What contribution his Department has made to Victim Support week. [30337]

The main event of last week was the launch of the new national telephone helpline called Victim Supportline. It was made possible by the Government's decision to increase Victim Support's annual grant by £1 million a year. Extra money has also gone towards improving front-line services for victims and witnesses. Those were also promoted during Victim Support week.

I am sure that the House will congratulate those involved in Victim Support on their tremendous work. Will my hon. Friend take into account the views of victims and ensure that they are fully informed during the progress of cases? Will he also look at the needs of the families of victims of road deaths and examine what is happening in other countries, especially Switzerland, in relation to such families' needs?

I support my hon. Friend's comments about the volunteers who do such excellent work. We certainly want the system to keep people much better informed about the progress of cases that involve them and we want to keep victims better informed. My hon. Friend gave a specific example and I should be interested to look at the case that he cites. Perhaps he could supply me with information. With colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we want to do all that we can to recognise the damage to the families of victims of road incidents.

In commending the work of the Victim Support scheme and paying tribute to those who operate my local scheme in Barnet, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the best commitment that the Government could show to this worthwhile charity would be to continue to increase its funding, which I think has gone up from a derisory £5,000 in 1979 to £11.5 million last year?

I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's endorsement for the action of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in increasing Victim Support's grant during the current financial year.

If he will make a statement on the proposed statutory role for local councils in tackling crime. [30338]

The Crime and Disorder Bill will create radical change by requiring local authorities and the police jointly to conduct an audit of local crime and disorder, to draw up a local strategy and to agree targets for cutting crime. This process will involve local people and a wide range of other key partners. Other changes will help cut youth crime and strengthen the powers of the courts.

In my constituency, much good community safety work has been undertaken by the local council and the police working in partnership on issues such as closed circuit television and on developing policies to deal with racial harassment and domestic violence. The most recent development is a one-stop drop-in centre to provide advice and information for young people. All that has been achieved by good will. Does the Minister agree, however, that much more could be achieved if the principle of joint working were underpinned by statutory force?

Yes, and that is what we shall provide in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which the House will shortly have the opportunity to debate. A partnership between the police and each local authority and local community has been welcomed by all parties.

The Minister will recall that, when shadow Home Secretary, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised to provide more places in local authority secure accommodation. How many new places have been provided? Have any been provided?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting confused. What happened was that in February 1991 the Conservative Government promised to provide 171 additional places. That was later revised to 170, but they failed to provide them, and the places have still not been provided. We will keep our promises.

What steps he is taking to reduce the prison population. [30340]

Within the sentencing framework set by Parliament, who is sent to prison and for how long is a matter for the courts. Prison is the only appropriate punishment for many offenders. The Government are also committed to providing more effective and tougher community punishments.

I hear what the Home Secretary says, but is there not a danger of the prison population spiralling out of control? The official Home Office mid-range projections take the prison population from 65,000 this year to 83,000 in seven years' time—which is double the 1992 level—and the top-range projection is for 93,000 prisoners. Sending all those people to prison costs the rest of us an arm and a leg, as a top-security prisoner costs us £35,000 a year, and a category B or category C local prisoner costs us £17,000 a year. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to bring down the prison population, as quickly as humanly possible, and to levels that are commonplace in the rest of the European Union?

My hon. Friend must bear in mind the inheritance that we suffered from the Conservatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Our levels of burglary, vehicle crime, robbery and assault are the highest in western Europe—higher, even, than those in the United States. Against that background, it is hardly surprising that our prison population is rising. However, there is no danger of the prison population getting out of control—per head of population, it has only recently reached the level in Scotland.

If the Government seriously want to reduce the prison population, would it not be a good idea to stop introducing an endless raft of unnecessary, bossy, nannying and tyrannical rules and regulations—progressively criminalising perfectly honest and honourable activities, from pistol shooting competitions to eating beef on the bone? In the light of yesterday's countryside rally, does the Home Secretary realise that, if he—not to mention his dreadful Government—goes much further along that road, and reduces the drink-driving limit and bans fox hunting, he will progressively bring the law into disrepute? Is it not about time that the Government thought before they regulated?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the fox hunting Bill—the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill—is a private Member's measure. He knows also that there is overwhelming public support for the crime and disorder agenda that the Government are vigorously pursuing.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, whenever he mentions the previous Government's legacy, he is met with jeers from the Conservative Benches? Does he recall, as I do, that for 11 years—from 1979, until she was thrown out in 1990—Mrs. Thatcher repeatedly blamed the previous Labour Government? Will he therefore continue blaming the previous Tory Government until at least 2008, when we can perhaps review the policy?

