that are clear and have been shown to work. We aim to break the link between drugs—possession, dealing or other aspects of the problem—and other forms of crime, including burglary. We shall pursue that clear intention and I am sure that we shall have the support of the whole House.

When my hon. Friend considers the paper presented to him by Parents Against Drug Abuse from my constituency, will he look carefully at the proposal for a national network of telephone helplines? When he considers the cost, will he also consider the potential savings to the public purse from improved advice to young people to ensure that they do not get involved in drugs at an early age, cutting the links with crime?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has written to me about that group in his constituency. I hope to meet him and the group in the near future. Parents, together with the education service and others, have an important role in trying to find ways, at the earliest possible stage, to prevent young people from getting involved in drugs. The initiatives that my hon. Friend describes are of interest and I look forward to discussing them.

I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first Home Office questions on the Government side of the House. He has laid great emphasis on his new drug treatment and testing order. How would it add to the extensive powers already available to the courts when ordering a probation order with conditions?

The right hon. Gentleman should know that there are problems with exercising probation orders in this context. Last week, I visited a probation-led scheme in Plymouth where there are problems in getting co-ordination between the various departments of the criminal justice system and the health service, for example. The whole purpose of the treatment and testing order is to bring all those factors together, to link that to what happens in the courts and to ensure that all the agencies bring all their skills and resources to bear on the problem. That has not been happening to the extent that it should have done. We recognise that, and that is the whole point of the treatment and testing order.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the mandatory sentencing provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. [920]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter).

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Does he consider that a three-year prison sentence for a career burglar is too long?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. As I made clear during the passage of the Crime (Sentences) Bill, I do not consider that three years is too long for the typical career burglar. We expect that kind of sentence to be carried forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pistol clubs there are in the United Kingdom; how many there were a year ago; and what was their total membership. [921]

The total number of pistol clubs approved by the Secretary of State throughout the United Kingdom is 1,605. Precise information about the number of such clubs a year ago could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Government have no information on the number of members of approved pistol clubs.

It seems clear from that reply that a number of pistol target shooting clubs have managed to survive on the basis of small-bore. 22 shooting alone. As the Minister will know from the introductory explanatory memorandum to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which the House will consider on Wednesday, it is highly likely that none of those clubs will exist if the Bill is enacted unamended. Will he ensure that proper compensation is paid not only to the owners of firearms and ancillary equipment, but to owners of clubs that will lose their premises, their business and their fee income? That would rectify one of the injustices of the present Act and give the Minister, whom I congratulate on his appointment, an opportunity to rectify an injustice and to demonstrate to the House that new Labour really is new.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and for the implied criticism of his right hon. and hon. Friends in that he is inviting us to go way beyond the compensation allowed for in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which was enacted before the general election. Of the 1,440 clubs approved for pistols in England and Wales, only 49 were approved for pistols only—less than 4 per cent. of the total. In any event, it is right that individuals who were affected by the legislation should be compensated. We have no intention of going beyond that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that replica pistols that are exact copies of those used in gun clubs are openly and lawfully on sale to young children in Reading and elsewhere? Is he further aware that those replica weapons, including imitation Magnum. 45s, are indistinguishable from the real thing, and can be, and have been, used in armed robberies? What action does my hon. Friend propose to take to deal with the issue?

I am aware of the problem, which has been highlighted on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have targeted one specific gap in the law for action this Session—that is the continuation of the availability of. 22 handguns. We have taken the view that the legislation, which will be debated in the House later this week, needs to be narrow in order for it to proceed through the House quickly. We decided, therefore, that we would not address wider issues. We shall return to issues of the sort that my hon. Friend raises. I shall look carefully at the evidence he has described which, I am sure, he will wish to supplement following today's discussion. We shall certainly wish to address the issue he raises.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take to ensure the continuing provision of an adequate number of prison places. [924]

My right hon. Friend outlined the options available for the prison population issues in answer to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).

Will the hon. Lady ensure that the supply of prison places is sufficient to implement a policy of honesty in sentencing so that there will be no automatic early release from prison?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to honesty in sentencing. We are also keen to examine a range of options to improve the system, including speeding up certain aspects of the criminal justice system and cutting delays affecting remand, for example.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment. Does she agree that far too many people in England are held in custody on remand awaiting trial and that we need to take steps at least to equal the position in Scotland and ensure that people are tried as speedily as possible?

