When he next plans to visit the council estates of Nottingham, North to explain Government policy on the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement. [119011]

The Home Secretary visited Nottingham on 11 April. He attended a meeting on gun crime and visited local community projects. He has no plans to visit Nottingham, North in the near future.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his first Question Time. I note that he is one of the most experienced Ministers on the Front Bench and I wish him and his colleagues well in their new positions—and, indeed, those who have their old positions.

The ministerial team in the Home Department and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have made heroic efforts to amend the criminal justice system to make it more relevant to today's circumstances. However, will my hon. Friend re-examine the possibility of trying to reconnect the criminal justice system more with those who pay for it, by which I mean people living on the estates in our constituencies, many of whom feel disengaged from it? Will my hon. Friend reflect on how best to put that right? Could he run a pilot scheme, for example, to—

Order. That question is far too long. I call the Minister.

I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes, and, in saying that, I am sure that I speak not just for myself but for other members of the Front-Bench team.

It is important to understand that criminal justice policy and legislation are not for the House alone; they must go out right across estates such as those in my hon. Friend's constituency. In Nottinghamshire, as elsewhere throughout the country, we now have local criminal justice boards whose job it is to ensure that these policies are better communicated to build public confidence in the criminal justice system. The local criminal justice boards have to produce an annual report and can also publish newsletters and other forms of communication. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that CJS Online includes a page dedicated to the local board in his area.

Will the Minister encourage the Home Secretary to go to Nottingham, North, whose electors doubtless wish to be reassured that the Minister responsible for the criminal justice system is based in this House, has political legitimacy by election and does not owe his present position to the fact that he is a friend of the Prime Minister?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take every opportunity to visit Nottingham, but when he goes there, or anywhere else in the country, it will be abundantly clear that he, as Home Secretary, is in charge of criminal justice policy.

I, too, welcome the new Minister—and, indeed, the other new Ministers—to the Dispatch Box. We hope to add considerably to their work load.

I am sorry that the Home Secretary will not visit Nottingham's council estates in the near future. When he eventually does so, will he explain to the people living there the difference between the Prime Minister's early pledge that he would

"halve the time from arrest to sentencing"

for young offenders, and the Government's press release of June this year in which they claim to meet the pledge only by redefining it as

"to halve the time it takes to get persistent young offenders into court from the time they were arrested"?

Does the Minister believe that the people of Nottingham cannot spot the difference between getting young people into court and getting them convicted?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and I can reassure him that we kept the pledge that we made. I took an early look into the problem: when we took office in 1997, it was 142 days, whereas it is now consistently 71 days or fewer.

Oh yes, the "it" has been kept, but it has changed. Getting people into court is not the same as getting them convicted. If it were, the Home Secretary's vast legislative energies would be entirely wasted.

When the Minister eventually visits Nottingham, will he also tell people living on the council estates why he is today quietly bringing to a Committee Upstairs a regulation that will abolish the statutory time limits for youth justice that the Government themselves introduced in 1999? Will he explain to the people of Nottingham why on 14 May 1998, the Minister's predecessor, the then Under-Secretary, said that abolishing those regulations would

"undermine our wish to administer justice expeditiously, particularly for young offenders"?—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 May 1998; c. 399.]

Why have the Government been pretending, as the Minister just has, that they have fulfilled the Prime Minister's pledge when, in reality, the failure to fulfil it is so abject that they are now repealing the legislation that sought to implement it in the first place? Will the Minister explain to the people of Nottingham why the Government have descended to the level of fiddling their own pledges?

May I explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the pledge and the time limits are two entirely different but complementary objectives? The pledge that he read out from the pledge card has been kept, and we have reflected on the need for time limits. The fact that we are removing statutory time limits does not remove the urgency of timeliness within the criminal justice system.

What discussions he has had with the Scottish Justice Minister regarding the co-ordination of UK drugs policy. [119012]

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) last met the Scottish Deputy Justice Minister, Hugh Henry MSP, at the British-Irish Council meeting on 7 February. A programme of drug-related activities was agreed at that meeting to improve co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations and to share experiences and good practice.

I congratulate the Minister on her new appointment. Are there any plans to work with the new Justice Minister to reduce the amount of drugs entering the country, both north and south of the border? What message can she send to my constituents to prove that everything that can be done is being done?

The Scottish Executive are also represented on a number of cross-Government official groups and committees and there is strong liaison north and south of the border. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government and the Scottish Executive take the abuse of drugs, and the crime that emanates from it, very seriously. It is a major priority for the Government.