I concur with that. As I am a fair-minded Home Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that that has approbation from both sides of the House. As I am a fair-minded Home Secretary, we shall continue blaming the previous Government as long as it is justified for us to do so. The facts are that crime doubled under the previous Government, whereas the number of people convicted of those crimes fell by one third.

Is not the most effective way of reducing the prison population not to prosecute wrongdoing? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the application of discretionary powers by the Metropolitan police in that respect? What input does his Department have on that application?

The previous Government's policy was not to prosecute wrongdoing—as the right hon. Gentleman says—which is why crime rose. Far too many criminals felt that they could get away with committing crimes. I have no knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman was referring to in particular, although I should be happy to receive a letter from him. He should nevertheless have caught up with the fact that decisions on prosecution are now made not by police but by the independent Crown Prosecution Service.

What measures he will bring forward to improve the relationship between the Government and the voluntary sector. [30341]

The Government will strengthen partnership between government and the voluntary sector. We are working towards a compact that will set out the principles that should govern the relationship. I am delighted to have the support of Ministers across the Government for that initiative.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which will certainly be welcomed not just in my constituency of Peterborough but in many constituencies where voluntary organisations are working very hard to combat social exclusion. Can he assure me that the compact will set out exactly what needs to be done in practical terms to make the partnership work and that it will be available to all organisations and not just those that shout the loudest?

The compact will establish the relationship and the consideration that the Government should give voluntary organisations—and vice versa—nationally and locally. My hon. Friend refers to social exclusion. The priority that the Government are giving the issue touches on the charitable object of many voluntary organisations and there has been a general welcome for the way in which the policy has developed.

Does the Minister not understand that his expressions of support, and those of his right hon. Friend, for voluntary organisations and charities ring hollow? Does he not remember that, in last year's Budget, which was only a matter of months ago, the Government hit charities hard by undermining their pension funds so that volunteers' contributions had to be moved from the doing of good works to bolster pension schemes? If the Minister is serious about supporting voluntary organisations and charities, will he undertake to ensure that, in this year's Budget in a couple of weeks' time, they are reimbursed for that raid on their pension funds?

The right hon. Gentleman's intervention strikes me as a rather desperate attempt to drive a wedge between the Government and the voluntary sector. He will not succeed because many voluntary organisations find that, after years of trying to pursue their charitable objects under a Government who were not interested in most of their priorities, the present Government share their concern to improve society, so they are working in a totally different atmosphere.

What plans he has to ensure integration between the prison and probation services. [30342]

What plans he has to integrate the prison and probation services. [30350]

As my right hon. Friend announced last July, I am leading a prisons and probation review into the efficiency and effectiveness of the ways in which the two services work together. We shall be examining options for improving their performance as a basis on which to consult widely about the future of both services.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the advantages of the two services working together relates to public perception, since community sentences under the supervision of the probation service are too often perceived as a soft option? Does she agree that, by working together, the two services can change that perception and make community sentences a tough option?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Both services are very much concerned with public protection and reducing offending. By working more closely together, they will be able to find out better what works and provide a better service to the public.

Given the separateness of the prison and probation services, and the antipathy within those organisations to working together, how can we ensure that the public's desire to see them working together will be met?

So far during the review, both services have shown a great willingness to work together and address some of their differences in approach. I should also like to pay tribute to the work that they do jointly in delivering courses in prisons, where prison officers and probation officers work together.

Will the Minister commend activities in Surrey, where an extremely enlightened and hard-working probation service, working with the police, is making extremely good progress on punishment in the community? However, the vindictiveness of the financial settlement makes collaborative working in Surrey all the more difficult. Will the Minister look at the way in which the funding formulae hit Surrey, which is facing difficult decisions that had not been anticipated?