My hon. Friend raises an important matter which we are looking at urgently. It is certainly one part of the system which is crying out for reform.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that over the past 30 years or so some of the best ways of helping people when they come out of prison and preventing young people from going to prison have been imaginative schemes created in partnership with voluntary organisations. I am sure that she is also aware that many such schemes are funded by the Home Office in the first instance for a maximum of three years and are then expected to be picked up by the local authorities, which have a lamentable record in doing any such thing. Will she make sure that the balance between the advantages gained by local authorities and by central Government from the successful schemes is examined again?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, my hon. Friend the other Minister of State takes great interest in the voluntary sector and is keen to promote best practice and encourage projects such as those to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Local authorities have found it difficult to finance many such schemes because of their budgets, but we are looking at ways to ensure that the best schemes can be carried forward successfully.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of convicted women prisoners in England and Wales are serving sentences for non-payment of fines. [925]

At the end of the first quarter of 1997, women sentenced to imprisonment for default on fines represented around 0.2 per cent. of women serving a prison sentence in England and Wales. The number of fine defaulters in prison is now falling steadily.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her welcome and excellent appointment. Has she had time to look at Home Office research published last July which found that despite the welcome fall in the number of women fine defaulters, they are generally unemployed and have multiple debts of some £1,300? Would it not be more appropriate to find other means of punishing those women as, in most cases, they have shown not unwillingness to pay a fine but inability to do so?

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words of welcome. She has raised an important matter. We must find ways to ensure that imprisonment is seen only as a last resort. We shall look closely at the issue of fine defaulting in the coming months.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on her new appointment. In regard to the main question, has she looked at the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997?

Yes. We believe that it is helpful in many respects. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words. As the question refers in particular to women prisoners, I should also like to make it clear that, as a new Minister in the Home Office, women's prisons and the female prison estate are matters that I shall look at carefully in the near future.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment. Will she tell us a little more than the Home Secretary did a few moments ago about the Government's plans to sign new contracts for privately operated prisons?

I am somewhat surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should choose to ask a supplementary question on a main question about the proportion of convicted women prisoners serving sentences for non-payment of fines. The main question has already been answered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Among other things, we are considering the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee report, which made some very interesting proposals on that subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the young offenders institution at Colchester military corrective training centre. [926]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government are committed to finding out what works in the prison system. In line with that, we have decided that the Colchester experiment will run to the end of the year, when it is due to be concluded. In the light of that experience, we will decide on its long-term future.

Does the Minister agree that both the Prison Service and the military authorities were opposed to the establishment of the boot camp in Colchester? Although both military and prison staff should be congratulated, does he accept that the prime reason for the military establishment being foisted on Colchester in the run-up to the general election had more to do with a very expensive face-saving exercise by the former Home Secretary? Will the experiment run until the end of the calendar year or the financial year? Will he make it the sooner of the two? How does the cost of the Colchester institution compare with that of a normal institution?

Irrespective of how the establishment came about, the point is that, if the Government were to try to reverse the decision, all the money that has already been spent on it would be wasted, so it obviously makes sense to allow the establishment to complete its first year. By first year I mean the full first year of its operation. On comparable costs, the establishment is marginally more expensive than, for example, a young offenders institution. Any establishment with such a highly structured regime will be more expensive. The cheapest way of keeping prisoners is to lock them up and do nothing with them. That is not what we intend. We shall certainly look at the results of the experiment to see whether there are any wider applications.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the high rate of reoffending among young offenders suggests that the present system is not working and that anything that can bring it down is likely to be good value for money? Is he aware of the considerable success in remotivating and rehabilitating service offenders at the military corrective training centre and that, contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), the staff at the MCTC are convinced that they can remotivate and rehabilitate civilian offenders by employing the same methods?