Given that 90 per cent. of the heroin on the streets of Scotland—and on the streets of Doncaster—originates from poppies grown in Afghanistan, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the recent report from United Nations inspectors, which says that this year's poppy harvest is likely to be a record bumper crop? Can she give me an assurance that every step will be taken to ensure that that poppy harvest does not become the raw opium that becomes heroin on the streets of Scotland and Doncaster, leading to devastation for her constituents and mine?

My hon. Friend raises an important matter. We need to deal with the source from which drugs come, and I am pleased to inform him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the Afghan President only last week. Some £150 million of UK money is being provided to tackle the problem. I know that my hon. Friend works hard on the issue and I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.

I welcome the Minister to her new role. Is she aware that one of the major ways to address the drugs problem north and south of the border is by a massive increase in rehabilitation facilities? Will she commit to learning the lessons from experience in both England and Scotland through consultation? That obviously did not happen on Thursday when the post of Secretary of State for Scotland was first abolished, and then reinstated.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. What happened last week is not relevant. The Home Secretary has overall responsibility for the UK strategy on drugs and the Scottish Executive have responsibility for implementing strategies and deciding priorities in Scotland. There is no change there, regardless of changes to the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Treatment is very important, and we recognise that north and south of the border. We know that we have to do more in that area, but we are providing resources on a massive scale to ensure that people get the treatment that they need, according to their needs and when they need it.

I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Does she agree that the recovery of drug dealers' assets is an important weapon in the fight against the drug trade? What mechanisms exist to ensure co-operation between the Assets Recovery Agency in England and Wales and the Crown Office, which is responsible for asset recovery in Scotland? Does she agree that an equally stringent regime on both sides of the border is necessary to prevent drug dealers from moving around to try to take advantage of an apparently more lenient regime?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we are going to make progress, it is essential to have co-operation between all the agencies involved. I am only three days into my job, but it will be an issue that I will seek to look at. I welcome any representations from Members of Parliament or their constituents on how the matter is dealt with, locally, regionally and nationally.

I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and welcome her to the Dispatch Box. When she considers the Home Office's responsibilities for drug strategy, will she bear in mind the great anger in all parts of the country—not only Scotland—at the fact that British taxpayers' money is used to purchase and supply hard drugs to prisoners in Scottish prisons? Will she also bear in mind the fact that anti-drugs campaigners are very angry about the messages given on the Home Office's Talk to Frank website, which appear to provide excuses for drug taking rather than to steer children away from drugs?

We do not provide any excuse for drug taking. I will look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises in relation to prisons, but I am afraid that I do not have the information to hand. We take the situation very seriously, and our priority is to tackle hard drugs—class A drugs—because they cause the most harm to individuals and provoke the most crime.

If he will make a statement on progress in the Department's investigation into the Mersey Tunnels police force. [119013]

The Merseyside passenger transport authority, Merseytravel, which is primarily responsible for the Mersey Tunnels police and for the safe operation of the tunnels, is seeking judicial review of the coroner's report and the report by the Police Complaints Authority into the deaths of Darren Franey and Scott Veach. My officials are working closely with the Department for Transport to ensure that the Mersey tunnels are policed in a professional and effective manner, but it would be sensible to await the outcome of the legal proceedings before determining the way forward.

While I have reservations about a police force reporting to what I regard as an unaccountable body—Merseytravel—and about Merseytravel's using public funds to pursue judicial review against what I regard as well-intentioned comments by the coroner, is it not time to have a thorough look at all the quasi-independent, non-territorial police forces, which have a tendency to become fiefdoms without common standards or automatic recourse to the Police Complaints Authority? Is it not time that we considered whether they might be brought into the general policing effort and the regular constabularies? For example, do we really need police forces for separate markets?

My hon. Friend raises some important points. The non-Home Office constabularies perform a range of duties mainly confined to the policing of private property. I understand his concern that those forces should meet the same training, ethical and professional skills standards as the rest of the police force. I am happy to reassure him that we are working with the Department for Transport on the British Transport police, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the parks police, and with the Department of Trade and Industry on the atomic energy police. We are making sure that we get the same standards across the police. Joined-up, effective policing is our top priority.