I am happy to join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to the Surrey probation service, which I visited recently to look at the Springboard project. However, I am astonished by her comments on funding. The settlement was drawn up by the Conservative Government of which she was a part. We are examining the future options in our comprehensive spending review.

Will my hon. Friend give a high priority to training in the prison and probation services? A higher priority for training is needed in the Prison Service. Probation officers must always be able to recognise signs of child abuse, mental breakdown and possible violence, particularly when they are visiting homes. If we lose that, people will be put at risk.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Prison officers want their jobs to be more varied and challenging. Training is an important part of that. We are also addressing the vacuum left by the previous Government in relation to probation training. We have said that there should continue to be a professional qualification, which can offer a great deal to the criminal justice system.

What measures he is proposing to tackle disorder and antisocial behaviour. [30343]

There are tough new measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill to tackle such unacceptable conduct, which causes misery to so many communities. They include antisocial behaviour orders, child safety orders, local child curfews and statutory crime prevention partnerships between local authorities and the police.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure constituents such as mine in Gedling that the measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will become law as soon as possible? Antisocial behaviour and disorder on estates are making many people prisoners in their homes. Will my right hon. Friend reassure them that action will be taken to deal with the repeat offending that seems to be so common?

I give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Sadly, the previous Administration failed comprehensively to deal with such disorder. We pushed repeatedly for all-party agreement on such orders. I shall be interested to see whether, after 18 years of refusing to act, the Opposition back our proposals.

Does the Secretary of State have any advice for my constituent who is subject to visits to his farm by animal rights protesters because of his export of turkeys? Some of them are reasonable people who want to exercise their legitimate right to protest, but there are others who behave irresponsibly and abuse his grandchildren and his farm workers. He is at the mercy of such protesters, who come almost every week to abuse his staff. He has found that they cannot be dealt with under current law.

I have every sympathy with the hon. Lady's constituent. I should be happy to meet her to discuss the issue in further detail. I am aware of a similar situation just outside Witney. Some of the actions of the so-called animal rights protesters are outrageous. She will know that some of them have been convicted of offences that amount to terrorism. They call themselves animal rights terrorists and that is how they behave. The attitude of police forces varies. As the Thames Valley police has shown in response to the incidents near zWitney, there is no reason why effective action cannot be taken to ensure that people can go about their lawful duties, as they have every right to.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a good deal of antisocial behaviour is caused by out-of-control youths with air weapons? Does he have any plans to review the ownership of air weapons?

My hon. Friend will recall that in our evidence to the Cullen inquiry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I talked not about the banning of air weapons, for which we have no proposals, but about the need for better control over their use. I hope that Conservative Members share that concern. Like my hon. Friend, I personally see no possible purpose in people who live in high-density urban areas shooting air weapons out of back-bedroom windows at human, rather than animal, targets. We shall certainly address that. But we need to take one step at a time; we must get the firearms legislation fully implemented first.

Why should anyone take seriously the Government's claim to support rural communities when they have cut funding for closed circuit television cameras to a paltry £1 million this year, just when market towns and large villages believe that it is their turn to receive support to install cameras to fight disorder and vandalism in their areas?

There is the widest possible support for this new Government's crime and disorder agenda, which is one of the many reasons why we did so well in many rural areas. As for the hon. Gentleman's main point, I simply congratulate him on his chutzpah and cheek in daring to complain about the levels of cash allocated for closed circuit television for next year, since those are the exact allocations that were agreed by his Government.

I commend to my right hon. Friend the actions of a group of parents in Redditch, who have voluntarily organised a curfew for their children following some disorder last summer. Will he tell my constituents how the Government's plans will support such responsible community action?

I know a little of my hon. Friend's constituency, and visited it last year. I very warmly congratulate those parents. It is clear that almost every parent is backing our proposals for child curfew and child protection orders, recognising that parents, first, have to accept responsibility for their children.

If he will make a statement on his plans for the future use of private prisons. [30345]

On 19 June, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the Prison Service was to examine whether prisons managed by the private sector could be returned to direct management on value-for-money grounds, as well as exploring methods of using private finance to achieve value for money, with the public sector providing custodial services.

Will the Minister advise the House on whether she anticipates that, at the end of the Parliament, more of the Prison Service will be privatised? Does she agree with me and with the Home Secretary's words that it is morally repugnant for people imprisoned by the state to be treated as little more than commodities for profit by private firms?