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we should look at the results and see how the two systems compare. That is precisely the point that I made. There are no easy options in dealing with young offenders. One of the things to which the Government are absolutely committed is breaking the link between young people and crime and all the things that lead to young people becoming involved in crime. We will find out what works, and what works is precisely what we will implement to deal with the problem.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money his Department plans to set aside over the next five years to provide for CCTV schemes. [927]

Our manifesto made it clear that for the next two years we will work within the ceilings on departmental expenditure that have already been announced. We are reviewing existing expenditure programmes and reassessing priorities to ensure that we make best use of the resources available. A decision on whether there will be another closed circuit television challenge competition in 1997–98 will be made later in the summer.

Given the huge success of CCTV, which in Guildford alone has cut street crime in the city centre by more than a third in one year, and the popularity of the previous Government's pledge to spend £75 million on CCTV in this Parliament, why is the Minister being so evasive, and why is he failing to live up to his party's promises on the subject? Are not the Government being weak on crime and weak on crime prevention?

We will be tough on inappropriate soundbites. The hon. Gentleman should show some respect for the fact that we are keeping our manifesto commitments whereas the former Home Secretary gave promises during the election campaign for which he had not made allowance during his period in office. We will assess whether next year's money—this year's money was completely allocated before we took office—would be best used on CCTV alone or whether it could be better used in other ways. We have inherited a limited financial situation from the previous Government, but we will ensure that we use the available money to prevent and tackle crime in a way that the Conservative Government failed to do.

Before my hon. Friend spends £75 million, will he make a careful assessment of how effective CCTV is in controlling crime; whether it displaces crime to other areas that are unable to deal with it; and what implications it has for the protection of human rights?

People feel safer with CCTV and, fortunately, there have been few abuses of its provision. I supported the provision of CCTV in my local town centre and it is of value in wider community safety and crime prevention. It is not a magic wand that will do everything; other issues of crime prevention need to be tackled also. For that reason, we will review the available expenditure and we intend to ensure that it is used to the best result for the future protection of the public.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of violent crime resulted in prosecution in (a) 1979 and (b) the latest period for which figures are available. [929]

In 1979, 59 per cent. of recorded violent crimes resulted in prosecutions. In 1995, the figure was down to 35 per cent.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and wish him well in his new post. It is significant that violent crime almost trebled under the Conservative Government, while prosecutions fell by more than half. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government have inherited an appalling legacy from the Conservatives? We have more violent crime and more people getting away with violent crime. Will he assure me that resources will be afforded to West Yorkshire police to help them continue their strenuous efforts to reduce violent crime in our local communities?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is right to highlight the previous Government's failure. Nothing could illustrate that failure more than the way crime increased, yet the number of people convicted and punished fell. The fall in prosecution rates is a serious matter and we will address it through our plans to increase the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service and other steps that will enable the police, the courts and other agencies to be more successful in tackling and preventing crime. We believe that the police have been overwhelmed in recent years by bureaucracy and the increasing crime rate; we intend to ensure that they can make better use of existing resources to prevent crime, catch criminals and increase public safety.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the future of the probation and after care service. [930]

The probation service plays a central role in our strategy for the criminal justice system and for reducing crime. We will work with the service to ensure that community sentences and punishments are a credible option when it is not necessary to send an offender to prison.

I welcome my hon. Friend and her team to their new posts, and I hope that their appointment results in a radically different philosophy at the Home Office from that of the past 18 years—building more and more prisons for more and more crime. With that in mind, will they look in detail at the reparation and mediation schemes operated successfully by West Yorkshire probation service, which has addressed the issue of cutting reoffending, particularly by young offenders? Will my hon. Friend consider the value of the probation service in working to develop alternatives to imprisonment for a vast number of offenders?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I can give him the assurance he seeks. We are aware of the good work in West Yorkshire. We want to promote good practice in the probation service and increase awareness across the country.

Will the Minister pay tribute to the probation service in Essex, which has demonstrated that a probation order is not a soft option? Does she agree that it is not necessary for a probation officer to have a degree in social work?

I am happy, although rather surprised, to endorse the hon. Gentleman's point about Essex. I further agree with his point about qualifications. We are in discussion with representatives of the probation service and others about how best to take the issue forward, given the unfortunate vacuum created by the previous Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for considering a new voting system for parliamentary elections. [931]

By our manifesto, the Government are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. The manifesto continued:

"An independent Commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system."

My right hon. Friend's helpful reply will confound the critics who wrongly speculated that the size of the Government's majority would mean that Labour might now backpedal on its commitment to a referendum on the electoral system. Will he be a little more specific on the timetable? When does he hope the electoral commission will be established and start its work?