What assessment he has made of the impact on local police forces of the extraction of police officers for security in central London. [119014]

May I first, for myself and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, welcome the rest of our Front-Bench team? I also wish my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins)—the only other male in the team—a very happy 50th birthday

The day-to-day deployment of the service is in the hands of the commissioner. We recognise that there is a real issue concerning the deployment of staff to counter potential terrorist acts. That is why we have allocated £62 million this year, and 300 community support officers have been specifically deployed so that their work and surveillance can complement that of the police.

I appreciate that it is difficult to address heightened security in central London. However, the abstraction of officers from local police forces is having a debilitating effect on their strategies to deal with antisocial behaviour and other crimes in our communities. The people of Eltham and Plumstead deserve as much security in their homes and communities as do those in central London. In approaching this issue in future, might it be possible to scrutinise the abstraction of officers to ensure that they are taken only for essential services, because their abstraction is having a damaging effect locally?

In spite of the additional resources that I have just mentioned, the deployment of community support officers and the additional 2,000 officers in the Metropolitan police over the 18 months to last September, there is undoubtedly a problem. I raised that problem with the Met commissioner last week, and the police are monitoring the situation and developing graphs showing the incidence of street crimes, burglary, vehicle crime and crime in other targeted areas in relation to the number of officers available.

In the boroughs, an average of eight or nine officers are being taken out each week for the present surveillance in central London. The commissioner and I believe that we need to examine the situation further and to ensure that complementary work is done by those examining the danger of terrorism and those undertaking normal day-to-day duties. I am keen to reassure my hon. Friend that we are on top of the situation and are demonstrating that more police, more visible police and more back-up from community support officers make a difference, but that we must make that difference not only in central London, where crime has dropped dramatically, but in boroughs such as my hon. Friend's.

I am glad that the Secretary of State recognises that there is a problem. Is he aware that it is persistent in the London borough of Bromley and that it was made worse recently when we learned that the number of additional police officers we were expecting this year has been halved due to what is called a funding crisis in the Metropolitan police? Is he aware of that funding crisis, and what can he tell the House about it?

One person's crisis is another person's opportunity: the opportunity to employ 1,200 extra police this coming year and the opportunity to employ 500 additional community support officers—a large number. In the mid-1990s, in the days when the Opposition were starting the process of running down the police force, the crisis was a reality because fewer police meant a crisis on the streets. If more police, more CSOs and more visibility is a crisis, the word has taken on an entirely different meaning.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the extraction of police from other local forces seriously affects Sussex police, who continue to lose high-grade and experienced officers to the Met through its predatory approach? Will he turn his attention to the fact that, although that may be good for the Met, it is very bad for Sussex police?

Just three years ago, the drain away from the Metropolitan police was reaching dangerous levels. The reversal of that has of course placed strain on forces immediately outside London, which is why now, and through our continuing conversations with chief constables, we are doing everything possible to achieve a balance by appropriate measures and rewards, including housing, for the most affected authorities.

I join in the Home Secretary's welcome to his team, and especially in his birthday greetings to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins). If the hon. Gentleman does not yet look his age, doing that job he soon will.

Do not the figures show clearly that, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, removing police officers from one area to deal with problems in another simply creates a vacuum for crime? Extraction as routine practice rather than in dire emergency is merely a measure of the fact that not enough police officers are available; so does the Secretary of State accept, as his speech last week appeared to, our proposals and policies for dedicated neighbourhood policing, with specific career and accountability structures to ensure that the police really are where our constituents expect to see them—on the streets?

After 11 September 2001, it was inevitable that there would be extraction; there had to be, in order to redeploy to meet a particular problem. That was stepped up again to meet people's fears of reaction to the conflict in Iraq. I have already demonstrated that the commissioner and I are keen to take a further look at the matter and to ensure that the improvement in inner London has not been made to the detriment of those in the outer boroughs.

I can do nothing other than accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures on neighbourhood policing, because, on 5 December 2001, I published a White Paper that spelt out clearly that that was the Government's objective. We have been gratified to learn both from the commissioner and from chief constables that there is recognition that the switch away from neighbourhood and community policing a decade ago was a mistake.

What plans he has to promote community engagement and active citizenship. [119015]

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published a comprehensive statement on civic renewal. It is fundamentally about unlocking the power and potential of local communities and their citizens, enabling active citizens to provide solutions to their own problems. We are bringing the civic renewal agenda into everything we do in the Home Office, whether criminal justice reform, policing or the development of assets in the community. Community engagement and active citizenship are key to a healthy society and crucial to delivering the Government's objectives.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response and congratulate her and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on their appointments to the Front Bench.

