What recent estimate he has made of the amount of drug-related crime. [24612]

My hon. Friend may be aware that the Home Office is conducting research into this phenomenon. We hope to publish the results in the next few months. The research shows, as we suspected, a strong link between drug use and crime.

Given that the criminal activities of drug offenders are estimated to cost £1.5 billion, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Home Office works closely with the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health so that there is a combined attempt to tackle the causes of drug abuse, rather than merely its symptoms? Will he confirm that personal responsibility is a better antidote to drug abuse than are chemical substances?

My hon. Friend is right. It is necessary for all Departments to work together on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established a high-powered committee, chaired by the President of the Council, with exactly that objective. The United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell, was appointed for that purpose. He is examining those links, where money is spent and where it could be better spent in the future. Of course, personal responsibility is an important concept which, if taken seriously, leads people away from, rather than towards, drug abuse.

Bearing in mind the fact that supplying drugs to prisoners is a crime, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many people were charged with supplying drugs to prisoners in the past year? In an attempt to bring that number down, will he undertake to make available to each prison ring-fenced money so that each may have a trained drug detection dog available for prison visits?

I do not have to hand information on the number of visitors who have been caught taking drugs into prisons, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman. It is important to stress that that is a prominent way in which drugs are getting into prisons. The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is an offence to take drugs into prisons. There is an increasing tendency to use sniffer dogs, passively or actively. The Prison Service and individual prisons are considering that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in prisons such as Holloway many women go in drug-free and come out with a serious drug habit because of the easy availability of drugs? Is he aware that many people in the voluntary sector who work in prisons believe that some prison officers are bringing drugs into prisons? Is he prepared to see them tested, as well as visitors?

On my hon. Friend's last point, it is often asserted that that is the case, although unfortunately—perhaps I should say fortunately—there is no evidence that prison officers are responsible for bringing drugs into prisons. If there were, we would have to consider introducing voluntary testing. My hon. Friend points out that it is not unknown for people to go into prison—a women's prison or a male establishment—drug-free and to acquire a habit in prison. There is concern about that and it is why we have programmes to deal with it: counselling, detoxification, or voluntary testing regimes. Mandatory drug testing is already done randomly in each prison.

What monitoring exists in respect of health care provided for asylum and immigration detainees in privately run detention centres. [24613]

Medical services at detention centres are subcontracted. The local director of public health is consulted as necessary on the specifications of the contract. The contracts are closely monitored, both by the contractor and the immigration service. There are regular meetings of the detention medical co-ordination committee, involving medical officers, the Prison Service and the immigration service.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he share my concern that the increasing subcontracting—as between the immigration service, then a privately run security service, then a private medical company, and then private practitioners—may prompt questions about accountability? Is he not worried about the alleged under-provision of psychiatric services for people who are detained indefinitely without being given a reason? Is there not an opportunity to carry out good health screening on these people, who are least able to be their own advocates and who do not have access to patients charter rights?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of at least some parts of his question. There is a need for more co-ordination of medical standards in detention centres. Indeed, the detention medical co-ordination committee meets regularly to improve co-ordination. The local director of public health is often consulted—I understand that at Campsfield house there is regular contact with the local director.

What accountability do private contractors for health and other services have to boards of visitors?

Contractors are accountable in the sense that they have a closely monitored contract with the Home Office and the immigration service, and the Home Office and immigration service pay great heed to the reports of the visitors' committees. We are moving towards regular special reports on the medical facilities at detention centres because, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and my hon. Friend have said, we need to get standards right. As for contractors' operations, we must ensure greater co-ordination and allow visitors' committees the control that we should like them to have.

As Heathrow airport, the largest port of entry to the United Kingdom, is in the same borough as my constituency—with Harmondsworth detention centre alongside it—can the Minister tell me whether any of these medical monitoring costs fall on the local authority?

Only in the sense that there is regular consultation, given that the people in the area are likely to be treated by local doctors. We must ensure proper control procedures and high standards of medical provision for detainees. The costs are limited; they are aimed at maintaining the highest quality of care for detainees.

What plans he has to regulate immigration advisers. [24614]

A consultation paper setting out the options for the control of unscrupulous immigration advisers was published on 22 January in line with our manifesto commitment. Copies of the consultation paper have been sent to interested parties. Comments are invited by 23 March.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the consultation paper. He has acted swiftly—unlike the Conservative party—which did nothing for 18 years. In my short time in the House, I have been approached by a number of immigration advisers who are obviously incompetent. As the consultation document suggests, some are unscrupulous and even criminal.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. As every hon. Member who has any connection with immigration or asylum cases knows, the problem with unscrupulous advisers is not just their incompetence, but often their dishonesty and sometimes their criminality. My Department has a list of 250 firms of unscrupulous immigration advisers, including nearly 40 firms of solicitors that are engaged in such practices.