Very similar questions were answered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at our first Home Affairs Question Time. Obviously, I cannot anticipate the outcome of the investigation which I have just announced, although a great deal depends on the value-for-money aspect to which I referred.

In view of Ministers' earlier dogmatic and ideological opposition to private prisons, will the Minister tell the House when she first made a speech, wrote an article or issued a press release suggesting that there could be some merit in private prisons? Is there such an occasion? Can she name it? When was it?

The process that I have announced, whereby the Prison Service, prison unions and people who have an interest are examining the issues, is the valuable one. We shall draw conclusions from it when the study is complete.

How many different electoral systems will be in operation in the United Kingdom by May 2002. [30346]

Taking into account all existing proposals, five.

I have been involved in a number of discussions with constituents over recent weeks about proposals for the European Parliament elections. My constituents are mesmerised when I go on to tell them about all the other proposed electoral systems. Will the Minister reassure the House that, if the Government bring forward proposals for this House, the essential link between a Member and an individual constituency will be preserved? Perhaps he could do the decent thing and reassure my constituents that there will be no change in the electoral arrangements for the House.

The hon. Gentleman must have missed the fact that Lord Jenkins's commission is currently looking at what might be an alternative system for electing the House of Commons. Once he has deliberated and come up with a proposal, we are committed to a referendum. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will then have the opportunity to look at what systems are on offer and, instead of listening to him, make up their own minds, which in my opinion would be wise.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a disaster if the Government tried to impose the same voting system on every tier of government? The different systems have not been introduced for any reason of self-interest—quite the reverse. It is the Conservative party which might otherwise be seriously underrepresented in the European Parliament and, indeed, not represented at all in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh assembly.

My hon. Friend is right. There are several proposals to change the constitution of this country in line with public opinion and, in respect of electoral systems, we are committed to an appropriate electoral system for each layer of government. At the end of the day, people appreciate that that is the best way of achieving these things.

Will the Minister remind the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) that three of those five systems were introduced by the Conservatives, including both the single transferable vote and the regional list system in Northern Ireland? Will he recognise that, in the next few days, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the opportunity to ensure that, in the European elections, there is a combination of fairness to voters in terms of the outcome of the election and the retention of a role for the voter in deciding which individual is elected by going for an open list system?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House that the Conservative party introduced a number of different systems, most recently the d'Hondt system for the Northern Ireland peace forum. He will also remember that, until 1923, his own party was in favour of the first-past-the-post system. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that we are still listening to the debate on to the most appropriate divisor for the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and, in due course, he will make an announcement.

Does the Minister accept that the closed list system of proportional representation proposed for the forthcoming European elections is possibly the worst conceivable system of PR, combining as it does breaking the link between Members and their constituencies and taking away powers from local parties? Will he give the House an assurance that this is the first and last time that system will be used in the United Kingdom?

The hon. Lady has to understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend."] My hon. Friend has to understand that parliamentary constituencies do not apply to the European Parliament in same way as, for example, she represents a parliamentary constituency. Increasingly, Europe is a Europe of the regions and the new proposed system will respond to that. As for the specific system, I have already pointed out that we are listening to representations—not least to those made in the House—and an announcement on the result of that will be made in due course.

What savings in the prisons budget he estimates will accrue from the extension of electronic tagging. [30347]

It is estimated that home detention curfew may avoid the need for expenditure on about 3,000 new prison places, which would have cost £90 million per year. Other uses of electronic monitoring, if applied nationally, could also impact on demand for prison places.

Although we welcome the zeal of converts to electronic tagging, do the Government appreciate that it is better for the courts to decide who should be electronically tagged and which prisoners are eligible for early release? Will the Minister agree to extend electronic tagging to child curfew orders, which the Home Secretary mentioned earlier, and to persistent sex offenders?

Given that it is people who are coming to the end of their sentence who are eligible for home detention curfew, we believe that it is quite right for the decision to be taken by prison authorities, together with experts who can make the appropriate risk assessment.

I welcome tagging and anything else that reduces the number of people who are incarcerated in prison—sometimes for long periods, despite the fact that the punitive impact of a short sentence would be equally effective—but will my hon. Friend consider other methods, such as the reintroduction of suspended sentences, which were extremely effective in the past?