What plans does the Home Office have to ensure that those efforts to engage the community in citizenship will reach out to the ethnic minority communities, too? What contacts will my hon. Friend make with other Departments to ensure that that is the case?

I suspect that one reason why I have been appointed to this role is absolutely to do that, because I will have responsibility for volunteering and citizenship activity and for racial equality. I really believe that making those contacts with communities and enabling other Departments to ensure that they engage communities and that the race equality aspects of their policies are effective will be key in delivering the responsibilities that the Home Secretary has given me.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment. Does she agree that there is probably no better way to be an active citizen than to become a special constable? As a Thames valley Member herself, will she explain why she thinks that the number of special constables has fallen by so much and what the Government will do to try to reverse the trend?

The hon. Gentleman is right that special constables form a very important part of civic engagement, and I am pleased to note that many special constables in my area have taken up full-time employment with the police, as we are increasing police recruitment. I suspect that the number of special constables has fallen because many of them have been able to take on professional responsibilities and use their experience as specials to enable them to become professional police officers. I hope that more people will take that route into serving our communities.

May I offer my warmest congratulations to my hon. Friend on her promotion to the Front Bench? Does she agree that active citizenship can flourish only in an atmosphere where bigotry and hatred are banished and unacceptable? To that end, does she agree that we still have much to do in relation to equality law and updating our anti-discrimination legislation to ensure that all our citizens can be free from the horror of being discriminated against because of their beliefs, colour, gender, age or sexual orientation? Will she support further Government action to provide protections in those important areas?

I thank my hon. Friend for her generous remarks. I agree that we have to work to free our society from bigotry and the way in which bigotry and prejudice fuel attacks and diminish people's rights. Part of the way to do that is through legislation, but there is more to be done by challenging attitudes, engaging communities and so on. I hope that we will go forward on both those fronts to deliver an effective way to engage people properly and to diminish the bigotry and prejudice that blight our communities.

Does the Minister agree that nothing is more important to community engagement and active citizenship than schools and voluntary organisations working with young people? Can she explain why—after a year's disruption caused by the delays and incompetence of the Criminal Records Bureau and the appalling company, Capita—those organisations are now faced with a doubling of charges?

I understand that there has been no doubling of charges for volunteer checks or any charge for checking on volunteers. If I am wrong about that in any way—I am new to these responsibilities—I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, there are expensive charges for professional staff, and that affects voluntary organisations, but it is important that we protect people effectively. It is also important that we do not inhibit people from volunteering because of the cost of checking criminal records.

If he will make a statement on what action the Government are taking to deter the use of knives in street crime, with special reference to knife-point robbery. [119016]

It is important to deter the use of knives and other offensive weapons in any type of crime, and the Government do so by providing legislation and police powers to prevent the possession or use of knives and other offensive weapons. For instance, it is an offence for any person to have an offensive weapon in a public place or on school premises, punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years, or for any person to sell knives to people under the age of 16.

The street crime initiative was launched in March 2002 to reduce all street crime, irrespective of whether a weapon is used in committing the crime. I am pleased to report that, in the first six months of that ongoing initiative, street crime fell by 16 per cent. in the areas covered.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Front Bench. York is one of the safest cities in the country, which is one reason that it attracts so many visitors. Nevertheless, there has been a significant increase in robbery—a threefold increase over the last three years—which, in a few cases, has involved the use of knives, particularly by young children. What are the Government doing to help police forces, such as North Yorkshire police and other law enforcement agencies, to get on top of this problem?

I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes and for raising an important problem, especially when children are using weapons for violent activities. Although North Yorkshire is not in the street crime initiative area, I hope that his local area, and the wider area of North Yorkshire, will benefit from the lessons learned from the initiative through the spread of best practice. At 30 September 2002, there were 131,548 police officers in England and Wales, and 1,404 police officers in North Yorkshire, compared with 1,305 the previous year. Those are record numbers, but we need to look at sharing best practice and initiatives across the whole of England and Wales.

The Minister said that in the first six months of the street crime initiative street crime had fallen. Given that we have had nine months since the end of that first six-month period, what has happened since then?

I am pleased to report to the hon. Gentleman that street crime has continued to fall. The most recent figures on robbery were published on 4 April 2003 as part of the quarterly crime update. Recorded robbery fell by an estimated 23 per cent. in the period from October to December 2002 compared with the same period in 2001.

