To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the implementation of the workplace fire safety proposals. [5508]

Since 2 May, written representations have been received from the Fire Brigades Union, the Fire Industry Council and from one fire safety consultant.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Given the previous Government's delay and dithering over this extremely important issue, when will my hon. Friend introduce regulations to implement the workplace fire safety directive?

It is our intention shortly to lay regulations to put in place the EC fire safety regulations and the workplace directive. The fire authorities, which have the most experience and expertise, will be the appropriate bodies to enforce those regulations. We also intend to interpret them as flexibly as possible, so as not to place too many undue burdens on business.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of wheel clamping. [5509]

The present situation on wheel clamping on private land is quite unsatisfactory. We are considering what can be done to deal with those wheel clampers who unscrupulously prey on motorists.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. My constituents and I have witnessed extortion, bullying and many other threats from wheel clampers. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) is experiencing the same problem. We have not had the results of the consultation process started by the previous Government, and the threat from bullies through wheel clamping remains. Will my hon. Friend take note of my concerns and those expressed by other hon. Members and resurrect the consultation procedure which was started by the Tories? It was never meaningful, so we now need to do something drastic about this problem.

My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government launched a consultation process, which was used as an excuse for not accepting amendments during the passage of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. We wanted to include a provision in that legislation. It should be clear that if a clamper uses threats of violence or criminal damage when demanding money, he could be committing a criminal offence. Such threatening behaviour should be reported to the police. In the short term, before there is an opportunity to deal with this problem through legislation, I give my hon. Friend an undertaking to discuss the issue with the police, so that the best use can be made of the law as it stands to protect the public.

Does the Minister agree that the public should not be allowed to trespass on private land without permission? Will he think carefully when introducing any law in that respect? The Government should uphold the right of private landowners to charge people who infringe on their land up to and not beyond a maximum amount set by the Government.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The difficulty is that, often, land does not appear to be private land, or it is land on to which the public are attracted for business or commercial purposes or for a variety of other reasons. The Court of Appeal set an important precedent in its ruling in the case of Arthur and Arthur v. Anker, stating that clampers had acted legally because adequate warning signs had been displayed and the release fee had been reasonable. The problem that we must tackle is that of the unscrupulous wheel clampers who threaten or prey on the public. We are concerned that those people should be caught and should not be able to pursue those activities.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that his announcement today will be widely welcomed, especially in my constituency of Doncaster, Central, where freelance clampers are regarded as little more than modern-day highway robbers, whose weapons include a beaten-up car, a rusty clamp and a mobile telephone, and whose intimidatory tactics in demanding immediate cash payment cause distress to their victims? Will he take into account during his consultation exercise any evidence that I can give him from people who have direct experience of cowboy clampers?

Yes, certainly; I would welcome evidence from my hon. Friend and others who have experienced the situation. The inception of the consultation undertaken by the previous Government dates back almost four years. We have to maintain a balance between ensuring that such actions can be deployed to deal with those who have every warning, yet persist in parking on private land when they are not justified in doing so, and ensuring that the public are protected against unscrupulous elements that exist in any trade or business. That is part of the wider agenda—the more general regulation of the private security industry— and we pleaded with the previous Government to deal with it. It is in that context that I believe we shall be able to make progress in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to prevent children turning to crime; and if he will make a statement. [5510]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in this issue. Tackling the crisis in the youth justice system is the Government's No. 1 priority in the field of law and order.

"Less is now being done than a decade ago to address offending by young people."

In being more specific than that response, will the Secretary of State consider what further co-operative measures his Department will initiate, such as those arranged by Dorset's drug action team on alcohol and drug use among young people?

I should be delighted to consider those proposals. During the general election campaign, we published a detailed set of policy proposals for dealing both with drug-related crime, including drug treatment and testing orders, and with alcohol-related crime. Provisions in respect of both will feature in the crime and disorder Bill, to be published later this year. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's input into those measures.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement—[Interruption.] When he looks at measures to deal with crime, will he consider the success of the diversion unit in Northamptonshire, which was praised by the Audit Commission report that he mentioned, and see whether lessons in dealing with youth crime can be learned from it?