I thank the Home Secretary for what he has said. He will be aware of my involvement in the Immigration Advisory Service, which has, over the years, provided the best possible expert help free of charge. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many in the ethnic minority community will be very unhappy at the news that he is to cut the special grant of £500,000 to the IAS, which was awarded specifically to help destitute asylum appellants? Will not most of them suffer enormously as a result of the cut that he proposes? Will he consider reinstating the grant?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. What is frustrating about the fact that a large number of people use unscrupulous immigration advisers is that reputable charities, such as the Immigration Advisory Service, provide—on the basis of Government grant—a free service which, in my experience as a Member of Parliament, is infinitely superior to the service that they receive from any of these so-called advisers. As to the hon. Gentleman's last point, no decision has yet been made.

When he will make a statement on what electoral system is to be used in the next general election. [24615]

The independent commission on the voting system has begun its work and has been asked to report within a year. After that, we intend to introduce legislation for a referendum so that the electorate may decide on the future electoral system for the Westminster Parliament.

Why is there any need for a change to the system for elections to Westminster? Were not those who argued that the existing system meant permanent Tory government proved wrong—fortunately—last May? What we do not want is permanent coalition government.

My personal views on the matter are well known and I have not changed them in recent weeks. I set them out at some length on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.

Will the Home Secretary do his best to ensure that the electoral commission and, thereafter, the electorate, are made fully aware of the experience in New Zealand, where people were persuaded to choose what appeared to be a rather simple and easy option and, according to the evidence, have bitterly regretted it ever since?

I know that the commission under Lord Jenkins is to make several trips. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he taking with him?"] I have no idea whether commission members are taking their wives or partners—and I am not sure whether they will travel as far as New Zealand.

Is it not a fact that Italy has had proportional representation in some shape or form for God knows how long and that it has had about 50 different Governments since the end of the second world war? Does not the cockeyed idea of PR come from the Euro-fanatics among the Liberal Democrats? It is part of the common market disease. We have had a basinful of it on account of the next Euro-elections—as recommended by the Liberal Democrats. I urge my right hon. Friend to stand firm and ensure that Westminster elections are conducted according to the first-past-the-post system—and we shall knock the living daylights out of all of them.

I must admit that I have noticed rather less enthusiasm for proportional representation on the Labour side of the House since 1 May. I point out to my hon. Friend that the Labour party commission under Lord Plant—

He is not standing for election.

No, he secured a position of permanent election in the other place. The Labour party commission under Lord Plant recommended changes to the electoral system that led to John Smith's proposal for a referendum. I do not believe that my hon. Friend should be uncustomarily generous and give credit for this proposition, which was in our manifesto, to the Liberal Democrats.

At a time of regrettable cynicism about politicians and growing confusion about democratic accountability, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the link between the Member of Parliament at Westminster and the constituency is widely recognised? Is it unfair of those who believe that the Labour party wishes to diminish the authority of Westminster to see tinkering with electoral systems as part of that campaign?

The right hon. Lady's latter point is profoundly unfair: in no sense do we want a reduction in the authority of Westminster. However, I profoundly agree with her first point. If we look to continental systems, where there is no constituency basis, we see the development of political elites that are detached from the electorate. I have spent 18 years on the Opposition Benches and nine months on the Government Benches and I believe that it is our constituency base which gives vibrancy to British politics and a proper accountability.

What plans he has to ensure that young offenders are asked to repair the damage they do to victims and to the community. [24616]

A key aim of our plans to reform the youth justice system is to encourage young offenders to face the consequences of their behaviour and to make amends to their victims. We have brought forward, in the Crime and Disorder Bill, proposals for a new reparation order, which will require the young offender to make reparation to the victim, where the victim desires it, or to the community. Reparation will also be an element of the new action plan order, the existing supervision order and the proposed final warning scheme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to crime, prevention is a great deal better than cure? Will he join me in commending the Wrekin community safety partnership, which has done much to divert young people from offending, to reduce levels of crime and to enhance the quality of life in the community in my constituency?

I am happy to commend the work of the Wrekin community safety partnership.

Does the Home Secretary agree that it is wrong to suggest that the majority of young people offend? The vast majority do not and it is a shame that they are all tarred with the same brush. In the context of the small proportion of young people who do offend, surely it is right that the victim should be properly consulted about reparation. We should endeavour to ascertain how he or she feels about how the young offender should pay back the price to society—or even to them, the victim.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is crucial that the victim is consulted; there are a number of schemes to extend that process.

If he will make a statement on the fire service settlement for 1998–99. [24617]

The proposed settlement of 4.8 per cent. for the fire service has been widely welcomed in the fire service community. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will set out his proposals for a final settlement for the standard spending assessment later today.