In congratulating my hon. Friend on her recent appointment, may I ask her to welcome initiatives in Croydon in combating offensive weapons, in particular, charging without a caution anyone with a knife and, from today, banning street drinking in the centre of Croydon so that people who carry bottles, which can be used as offensive weapons, face fixed penalty notices from our new band of police community officers? Will she reassure the House that investment in those front-line services will continue? Will she also talk to other Home Office Ministers, including the Secretary of State, about the possibility of hypothecating the income from these fines on drunken yobs for front-line services to keep crime going down? In Croydon, it is down 6 per cent. in the last year.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the initiative in Croydon to my attention. I am pleased to hear of these local initiatives, especially when they seem to be working. The Metropolitan police safer streets initiative has had considerable success and he will be aware that we are looking at extending fixed penalty notices under the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which is currently proceeding through Parliament. I am sure that my colleagues on the Front Bench will have heard his latter remarks.

Given that beat policemen are the best deterrent against street crime, and given the extreme difficulty of recruiting beat policemen in South Oxfordshire, what does the Minister have to say to Simon Dixon, a constituent of mine who recently applied to join the police, passed all the tests with flying colours, but was turned down on the ground that he had three tattoos on his upper arms: one of a man waving a flag, one of a dog, and one of a mouse sitting on a toadstool smoking a hubble-bubble pipe? None of those tattoos was visible when he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt, yet he was told that they might cause offence to hospital staff were he to be involved in an accident. What can she do to rectify that senseless rejection?

Order. Unless the gentleman was carrying a knife, the Minister cannot answer that question.

I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. I appreciate everything that she said about the action that has been taken, but should we not also consider banning such weapons? There are shops in the borough that I represent—the London borough of Havering—in which large and dangerous knives, swords, asps and clubs are openly sold and displayed. They attract younger people in particular, and a series of related crimes have been committed in the borough. Recently, in the constituency of Romford, a man had his right hand removed with a samurai sword. Clearly, and understandably, such crime provokes a great deal of widespread fear. Should not we consider banning the sale of those weapons and certainly banning their display?

I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to the Front Bench. A number of offensive weapons are already banned, but I would be willing to listen to what he has to say, for him to come to see me about the weapons that he mentioned today and to consider whether further measures need to be taken both on display and on whether such weapons should be sold in the first place.

What progress he is making with his plans to screen applicants for political asylum outside the United Kingdom. [119017]

We have made steady progress in Europe with our proposals for zones of protection. In particular, we welcome contributions from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the European Commission, which recently published a positive communication about our proposals. We are working with a number of our EU partners to develop aspects of our ideas on zones of protection, but the proposals will not obviate the need for continued action to bear down on abuse of the asylum system here, which is why we will continue with our package of robust measures, including introducing new measures where necessary to ensure that our system works effectively.

May I commiserate with the hon. Lady on the continuation of her extremely difficult duties? In view of the vehement and near unanimous hostility to the concept of open accommodation centres in the areas in which they may be located and of the fact that the overwhelming majority of immigrants stay here, regardless of the merit of their case, is there not a case for accelerating consideration of the policy of screening political asylum seekers outside the United Kingdom, as proposed by the Conservative party?

When I have more time to respond I would like to engage the hon. Gentleman in discussion why I think that the Tories' proposals are full of holes. Interestingly, Tory Front Benchers have commissioned Mr. Timothy Kirkhope—a former Minister with responsibility for immigration who was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee—to help them to fill the holes.

We need a broad strategy. We need immediate action to secure our borders, which we have done, and to transform our asylum system, which will include pilots for accommodation centres, because we need a system that can cope robustly with claims. We also need sustainable international solutions to the problems of global migration. We are discussing proposals with our EU partners. They have been generally warmly received and we want to make progress.

As screening posts will be outside this country and, indeed, outside countries that signed up to the 1951 Geneva convention, will the Minister confirm that convention standards will apply and that if people applied for asylum at a centre but were not accepted they could still make an in-country application if they arrived in this country and could make a genuine case?

We currently have no plans to process asylum seekers on the borders of the EU, which several newspapers have reported. There is no prospect of any camps—Sangatte-style or otherwise. We want 10 take forward ideas for regional protection processing, which has the support of the UNHCR. I assure my hon. Friend that those arrangements will conform to our obligations under international conventions. We are making progress on ideas that are important to develop international co-operative responses, but we have never said that those proposals would obviate the need for a robust and comprehensive system in this country, as I said in my first answer. We anticipate that when people claim here, we will have to continue to process some of their claims here.