I should be delighted to do so—despite the mocking laughter from the Opposition Benches, which is not surprising, given the Opposition's record. My predecessor was also interested in the very important and beneficial experience in Northamptonshire for many young offenders. We shall, of course, take it on board in developing our proposals.

Irrespective of the consideration and accommodation that the state may provide for family life in the 21st century, does the Home Secretary agree that there is no substitute for parental love, concern and responsibility? Will he therefore bear it in mind that, although the Government cannot be expected to act in loco parentis, they must impress on parents their primary responsibility for the activities of their children and find the means to ensure that parents are encouraged to fulfil that role?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's comments. He will be interested to know that last year, in opposition, I published a detailed discussion document about parenting and the need to improve parenting education and support. Also, as part of our crime and disorder Bill, we will make specific provision for parental responsibility orders to deal with that small minority of parents who do not take their responsibilities as parents seriously enough.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a proportion of crime is caused by young people roaming around on their own without their parents? Does he agree that it is essential that firm action is taken to ensure that parents take responsibility for their children? Is he aware that, in Peterborough, we have launched the Bretton Youth Trust, which enables young people to take a positive part in improving their community and, therefore, their lives?

I am aware of the Bretton Youth Trust and I paid a visit to that area of Peterborough before the election. I can tell my hon. Friend that another part of the crime and disorder Bill will be provision for child protection orders to ensure that parents are not able to allow young children to play outside or to commit crimes late at night while unsupervised.

Will the Home Secretary explain why the Government have announced that, after all, they will build five secure training centres for persistent young offenders, when the Prime Minister has described such a policy as a sham?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Front Bench.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to contribute to the European Year against Racism and Xenophobia. [5511]

We are determined to do all that we can to support the European Year against Racism and Xenophobia. We have already committed significant resources to the administration of the year and we have also recently announced a further £300,000 of support for local and national events.

How refreshing it is to hear a Minister being positive and enthusiastic about that European initiative. Does he agree that we should celebrate and enjoy the multiracial character of our nation including, for example, at the Trades Union Congress "Respect" conference this weekend? Is my hon. Friend willing to accompany me to one of the events in Newham's programme to mark the year, which I had the pleasure of launching a couple of weeks ago? How much importance do the Government attach to working together in Europe to combat racism?

Diversity is a source of strength to our country and having a multicultural society is something of which we can, in many ways, be proud. We also need to ensure that we commit resources to combating racism where it arises. My hon. Friend has shown, by launching that programme in Newham, the importance he attaches to the European Year against Racism and Xenophobia, as have the local authorities by their support. I am happy to consider any invitation that my hon. Friend sends to me.

How many people's attitudes will be changed by this gesture?

The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that, across Europe, a lot of importance is attached to the European Year against Racism and Xenophobia. He may not think that the issue is important, but let me say this: last week, I spoke with the family of a six-year-old child who had been the subject of vicious racism, including having excrement thrown at her in the street. Ensuring that we effectively tackle these issues and raise them in the public consciousness—and that we have effective legal mechanisms to deal with them—is important. That is why we will introduce in a Bill this year new penalties for and new crimes of racial violence and harassment. We will ensure that we deal with these issues—something that the previous Government failed to do.

Would not one contribution to this European year be to bring the murderers of Stephen Lawrence to justice? I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, as I have raised this case on a number of occasions. Has not a newspaper—the Daily Mail, to its credit—published the names of those who it believes to be guilty of this terrible and vicious murder? Is not the justice system paralysed when those accused of this terrible crime cannot be brought to justice?

All hon. Members are greatly concerned about this terrible crime. The issues that my hon. Friend raises are difficult because, as he knows, there has been a trial at which certain persons were acquitted. We are looking at the matter. Together with the Home Secretary, I met Mrs. Lawrence, her husband and representatives of the campaign relating to the case. We were deeply moved and concerned by the things she told us and we are considering the various proposals that she made.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce more severe minimum mandatory sentences for habitual (a) burglars and (b) dealers in hard drugs. [5512]

We are considering the relevant provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and we believe that tough punishments are appropriate for persistent burglars and dealers in hard drugs.