I thank my hon. Friend for his opening point, although it should be no surprise that we are settling with a will to implement all our manifesto promises, and the size of our majority makes that all the more straightforward. He asks what we mean by "early"; we mean as early as possible. I hope to make an announcement during the summer.

Will Labour Members be whipped to vote in favour of a referendum? Does the Prime Minister's position remain as it was? Is he still opposed personally to a change in our voting system?

The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but the idea of having a referendum is so that the issue is decided not on a whipped or free vote in the House of Commons, but by the British people. Regardless of the partisan views that some of us may hold, it is high time the matter was settled once and for all by the British people.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone considering this issue would be well advised to look at the experience of New Zealand at its recent election, where many people who, prior to the election, thought a change to the electoral system was a good idea are not so sure having seen it in practice? Does he further agree that the first-past-the-post system—like any other system—has its disadvantages, but has many advantages as well?

I share my hon. Friend's view on his last point. It is a personal point of view, but it was my view when we were in a minority and in opposition and it is my view now that we are in government. Of course, around the world there are many examples of proportional representation systems, which have advantages and disadvantages. That is all the more reason why they should be examined by an independent commission, which should then produce its recommendations.

Does the Secretary of State agree that reform and a fairer voting system in time for the European elections in 1999 will be an important test of faith of the Government's commitment to electoral reform in principle? Can he give us an idea of how he may introduce such changes with the necessary urgency to get there for 1999?

No, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There was no manifesto commitment to introduce proportional representation or the regional list system by the 1999 European elections. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, we will take final decisions on the appropriate electoral system, which we will recommend to this House and the other place, in the next few months.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to reduce illegal drugs use in prisons. [932]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are very concerned about the extent to which drug abuse takes place in prison. That is why we will be seeking to build on, for example, mandatory drug testing and the availability of drug treatment programmes in the prison system. We hope to keep a good eye on the problem and to find out what else needs to be done—what needs to be done is what will be done.

In welcoming my hon. Friend, may I sympathise about the dreadful situation that he has inherited from the last Government, with a prison system in which illegal drug use is endemic and out of control in the great majority of British prisons? Has he observed that it has been claimed that the drug testing programme has had the perverse effect of making prisoners move from the use of soft drugs, which can easily be detected, to hard drugs whose detection is often difficult? Is he also concerned that many prisoners have moved from the use of illegal drugs to the use of medicinal drugs? Ten times as many people are addicted to medicinal drugs as to hard drugs. Will he make the figures available to this Parliament—unlike the previous Government, who denied the figures on the use of medicinal drugs in prisons to hon. Members?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. One of the ways in which we will seek to help people in prison get off drugs is by introducing access to voluntary testing for all prisoners. In time, we hope to be able to establish that system, so that they can prove that they are living a drug-free existence.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of HM Prison Weare, based in Portland. [933]

As the hon. Gentleman knows I visited Her Majesty's Prison Weare on 16 May. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the health and safety concerns relating to the occupation of The Weare have now been resolved. The Health and Safety Executive, the Home Office fire adviser, the Dorset fire service, the port authorities and the Prison Officers Association have all agreed that it is now safe to occupy a part of the accommodation before completion of the refurbishment work elsewhere in the prison. Prison population pressure makes it essential that we take into use the top landing at The Weare. I have therefore decided that up to 50 category D sentenced prisoners will occupy The Weare from 11 June. The refurbishment work on the remaining accommodation will be completed in July, allowing the prisoner population to rise to 400 in stages.

This is the first time I have said this: it is difficult to ask a supplementary because the main question has been so well answered by the Home Secretary. I thank him for that. Will he reiterate what I have been saying to my constituents: that no Home Secretary, including him, will allow prisoners or prison staff to go into the prison ship unless he wholly satisfied about their safety?

This broad church is getting broader.

There is always space for sinners to repent, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of my answer. He asked about health and safety: the prison ship is not an ideal solution to the rising prison population, but it is one of the many far from ideal situations that we inherited on taking office. As he knows, I visited the ship, which is in his constituency, and went to great lengths to satisfy myself personally that it was safe to house prisoners.