On behalf of all my party colleagues, will the Minister pass on our congratulations and welcome to her colleagues, with whom we look forward to working, and her best wishes to those who have moved on?

Does the Minister agree that Her Majesty's Government should adopt a twin-track approach on asylum seekers? First, we should encourage asylum seekers to seek asylum at the nearest possible place to the country from which they come, and the UK Government should assist those countries, which are often poor, to deal with asylum seekers who want to come to Europe, often in ever greater numbers. Secondly, we should honour proudly our commitment to uphold the 1951 convention for those who come to Europe and give asylum to those who need it. Does she agree that we should share responsibility and not shirk it, and that all people who apply in an EU country should be processed there and be dealt with fairly and justly at all times by that country?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to my colleagues. I am extremely happy to be carrying on with my responsibilities, which are very important for this country and internationally. He and I have discussed that and I know he understands what an important and interesting area it is.

We agree that the important issue, which has always been our priority in such international discussions, is to improve regional protection for people. His point about the importance of enabling people to claim as close as possible to the areas from which they are fleeing is an important priority. In relation to claims within EU countries, as I have said throughout my responses to such questions, it is very important both that EU countries act together and that we continue to have a robust, clear and appropriate system within our countries. We have always envisaged that that would need to continue because claims would be made in individual countries. Here in the UK we need to be able to process those claims quickly and efficiently.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Australia uses another country—the island of Nauru—to process its asylum applications. Since that system was introduced, has there not been a dramatic reduction in the amount of people trafficking into that country?

I understand that that is so, and perhaps it is one of the consequences of that aspect of the Australian system. It is more straightforward for Australia to do that. It may also be a response to other aspects of the Australian system. However, my hon. Friend is right to highlight that every country, irrespective of its system, needs to have robust measures, including international co-operation, to tackle illegal trafficking and the activities of criminal gangs, which fuel illegal immigration and the rise in asylum claims. We are doing that substantially both with France and other European countries, not only in those close to home but in source countries and those with the transit routes, which criminal gangs use to bring people into this country.

I call Angela Watkinson.

Splendid.

What assessment he has made of those sections of the draft EU constitution relating to external border controls. [119018]

I have not spoken yet and the hon. Gentleman says "splendid"!

There is no threat in the draft constitution that will go to the intergovernmental conference in October to the frontiers protocol secured at Amsterdam by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We have strengthened our own borders by moving the immigration and security measures to the French coast, by closing down the routes through the Frethun and Coquelles depots and by securing better the route through the channel tunnel. Things are much more secure than they have ever been and that will remain the case.

Does the Home Secretary recognise that the only effective way of overcoming the asylum chaos is to scrap the existing system altogether and introduce a quota system for genuine refugees?

I proposed a quota system in the White Paper a year last February. Along with UNHCR, I am implementing the first steps, as of last 1 April, to do just that. However, we also have to deal with a situation in which quotas are irrelevant, which occurs when people reach our soil. Opposition Members, including the shadow Home Secretary, have to answer a simple question: if someone arrives in Britain from Zimbabwe and claims asylum, what do we do with him?

The Home Secretary may well have heard over recent days much huff and puff in many of the tabloid newspapers about the draft constitutional treaty and what it will do to border controls and asylum and immigration in Europe. Will he ignore all that nonsense and focus on the genuine issue at hand, which is ensuring that we have a better integrated system with the rest of Europe so that we have justice and fairness for those who claim asylum and seek to immigrate?

Yes, I agree entirely. We need much greater co-operation, but not a unified and centrally operated force, along the new borders of the extended European Union. All parties in the House are committed to that. We have experimented with that by helping the Spanish with those who traverse the Mediterranean and the straits of Gibraltar, and we are doing the same with other countries. I hope that we can do much more. However, I hope that we can act in a civilised, rational and organised fashion once people are inside the EU.

I do not understand the Home Secretary's comments about the EU constitution. In its draft form it explicitly says that the Union

"shall ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control".

Does he agree with the Leader of the House that that is just a bit of "tidying up", because that appears to be at variance with my understanding of the text?

Secondly, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said that even if we had international co-operation we would still need robust measures to deal with issues such as asylum. Will it not become impossible to take those robust measures nationally? If so, will the Home Secretary kindly tell the House whether, in those circumstances, the Government intend to veto the proposal, or will he explain why the sacrifice needs to be made to accept it?