We are considering such methods, but we believe that electronic monitoring can provide a structured transition from custody to release during which, we hope, it will help to stop people reoffending in future.

Can the Minister assure the House that no prisoners serving sentences for rape, serious sexual offences or child abuse will be allowed out early under any tagging programme?

As I have told the right hon. Gentleman before, the most important consideration is risk assessment. We are, in this instance, talking about people who are serving four years or fewer and who will be released anyway. We believe that we have a responsibility to make that release as structured as possible, but we shall be extremely careful about risk assessment in the cases that he mentions.

What measures he is taking to tackle delays in the criminal justice system. [30348]

The Government are acting to tackle delay throughout the criminal justice system. The Crime and Disorder Bill provides for statutory time limits that will be tougher for young offenders than for adults, and tougher still for persistent young offenders.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that. I am sure that my constituents and people who want a Government of law and order are very happy that we have moved so quickly to implement what we said in our election manifesto. He knows better than most of the number of vested interests in the legal system, so will he be vigilant and keep a monitoring brief on judges, banisters, solicitors and the Crown Prosecution Service, all of which seem to have a vested interest in delay and delay, as that means more money for them?

I accept what my hon. Friend says. Not only are we keeping an eye on the vested interests, but we shall be setting them clear targets. A number of magistrates courts have already proved that our policy can be implemented. Teesside magistrates court, for example, has introduced a fast-track system for young offenders to reduce the time between charges being made and any trial to six weeks—or 42 days—which more than halves the time that it usually takes to deal with persistent offenders. I congratulate Teesside on that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that justice delayed is justice denied, and that everything that he can do to speed up the dispensation of justice will be welcome? Will he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General consider carefully whether the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate financial resources? I recently visited the CPS local office in Horsham, which is doing an extremely good job, but there is no doubt that it is short of barristers and short of money. I should be grateful if he could tell me what he can do about that.

I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point that he raises. He may know that a major inquiry into the running of the CPS by the former High Court judge Sir Ian Glidewell has been under way since just after the election. It will report shortly and, I believe, lead to major improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the CPS.

What plans he has to review his Department's responsibilities in relation to the criminal justice system. [30349]

As part of the comprehensive spending review, I am chairing a cross-departmental review of the criminal justice system, to consider ways in which the delivery of the Government's objectives for the criminal justice system as a whole can be improved. There are no plans to make changes in departmental responsibilities.

Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reflect on the fact that, when the Government's credentials as a modern and constitutionally reforming Administration come to be tested, one consideration will be whether they have been able to restructure the criminal justice system so as to make it much more answerable to the House of Commons? In addition to its core duties in relation to criminal justice, his Department is cluttered by other duties. Moreover, his criminal justice duties are shared with the Lord Chancellor, who combines the post of Minister, judge, Speaker of the House of Lords and interior designer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real case for having a Minister of justice who is answerable to the democratically elected House of Commons?

As I said, we have no plans to make changes in departmental responsibilities. I believe that we shall be judged at the next general election by whether we have delivered at a local level on our crime and disorder pledges.

We all hear what the Home Secretary says, but we all saw Government Front Benchers furiously trying not to laugh their legs off at the Lord Chancellor. This is none the less a serious matter. Given the number of staff that the Lord Chancellor is accumulating at vast public expense, when will the Government announce the setting up of a Department of justice at the expense of the Home Office?

I have always enjoyed the humour of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), and I have made it clear that there are no plans to make changes in departmental responsibilities. We believe that what matters is the ability of the three Departments involved in the criminal justice system—the Law Officers' Department, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office—to co-operate effectively, as we are doing, to deliver improved efficiency on the ground.

When he last carried out a review of the mandatory spot tests for drugs in prisons. [30351]

Mandatory drug testing is being reviewed within the broader assessment of the Prison Service drug strategy that I have commissioned. All relevant issues are being explored.