When do the Minister and the Home Secretary intend to implement those sections of the 1997 Act that introduce minimum mandatory sentences for career burglars and drug dealers, whose actions cause so much misery to so many families?

We are considering these matters, but it would not be wise to be bounced into a hasty decision when there are many factors to take into consideration. I understand that it is unlikely that some of the previous Government's provisions would have been introduced before 2001.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that many victims of habitual criminals resent the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service does not take their case into account because the accused has committed so many other offences, and that the victims are not even consulted about that?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is precisely why we are looking at different aspects of the issue.

What is the Minister's problem? Is she against the idea of minimum mandatory sentences or against keeping repeat burglars and drug dealers in prison?

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new post in the shadow Cabinet. He knows that discussions have taken place on this matter, and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ministerial colleagues were in favour of minimum mandatory sentences for sex offenders and other violent offenders. The problems attached to some of the previous Government's other recommendations were obviously understood by that Government, given the long time scale that they attached to some of their own proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a Bill to improve fire safety. [5514]

My hon. Friend is aware that we support the aims of the Bill on the subject that he introduced in the last Parliament and I am looking forward to implementing that Bill's aims as the opportunity presents itself in the near future.

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. Fire safety is a complex issue and the detail needs proper discussion as well, so I am not asking him to prejudge any review. However, will he give one assurance that the previous Government would not give—that children's nighties and pyjamas will not be deregulated under this Government?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On 8 May 1996, the then Home Secretary—the shadow Home Secretary's predecessor—refused to give such an assurance in a debate in the House. He made it plain that the Government would not rule out the deregulation of buildings in multiple occupation, children's nightclothes, as my hon. Friend rightly said, and foam-filled furniture. I can give this firm commitment: no such deregulation will take place under this Government. We consider fire safety, particularly in those respects, to be of the utmost priority and we will ensure that the necessary legislation is in place to protect people in those and all other circumstances in which they might be threatened by fire.

What assurance can the Minister give small businesses, especially those involved in tourism in my constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale, that legislation on fire safety will not be excessively onerous and drive yet more of them out of business?

In an earlier answer on the EC workplace directive, the hon. Gentleman may have noted that we gave an assurance that no such onerous burdens would be placed on businesses. I am sure that he will agree, however, that, although we do not want to place any onerous burdens on any businesses, including seaside boarding houses or hotels, by the same token we want to ensure that the best possible safety measures are in place for all who use such premises.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is proposing to tackle disorder and anti-social behaviour. [5515]

The Government believe that tackling disorder and anti-social behaviour is a crucial element in dealing with crime and making our communities safer. Recent analysis of the 1996 British crime survey showed that the risk of being a victim of violent crime is four times greater in a disorderly neighbourhood than in an orderly one.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the announcement that yet another manifesto commitment is to be implemented shortly. Does he agree that too many families suffer from the fear and misery that anti-social behaviour brings? Can he confirm that the new community safety orders will give the police and local authorities comprehensive powers to deal with that issue throughout the community, unlike the present iniquitous system, whereby local authorities can and do take action against their tenants for anti-social behaviour, but find that they have precious few powers when the anti-social problem is in the private sector?

I can confirm that. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that much anti-social behaviour is caused not by council tenants but by private tenants or owner-occupiers. Our proposals for community safety orders will be comprehensive and will apply to every member of the community, regardless of the tenure of his or her home, and the duty to enforce them will be on both the police and the local authority.

How can the right hon. Gentleman expect the House to take seriously the plans that he outlined to deal with anti-social behaviour when he is about to release thousands of criminals on to the streets?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard and with whom I have often debated, on his elevation to the Front Bench. The advice that I would give him, however, is to come to the House better briefed and ask questions based on fact and not fiction.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many anti-social activities are carried out by young people who have been excluded from school or who are truanting? What measures will he take, with the Department for Education and Employment, to ensure that this problem, particularly in our inner cities, is looked at seriously?