On the latter point, I make it abundantly clear that not a single measure that we are taking would be ruled out or disqualified by the changes to be put to the intergovernmental conference in October—not one.

On internal border controls, the Government secured, and have had for some time, an opt-out clause on all those matters, including Schengen. The opt-outs remain and are not affected by the Convention's discussions and proposals. I am simply stating a fact. It is no good Opposition Members dreaming up a different protocol, a different Convention and a different constitution, presenting that constitution to the British people and asking them to vote it down when it bears no resemblance to the reality of what the Government are prepared to sign up to.

But is not an opt-out, by definition, something that comes to an end? Is my right hon. Friend sure that the clause recently added to the Convention, which enables the Commission to change, by its own internal arrangements, the controls over not only immigration but other aspects of the legal system normally decided by the House of Commons, will not have a direct impact irrespective of any opt-out that we hold at the moment?

Yes, I am certain. I can tell my hon. Friend that neither I nor the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary would sign up to anything that precluded our getting off an escalator that was going somewhere that we did not wish to go.

How many asylum seekers lost their applications for asylum in 2002; and how many of them have left the country. [119019]

In the calendar year 2002, 54,650 people received negative initial asylum decisions. Some of those will still be in the appeals process and therefore not yet due for removal. However, during the same period we removed a record number of failed asylum seekers: 10,410 principal applicants, or 13,335 including dependants. That is an increase of 12 per cent. on the previous year and a 45 per cent. increase on 1997. A number of new measures are being taken to continue to increase the number of people removed when they come to the end of a claim that has not been approved.

I thank the Minister for what I hope is hopeful news. Has she read the Home Affairs Committee report of April, which said that it was unsatisfactory that the Government could not even offer a rough estimate of the number of failed asylum seekers remaining in the UK? As it seems that at least 80 per cent. of those who have failed after lengthy and costly appeals remain here, should not the Government try to find out what is happening?

Is the Minister aware that, according to advice that I have had from my constituents, there is an easy way to remain here? One simply makes a new application in a different name in the next town and starts all over again. I have given the Minister details of individual cases. Will she consider the matter and find out why so many failed asylum seekers remain in this country without any apparent difficulty?

We are tackling some significant issues that make it difficult to remove people when their applications fail, including the problem of redocumenting them to the satisfaction of the country from which they have come. However, we are working actively with those countries, including instituting interviews by high commissioners in detention centres, to make sure that we can redocument people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, without documentation, we simply cannot put people on planes and ship them out. However, we are addressing that issue.

We are using the detention estate much more effectively so that we can bring people to the point of removal and then get them out of the country. We are processing people more quickly, we are issuing them all with ID cards, and we require them to report regularly. We are therefore keeping in contact with people. Through those measures, we are able to increase, as I have said, the number of people who are removed. However, we need to go further. Eurodac, the international system that came online in January, enables us to identify whether people have claimed before—here or in another European country. There is a range of robust measures to increase the number of people removed, but it is equally important to reduce the intake. The hon. Gentleman will know that the combined measures that we took with France produced a reduction of 32 per cent. in the first quarter of this year. Reducing the intake is just as important as removing more people.

But when did those who have now been removed first apply for asylum? Many of my constituents are suffering grave disquiet because they have yet to be told whether their application has failed. Certainly, many who have been in this country for a considerable period have experienced a slowing down of the appeals process, most markedly in the acknowledgement of applications. I know that there has been an increase in both financial resources and personnel, but the backlog seems to be getting longer. What comfort can my hon. Friend offer my constituents that they will soon know their situation?

As my hon. Friend is aware—and I am glad that she acknowledged this—extra resources have been provided. The new intake of asylum claims has now been processed, and 75 per cent. will get their initial decision in two months. Further resources have been put into appeals—6,000 asylum appeals a month are now dealt with, so appeals are processed much more quickly.

My hon. Friend is wrong that the backlog is getting bigger. There is still a backlog, but clearly, as the number of new claims is reduced, we are able to invest more resources in reducing it. In fact, it is going down very considerably indeed. I hope that towards the end of this year we will only have work in progress, and will have eradicated the backlog completely.

Is there not an inconsistency between the Minister's robust language and the huge expansion in in-country work permits? Will she confirm that more than 100,000 work permits will be handed out this year to people in-country, many of them without any skills, who are being given a sweetener so that they do not apply for asylum?