My hon. Friend will be aware that some prisoners and former prisoners have alleged that the current mandatory drug testing regime provides an incentive for prisoners using cannabis to switch to heroin, to reduce the chance of being caught. Is that allegation being considered in the current review? Should we not as quickly as possible give prisoners access to voluntary testing and other help, including follow-up help outside prison once their sentences are completed, so that those who want to break free from drug misuse can do so?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the statistics suggesting that there could be a perverse incentive in the mandatory drug testing regime to move from cannabis to heroin are under examination. Sixty-three establishments are involved in various kinds of drug treatment and it is proposed that about £7.3 million be spent on the problem next year.

Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a terrible air of complacency about his reply on this important subject? Will he at the very least assure the House that, when the inevitable review that he has set up finally reports, some action will emerge from it on the smuggling of drugs into prison, because we all know that that is how they get there? Without action on that front, any words from the Government will simply seem hypocritical.

The mandatory drug testing system was introduced by the previous Government; there are difficulties with it, but we welcome it. When the review is completed, we will consider what is the most appropriate action. Let me make it absolutely clear, in case the hon. Gentleman needs any reassurance, that we do not think it acceptable that drugs are smuggled into prisons and taken by prisoners, so we will do what is necessary to stop it. In the meantime, we must have a clear picture of what exactly is going on, so that we can consider how to deal with it.

What proportion of his budget is allocated to (a) prevention of crime and (b) detection and punishment of crime; and what plans he has to change this allocation. [30352]

It is impossible to identify the overall level of funding for crime prevention. Although £19.3 million is specifically allocated, the police budget, which is more than £7.2 billion, and other resources also contribute to both crime prevention and detection.

I am sure that the Minister will accept that the more we can prevent crime, the less we will have to spend on detection and prosecution. As part of the review that the Home Secretary has quite properly instigated, will two specific matters be considered?

First, if the figures are right, about a quarter of all prisoners have themselves been victims of abuse, so if we can prevent the physical and sexual abuse of youngsters we will be more likely to prevent their offending subsequently. Secondly, if we can find useful activities—not only work—for youngsters outside school, and outside school hours, we will prevent the huge amount of crime that is carried out between about 4 pm and 10 pm by 14 to 20-year-olds, who could be better employed doing other things.

All I can say is that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Will my hon. Friend take note of the situation faced by the police in West Yorkshire? When he considers the police budget, will he remember that the capping system has meant that the charge for band D properties in the area has been reduced by 57p per annum? That will have an effect on the monitoring and prevention of crime. Given the extra resources that have been allocated by the Home Office to crime prevention, the funding for West Yorkshire appears to be an anomaly. Will the Minister investigate that serious situation?

I will investigate that important matter for my hon. Friend and write to him.

Has the Minister been able to ascertain what will be spent in real terms on new policing, or has there been a cut? Certainly, Dorset police believe that when they have paid for everything that goes up every year, such as pensions, they will have to make cuts. Local authorities are trying to help the police by, for example, putting in cameras, but they are now finding that they cannot even bid for town centre cameras, because there is no matching funding. Will the Minister consider that problem carefully?

Police expenditure has been targeted to rise by 3.7 per cent. and the figures are clear. On the subject of crime prevention, the Crime and Disorder Bill and the new crime reduction partnerships will ensure that the police are more closely involved with local councils in work on crime reduction. However, the hon. Gentleman must consider the whole budget. It would be wrong to consider only the money allocated to crime prevention under a single budget head. Crime prevention has a role across billions of pounds of budgets, and the Government are committed to making crime prevention a priority across our whole budget.

What steps he is taking to combat crime against businesses, with particular reference to inner-city areas. [30353]

The Crime and Disorder Bill requires local authorities and the police together to conduct an audit of local crime and disorder and to develop a strategy to cut crime. They are required to involve the wider community, including the business community, in that process. We are also working with business to tackle specific problems, such as retail and car crime.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In cities such as Salford it is crucial that businesses, which are the key to economic regeneration, feel safe and protected. I know it is difficult, but has my hon. Friend considered involving businesses in some of the community punishments, such as the reparation order, that make the people who commit crimes face their effects on the prosperity of the whole community?

Yes. My hon. Friend is right. I visited Milton Keynes recently, as did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and saw the way in which the business community is productively engaged with the people who are involved in the correction of offenders. We visit various cities—my right hon. Friend will visit Salford on 2 April—and such visits give us the opportunity to discuss the issue with business. I am pleased by the way in which business is engaging with our agenda to cut crime.