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. She knows that, on Friday last, I visited an excellent project in her constituency in which there was a scheme for educating and giving support to about 40 children who had been excluded from school. There is a direct connection between children who truant or are excluded from school and high levels of crime. We are determined to tackle the problem in a co-ordinated way. I think that my hon. Friend will find that there are important announcements in the education White Paper which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is due to announce later this afternoon.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [5516]

The Government share the concerns expressed in the Kennedy committee report on xenotransplantation—the transplantation of organs from animals to humans. In relation to animals being used in scientific procedures, we will amend schedule 2 to the Act to add all genetically modified protected animals to the list of species that must be obtained from a designated source. Minor amendments will also be made to introduce in the Act some controls currently exercised through administrative measures, such as standard licence conditions.

I am pleased that the genetic engineering element is to be included in the Government's thinking. Is the Minister aware, however, that it is clear from the Government's own publication. "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals", that, in 1995, 2,709,631 experiments were carried out on animals in this country? Is he further aware that, of those experiments, 49 per cent. were simply for commercial gain? In other words, animals were exploited simply to give a profitable edge to somebody or a competitive edge to an individual company. Is that not an abomination in this country? Can we look to the new Government, first, to reduce the number of experiments dramatically, secondly, to increase the number of inspectors—there are only 18 at present—and, thirdly, to speed up the development of alternatives to animal testing?

All the issues that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are under consideration by the Government. He will appreciate that it is impossible to take a firm view on each of them to begin with. There are, however, two areas about which the House will be interested to know. First, we are looking to implement alternatives wherever possible, particularly with respect to primates, LD50 testing and cosmetic testing. Secondly, we will take forward welfare standards and we will pursue relevant measures across Europe rather than risking exporting animal experimentation to countries with less rigorous controls. Clearly, we share common objectives; it is a question of the means by which we can best promote those objectives. We hope in due course to be able to make an announcement that will make absolutely clear how we intend to take all those concerns forward.

That really is not a satisfactory answer. Is the Minister aware that last week, I delivered a petition at Downing street with more than 100,000 signatures of people who are really concerned about the issue? It simply is not good enough for the Minister to say that he needs further time to consider the basic points, which are that many of these experiments are both repetitive and unnecessary, and are dictated simply by the motivation of commercial gain.

We have had two months to consider complex issues. I have given a clear commitment that we intend to take forward the best possible practice. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been out of the House for five years. He was, however, a member of a Government who, for 18 years, did nothing at all about the matter. It comes rich from him to complain in the House about lack of progress in two months, given that little happened in 18 years when his party was in office.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons about a possible merger between the prison and probation services. [5517]

None about a merger, although I have spoken to Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons about my wish to explore all ways in which the Prison Service and the probation service can be made to work more effectively together. I have reached no conclusions yet about what additional measures might be needed to bring this about.

Why did the chief inspector tell the Prison Service college in the course of a lecture that the Government were considering such a measure? Will she now take the opportunity to reassure the probation service that no such merger is under consideration?

First, I pay tribute to the work of the probation service and welcome the contacts that I have had with it since I took office. The position is as I described it to the right hon. Lady. We have made no decision about a merger. Indeed, we have said that we want the two services to work closely together. The right hon. Lady seems to be concerned about the actions of the chief inspector, who was appointed by the Conservative Government. We greatly appreciate the work of the chief inspector, especially his work on reports on prisons and on the various thematic reports, which we find useful.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the positive work of the Middlesex probation service in my constituency, particularly its involvement in partnership projects such as the Enfield community initiative? Will she tell the House more about her assessment of the general work of the probation service?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Some excellent practice is being adopted by the probation service in many parts of the country. I have already had the opportunity to visit certain probation schemes and I hope to visit more, perhaps including those in my hon. Friend's area, before too long.