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Indeed, the points that he made demonstrate strongly that this is a real issue of difference between the Opposition and the Government. He is completely wrong that there is any link at all between the asylum system and managed migration policies, including work permits. It is not possible for somebody who has claimed asylum to switch to a work permit or any other managed migration route. We make no apology for encouraging people to come here to work, provided that that is done in a regulated and transparent way. Our economy needs it, and we welcome people on that basis. Whether an application for a work permit is made in-country or for somebody outside, it is employers—British business people—who apply for work permits because they want people to work in their businesses and support the UK economy when they cannot employ an indigenous member of the population.

What assessment he has made of the effect of community safety wardens on reassuring vulnerable groups in the community about fear of crime. [119020]

What steps he is taking to gauge the effect of the introduction of community support officers. [119021]

We have received a good deal of anecdotal information from a wide variety of sources, including letters from members of the public, which have told us that community support officers are having a positive effect in our communities by providing a visible and reassuring policing presence. Funding for CSOs includes a requirement for formal evaluation to be undertaken locally. The 27 forces from the first funding round are due to give us their initial findings by the end of September.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on her arrival in the Home Office, and thank her for the eight CSOs that we currently have in Blackpool and the further five that we are likely to get in the area in the next couple of months. Having recently spent an evening on the beat with my local police, I was particularly impressed by the way in which CSOs were being used to tackle antisocial behaviour in Blackpool, particularly through the confiscation of alcohol. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the crucial roles of CSOs is to reclaim the streets, especially to the benefit of older people and small businesses in the areas affected by antisocial behaviour, so that as a result of their presence there is a much greater sense of community solidarity?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm welcome to my position. I am delighted that he has taken the initiative to go out with his local force and see for himself the situation on the ground. I am sure that a number of other Members have taken a similar step. My hon. Friend is right that Lancashire, his police area, got 72 community support officers in the first round and another 35 in the second round. As street crime Minister for Lancashire, I had the pleasure of meeting some of the people who have taken up those roles, and I can say that they are making a tremendous impact on their communities. People welcome a strong, visible presence on the streets to make them feel safe, and they know that the Government are determined to make sure that we support people in communities to reclaim our streets and make communities safer.

Regrettably, North Wales police was one of the forces that did not apply to supplement the high level of policing already in the area with the addition of community support officers. I know that the funding arrangements favour forces that were wise enough to make applications when the scheme first started. Will the Home Office, and my hon. Friend with her new responsibilities, please reconsider those funding arrangements, to try to encourage the chief constable of North Wales and the North Wales police authority to take larger steps along the route of employing CSOs in the future?

Yes. My hon. Friend will be aware that there was an application from North Wales police for community support officers, and that they have been targeted in the Rhyl priority policing area. That is the decision of the chief constable. Clearly, there are funds available and we will have further rounds of community support officers. We want to encourage forces throughout the country to consider how they can get CSOs on the ground, helping their police forces to deliver improved community safety for everybody in our communities. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the reassurance that we will try to encourage his area and others to apply.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment and wish her success in executing her responsibilities. Given that there might well be many people around the country, not least within the Aylesbury Vale district council area, of which my Buckingham constituency forms a part, who welcome the idea of community support officers but who face the prospect of being denied such a provision in practice, what assessment has she made within the past 72 hours of the transparency, consistency and objectivity of the criteria for allocation?

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has undergone something of a conversion. Reading the debate on the Police Reform Bill last year, it was apparent to me that the Opposition were lukewarm about community support officers. Now that they have seen that they are such a success on the ground, they would like to have them everywhere. I can tell him that I will be looking at the allocation criteria.

The Opposition may not have supported CSOs, but they are hugely popular throughout the country. Some of the comments that I have had from the Rhymney area include one from John Vaughn, aged 73, who said:

"I would say that having the officers patrolling our estate will give us more security, and I think that I will sleep a bit better at night."

Elderly residents say that they can now go out in the evenings, which they could not do before. The introduction of CSOs is one of the most successful policies that the Government have implemented. I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman's support.

Although community support officers might give people some reassurance, it must be accepted that they have no powers. What most people want is more police on the beat and, to reassure them about crime levels, when they report a crime, they want a policeman to turn up. Often, when people ring the station, it says that there are not enough officers on duty to attend the scene of the crime.

I also welcome the hon. Lady's conversion. In the past 12 months, police numbers, not community support officer numbers, have risen by 4,337—the largest rise for 27 years, in a 12-month period, in the number of police officers on the ground. It is this Government who have been prepared to put in the resources, together with reform, to ensure that we can provide increased community safety for the people whom we represent.