The Minister will be aware that a number of crimes against businesses have, sadly, spread from inner-city areas to other urban areas. Several businesses in my constituency have recently been targeted by ram raiders. Will the Minister confirm that he is urgently liaising with police forces to tackle that serious crime against businesses?

Yes. In recent weeks, I have had several discussions with police forces about smaller town and rural crime. Those problems will be addressed by our proposals, because we need a partnership between the police, local authorities and the communities in smaller urban and rural areas as well as in the cities.

What plans he has to improve the prison medical service. [30354]

The Prison Service and the national health service have established a joint working group to advise Ministers on the options for improving prisoners' health care. The group will be looking in particular at whether responsibility should be transferred to the NHS, as recommended by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does she agree that one of the main obstacles to improving the service is the lack of suitably qualified staff? As the Home Office's own figures show that, in a service with a large number of mentally disordered offenders, only 21 of 197 doctors are members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and only 34 per cent. of health care managers are registered nurses, will she assure the House that the working party will consider, as a matter of urgency, the need to recruit more qualified staff into the prison medical service, and to provide an adequate career path to retain them in that service?

My hon. Friend makes important points, and I pay tribute to her for the keen and detailed interest that she has taken in this matter. We are very keen to improve training in the prison health service, and the working group is considering that as one of its priorities. It is a very important issue to make progress on if we are really to respond to the recommendations that the chief inspector made in his report "Patient or Prisoner?".

What steps he is taking to reduce the number of young people who engage in under-age consumption of alcohol. [30356]

The Government are committed to tackling under-age drinking. Our statement of 17 July last year, a copy of which is in the Library, set out our views on the action needed by all concerned parties to tackle alcohol abuse by young people under the age of 18.

Following the Minister's visit to Exeter last week, he will be aware of the great concern locally about the phenomenon known as the booze cruise, which exploits the current loophole in the law and allows alcohol to be sold to under-age children as long as they are on a moving boat. Does not that fly in the face of our desire to curb under-age drinking, and what is he going to do about it?

As recently as last week, my hon. Friend and I visited his constituency to talk to people who had been involved in such cruises. I am looking very carefully at what all the people who were worried about that issue said, and considering what action will be appropriate. One aspect that we can look at immediately is whether the operator concerned is in breach of his sailing licence.

Further to that, does the Minister share my concern that under-age drinkers have access to cheap alcohol because of the great prevalence of bootlegged and smuggled alcohol? Does he agree that the multi-disciplinary approach to stemming that tide of alcohol is the best one possible, and will he guarantee that police forces involved in trying to stem that tide will receive the resources that they need?

The hon. Lady is clearly right. As any of us know from our own constituencies, there is a problem in that people go abroad, bring back various forms of alcohol and sell it to young people. I agree that a multi-disciplinary or multi-agency approach is a very good way of tackling that problem, and we are committed to such an approach. It shows the value of working in partnership to try to eradicate such problems.

If parish councils are among those organisations whose acts and omissions it is intended should be able to be challenged under the Human Rights Bill. [30357]

Although it will be a matter for the courts, we think it likely that parish councils will be regarded as public authorities.

I thank the Minister for that reply, although it gives some cause for concern in the following respect.

The Government have already had to undertake reviews of the application of the Human Rights Bill in two important areas—its implications for the press and for the Churches—and the Home Secretary has undertaken to consult in those two areas because the Government have discovered that the Bill's implications may not be what they originally thought that they would be. Therefore, will the Government now accept that, as I believe, there is a very real need to review the way in which the Human Rights Bill will affect other public authorities, such as parish councils, which form such an important part of our village community, and will the Minister undertake to consult and review the implications for those important parts of our village communities?

The Bill does not change the substance of convention rights; it only changes access to them in our courts. Broadly, we wish to ensure that all bodies for whose actions the United Kingdom Government are answerable are treated as public authorities under the Bill. The Government are committed to bringing people's rights home from Strasbourg, whereas most Tories appear to want to keep power under the European convention on human rights across the channel, in Strasbourg. The question needs to be asked: why do the Conservatives seek to deny people access to their rights, and why are they so determined to keep power in Strasbourg?