Is it true that the much respected chief inspector of prisons got a dressing down at the Home Office for daring to mention future relations between the probation service and the Prison Service? Does the hon. Lady recognise the value of the concept of a single corrections function drawing together custodial and non-custodial sentences, and is she aware that she needs to tread carefully in dealing with two distinctive services with distinctive qualifications, especially as the last Government made such a mess of qualifications in the probation service by downgrading them?

On the last point, I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We are urgently addressing the probation training chaos produced by the previous Government. We believe that the Prison Service and the probation service are willing to learn from each other, share experience and find a good way of working that will involve co-operation between them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the provision of closed circuit television. [5519]

We are reviewing existing expenditure programmes and reassessing priorities to ensure that we make the best use of the resources available. A decision on whether there will be a further CCTV challenge competition in 1998–99 will be made later in the summer.

One could only expect yet another review. Does the Minister accept the outstanding crime prevention and detection power of CCTV? Will he remember the 6,000 cameras provided by the Conservative Government at a cost of £34 million? Is he aware of the Conservative manifesto pledge to spend a further £75 million on providing CCTV? As north Wiltshire has not yet benefited from any of that Conservative expenditure, will the Minister consider sympathetically the forthcoming CCTV application from Wootton Bassett?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have answered his own questions by attacking the record of the previous Government. It is only sensible for an incoming Government to undertake a comprehensive review of expenditure and of the way in which resources are used. It is in that context that we are examining how we use the money available for CCTV.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that there was money available for CCTV next year. He will also recall that the £37 million that we spent while in government was done on a year-by-year basis. Will he now demonstrate to the House his commitment in support of CCTV by saying that he will agree to match the Conservative manifesto commitment to spend £75 million more on CCTV during the course of this Parliament?

I join my hon. Friend the Minister of State in welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. As shadow Home Secretary representing the Conservative party he may find that on many issues it is wise to stay silent in view of the appalling record of the previous Government.

The Minister has expressed keen support for security cameras and has said that CCTV is a good measure. In view of that, and if the Government are serious about being tough on the causes of crime, surely the Minister should have found the ways and means immediately after he came into office to provide the additional money for that purpose. I also merely observe that the six-week running costs of the boot camp in Colchester would pay for the completion of the security camera system in Colchester.

I am not sure that doing so would have saved us a penny. Finding extra money out of thin air within a few weeks of coming into government is not something that we pretend to be able to do. We intend to act responsibly with the finances available to us and to use them in the best way possible within the Home Office to deal with crime and the other issues for which we are responsible.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of police constables. [5520]

Under legislation passed by the Conservative Government in 1994, it is for individual chief constables and police authorities to determine the number of constables and other officers in each force, having regard to the resources available to them. This means, as my predecessor found to his cost, that the Home Office has no direct control over police numbers in any force outside London.

I am sure that the Home Secretary will have been told by those who participated in the focus groups held by the Minister without Portfolio that the public certainly want to see more police officers on the beat. I am grateful to him for paying tribute to his predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), on his success in introducing a great deal more civilianisation in the back office so that more police officers could go back on the beat. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his intention to continue to civilianise back office operations so that chief constables can put police officers where the public want to see them?

Yes, I made that clear in a speech to the Association of Chief Police Officers last week. The one thing that we do not need focus groups for is to discover that what the public hate more than anything else are political parties that make promises and then break them. In the 1992 election, the Conservatives promised an extra 1,000 police officers on the beat by 1997. What happened? There were 469 fewer police officers over that period.

While my right hon. Friend may not have powers to determine the number of police constables on the beat, will he encourage police forces to organise their manpower so as to ensure that more police constables are available on foot or bicycle rather than being stuck away from the public? Seven people at my advice surgery on Saturday were concerned about disorder, crime and the unavailability of police constables in our local area.

The need to raise the status of general patrolling in police forces is very important and is being addressed by both the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of constabulary. I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point, but the public want not only a police officer on the beat on general patrol but a fast response by the police in motor cars in an emergency. Chief officers have a difficult challenge in balancing those competing claims.

Accepting the Home Secretary's comment about the responsibility of chief constables, how many more police officers would he like to see by 2002?