Does my hon. Friend agree that giving everyone in the United Kingdom access to local jurisdiction over human rights helps to bring people together? Does he share my view that it is perturbing to hear people pressing for sectional interests to get a pass out of the Human Rights Bill—which of course they will not get, because we have an international treaty obligation in that regard? We should encourage people in the Churches, the media and local authorities of all kinds, including parish councils, to recognise that they have a responsibility to respect the human rights of others.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill will ensure that there is greater respect for human rights in this country, and will raise Britain's status in the world as a country that respects human rights.

Given the limited budgets of parish councils and the limited scope for parish councils to engage in abusing human rights—certainly in my constituency—is there not a case for specifically excluding parish councils from that ludicrous legislation?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that the convention currently applies to public authorities anyway. We are not changing the substance of that. We are ensuring that people have greater access to their rights. For the life of me I do not understand why Opposition Members are so opposed to allowing British citizens access in their own courts to their own rights.

If he will make a statement concerning the use of the internet to spread racist and anti-Semitic propaganda. [30358]

The Government deplore the distribution of racist material via the internet. Provided that it falls within our jurisdiction, material passing over the internet is subject to the same laws as material distributed by other means.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are more than 600 anti-Semitic and racist sites on the internet, many of which promote holocaust denial? The internet is readily accessible to young people. Bearing in mind the transnational nature of the internet, will he take the opportunity of Britain's European Union presidency to raise the problem with our European partners and to work with them to find a way of tackling this growing menace?

Indeed, we are already doing that. We condemn such material on the internet. The National Criminal Intelligence Service has been in close liaison with other countries to combat internet abuse, and the G7 action plan on high-tech crime commits us to developing closer links to combat internet crime even more effectively.

Is the Minister aware of the related problem of defamation or libel on the internet? As he observed, the problem is one of jurisdiction. Does he realise that it is possible to defame people in the foulest terms and for them to have no remedy, if the internet service provider is situated abroad? When he undertakes discussions with his European colleagues on racism and anti-Semitism, will he also discuss the problem of defamation or libel?

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is increasingly being recognised what an impact the internet can have on the lives of all of us, and on crime and civil torts such as defamation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary discussed these matters in December with G8 colleagues. As the discussions move forward, the international community will increasingly realise that the only way to tackle these issues is through international co-operation.

What powers he intends to give to the proposed young offender teams; and if he will make a statement. [30360]

The Crime and Disorder Bill places duties rather than powers on youth offending teams. The teams will co-ordinate youth justice services in their area. They will play a key role in working with young offenders in the community from the point of arrest to completion of sentence.

Does my hon. Friend agree that youth offending teams will have to work hard to re-establish the credibility of cautions, given that many young offenders receive up to six or seven cautions? Does he support the work of the Thames Valley police, who have turned the caution from a five-minute formality into something more like an hour-long ordeal in what they call restorative justice?

I certainly commend the actions of the Thames Valley police in encouraging young people who are being cautioned to understand the damage that they have done to others. The credibility of the caution system has been completely undermined in recent years. That is why we are replacing it with a final warning system. Not only will young people be told that their offending must stop but there will be intervention, action and community involvement for them and their families in order to stop their pattern of offending.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of ways of dealing with antisocial behaviour. [30361]

Antisocial behaviour can grow out of control unless it is nipped in the bud—particularly with young offenders. Those problems have grown out of control in recent years. This Government have acted swiftly to reform the youth justice system to make young people face up to the consequences of their own behaviour and to make them realise that the most effective way to deal with antisocial behaviour is to be firm, fair and swift.

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that at times the whole country seems to be covered in graffiti—whether they are on road signs, on the tube or on walls? There is a particular problem in Chalkwell ward in my constituency of Southend, West—a ward that the Conservatives won from the Liberal Democrats last week. Will the Minister tell the House what effective measures are in place to apprehend those vandals who continually indulge in antisocial behaviour through acts of graffiti?

I am not sure which of those two parties the hon. Gentleman blames for the graffiti problem. We intend to nip things in the bud by encouraging partnership between police and local authorities in order to recognise problems as they begin to grow. We will not allow problems to develop—as has happened in recent years—to the point where it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. We intend to tackle those problems.