I should like to see more police officers on the beat, but I do not intend to make the mistake made by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues during the Conservative Administration, when they made promises and then broke them. We intend to make promises and keep them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to give reasons for the refusal of an application for British citizenship. [5521]

As I explained in reply to a question from my hon. Friend on 21 May at column 77, we are reviewing our practice with regard to giving reasons for decisions on applications for British citizenship.

I find that encouraging. To help my hon. Friend with his deliberations, may I remind him of the terrible injustice that has been done to Mohammed Al Fayed, who has been in this country for 30 years, has no criminal record and was refused citizenship by the previous Administration out of political spite without being given reasons? Is it not a terrible paradox that the main accuser of the liar and cheat Neil Hamilton is deemed unfit for British citizenship and we are allowing that situation to continue without the man being given reasons for the decision? May I urge my hon. Friend to examine those matters in great detail?

Those matters are currently before the Judicial Committee in another place. It would be wrong for me to delve too far into the issues until the Committee has had the opportunity to give its view on the way in which justice was delivered, or not, in this particular case.

If Mr. Al Fayed has been offering inducements to Members of Parliament to act improperly, does the Minister think him a fit and proper person to receive Britain citizenship?

These are all issues which, in due course, may have to be taken into consideration if an application is made by Mr. Al Fayed subsequent to the House of Lords judgment. Until those matters are before us, it is better that Ministers do not reach judgments before they are obliged to in such circumstances.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to regulate immigration advisers. [5522]

As my hon. Friend will know, we have a manifesto commitment to control unscrupulous immigration advisers. We are examining the options for delivering on this commitment and fully intend to do so. We shall issue a consultation paper as soon as possible.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to dealing with the abuse that exists in this area of policy. Will he give the House an assurance that where a constituent has been given false, inaccurate or misleading advice by an immigration adviser and has then acted in good faith as a result of that advice, the Minister will show sympathy to that constituent and will not sign any removal or deportation notices?

Each case must be assessed on its merits. When cases are examined, all the circumstances that should be taken into account are taken into account.

The Minister may be aware that four years ago, I founded the Immigration Advisory Service and was its first chairman of trustees. Is he further aware that the IAS is at the forefront of calls to set up a register of immigration advisers? Is he also aware that until such a register is set up thousands of innocent people in this country, generally from poor backgrounds, will be disadvantaged and cheated by unscrupulous people? I urge the Minister to bring the matter forward.

The hon. Gentleman has a good record on raising such issues, for which I commend him. I also commend the IAS on the way in which it has brought the issues into public forums. I regret, however, that the previous Government failed to act on these matters. We intend to act to stop the exploitation of vulnerable people by so-called advisers who are often incompetent, fraudulent or both. The previous Government declined to take action against such advisers, despite the concerns expressed by many people, including the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). We have a manifesto commitment to deal with those so-called advisers and we shall.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency we have begun the process of scrutinising not only bogus immigration advisers but bogus immigration solicitors because quite a few of them know nothing about immigration law? Will my hon. Friend look at the papers, particularly the questionnaire worked on by my office, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the Law Society? He will see that they are following good practice, which could be adopted nationally.

I commend my hon. Friend for his work in that respect. He has set an example that all Members of Parliament would benefit from observing. I have read the papers that he has submitted to me at the Home Office. Other Members should consider his method of setting out the means by which he is able to vet advisers locally and to advise his constituents on how to deal with them. We should also circulate the questionnaire that he has developed to other hon. Members, and we are considering doing so. As part of our consultation, we shall be looking at some of the proposals that my hon. Friend has suggested.

Does the Minister agree that he could reduce the market for unscrupulous immigration advisers by following the advice sent to him recently by the new Labour-run Sheffield city council and repealing the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which it describes as a contemptible act of racism?

We are examining the way in which the latest Act of Parliament on the subject operates. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we made a number of manifesto commitments relating to that legislation. We are hoping to implement those manifesto commitments as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the legislation contained a number of faults; we are examining them and I hope that we can deal with them in the near future.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to give crime prevention a higher priority. [5523]

We are determined to raise the profile of crime prevention across the board. It makes far more sense to stop a crime happening than to have to pick up the pieces afterwards, important though it is to help victims and to catch and punish offenders.

The Minister's answer will be welcomed in my constituency of South Ribble. I am, however, somewhat concerned that local crime prevention strategies—a welcome move which should be carried out by local partnerships—might be based on the statistics for reported crime, which give a false picture, especially in more deprived areas. Will my hon. Friend assure me that proposals will be brought forward to ensure that there is a proper investigation, involving local communities, of the real level of crime and the nature of crime, so that effective local strategies are put in place as a result of his proposals?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have had the experience in an area of my constituency where there were problems trying to reconcile the police view of crime and the local authority's view of crime. When we asked local people, they said, "You've both got it wrong." Absolutely central to the process I have described will be a local crime and disorder audit to identify problems of concern to all local people by using both police and local authority experience of crime and disorder and listening to the views of the community.

Is the House to understand, from the Minister's earlier comments about tightness of funding in the Home Office, the Home Secretary's refusal to set any targets for increasing the number of police officers and the fact that the police and the Home Office had not a mention in last week's Budget, that the Home Office is having a pretty tough time in its negotiations with the Treasury? Given that the best method of crime prevention is more police officers, is not the message that is coming through clearly this afternoon that the Home Office is short of funding and that there will be less funding for our police forces in the coming years?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has been day dreaming for the past three quarters of an hour. The message that is coming through quite clearly is that the Government will use the resources available within the police service, the Home Office and local authorities to tackle crime and its causes—an area in which the Conservative Government were guilty of abject failure for 18 years, when crime rocketed and, in the past few years, violent crime has gone through the roof. I promise the hon. Gentleman that a Government who will tackle these issues has replaced a Government who failed on these issues.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle offending by young people. [5525]

We are pursuing a wide-ranging programme of change, including fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders, ending the practice of repeat police cautions, new powers for courts to impose reparation and action plan orders, and actions to make the youth courts more effective.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that magistrates courts need the widest possible range of sentencing options available to them if they are to deal properly with the criminal behaviour of young offenders, who can cause such misery to decent, law-abiding citizens? In particular, does he agree that that should include the availability of secure accommodation, which the previous Government completely failed to deliver?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that magistrates courts must themselves have a specific responsibility for the sentences that they wish to see imposed in respect of young offenders. It was frankly absurd for the previous Administration to set up a system whereby there was a constant shuttlecock between the courts on the one hand and social services on the other, with neither being clear as to which had responsibility for dealing with persistent young offenders.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will have given no comfort to those in the volunteering and voluntary organisations today by the lack of mention of their role and their disappointment at the summary return to the Home Office? Will he pay tribute to Nicholas Ward and the "Make a difference" team for all their work? Does he agree that worthwhile activities for young people are extremely important if they are to be prevented from becoming involved in crime?

I am delighted to pay tribute to the voluntary sector, when I am asked a question about it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to consult local authorities on crime prevention matters. [5532]

As we recognise that local government is crucial to the effective prevention of crime, we shall be giving local authorities and the police service a new joint duty to develop statutory local crime prevention partnerships. I have already had some preliminary discussions with local authority and police representatives about the proposals, which are generally welcomed, and I shall continue to consult closely with them as the proposals develop.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I take the point made earlier that many disruptive neighbours are not council tenants. However, the chief executive of my local authority sees the origin of disruptive and implacable tenants in terms of the Tenants Rights Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1980. Will my hon. Friend take issue with him about the contents of that Act and try to give back to local authorities the powers that people want them to have over disruptive tenants, including the power to remove their tenancies should they continue to terrorise their neighbours?

I recognise the nature of the problem that my hon. Friend describes, but it is for other Ministers to address tenancy issues. As part of the crime and disorder Bill later this year, we shall be introducing the community protection order which, irrespective of whether housing is rented or owned and who is the landlord, will provide a means by which the police and local authorities can tackle violent and disruptive neighbours who, as my hon. Friend rightly says, have made people's lives a misery in communities up and down the country.