My hon. Friend will be aware that while an extra £4.4 million in London will help to stop some of the most serious cuts, there will still be a difficult financial situation for the London fire and civil defence authority. There may still be some cuts and the possibility of station closures. Will my hon. Friend tell us what further steps he may be able to take to help the authority get out of the difficulties? Will he look especially at the fire service pension scheme, which was allowed to run into crisis by the previous Government? It is one of the root causes of the present financial difficulties.

The settlement that we have proposed compares favourably with that proposed by the previous Government, who over the past three years announced settlements of 4.2, 1.5 and 0 per cent. respectively.

Does the Minister agree with—or will he dissociate himself from—the remarks made by the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union in the latest edition of "Firefighter", who said

"many…fire authorities simply do not have the financial resources to provide a safe and effective service for the public"?

Yes. Her Majesty's chief inspector examines every proposal and advises the Home Secretary and me—on every occasion—whether it is safe to go ahead with it. Whatever the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union may have said, the fire services are in quite good shape—and in even better shape since we announced last December the best settlement that they have had for many years.

What measures he will take to enhance the role of local authorities in tackling crime. [24619]

The Crime and Disorder Bill will substantially improve the ability of local authorities to contribute to the fight against crime. The Bill includes measures that will require local authorities and the police service to conduct an audit of local crime and disorder problems, to draw up a strategy to tackle them and to publish targets for delivering the strategy. That process must be conducted on the basis of full consultation with local people and a wide range of other key partners. Local authorities will be empowered to apply new orders to protect the community and required to establish multi-agency youth offending teams.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Bringing the local community together in partnership in the fight against crime has been close to the hearts of Labour Members for a long time.

There is an important reason for targets, as my hon. Friend has described. I am afraid that I did not hear the interview to which he refers—I may have been on a train at the time—but I am sure that the information will be taken into consideration. There have already been many successful examples of partnership, and it is on those that we want to build in the Bill.

Did the hon. Lady notice what the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) said about the excellent work that he tells us is being done in his area without any statutory obligation? What is her estimate of the extra costs that would fall to local authorities in implementing their statutory duties under the Crime and Disorder Bill? Why should the country believe that she and the Home Secretary are serious when the Government are reducing social services budgets throughout the land?

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about some of the partnerships that exist, but the Government want to ensure that those experiences and lessons are learnt throughout the country. That is why we want a statutory duty along the lines that we have included in the Crime and Disorder Bill—we believe that it will help to tackle crime throughout the country.

Senior citizens in my constituency tell me bitterly of their anxiety about young offenders who are involved in drug abuse, vandalism and, indeed, more serious crimes on the larger housing estates. Would it help local authorities if police authorities could recruit more special constables, thus freeing experienced officers to tackle the root of the problems, early rather than late?

A strong partnership is developing which involves special constables, but we believe that the problems described by my hon. Friend will be tackled effectively in the Bill. Although it is called the Crime and Disorder Bill, in many respects, the emphasis is on crime prevention and early intervention, which we think will help to stop such problems developing.

If he will make a statement on the recruitment of special constables into the Chelmsford area. [24620]

In the current financial year, 34 additional special constables have been recruited in the Chelmsford area. There are now 82 specials in the Chelmsford division. During specials week, I went to Essex and met some of the Essex specials with the chief constable, John Burrow, and I am very impressed by the increasingly professional nature of their work.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Does he share my concern—and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and of West Chelmsford Labour party—about the difficulty of recruiting and retaining high-calibre special constables, despite the availability of funds? The Essex police are doing a tremendous job in seeking to recruit special constables in the Chelmsford area, but does the Minister feel that local authorities also have a role? If so, does he think that Chelmsford borough council is playing its full part?

I am surprised at the reported lack of enthusiasm of Liberal Democrats in Chelmsford for what is an essential act of citizenship—ordinary citizens acting as volunteers to help to make the community safer for others.

What estimate he has made of the number of people currently employed in the private security industry; and what proposals he has to regulate this industry. [24621]

In evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1995, the Policy Studies Institute put the total size of the industry at about 162,000 employees and over 8,000 firms in 1992.

So far, so good, but did not the previous Government also conduct a consultation exercise? This is the second such exercise, and I wonder when we can have a decision on some action.

Yes, we do think that there is something very odd about the situation. That is why we welcomed the Select Committee's recommendation on regulation, and why we were surprised when the previous Government, year after year, voted against amendments that we tabled to various Bills in order to introduce some form of regulation. We warned them that a new Government, with the pressure of legislation to tackle the whole criminal justice system, would not easily find an early legislative slot in order to take action that had long been needed. We will take such action as quickly as we can, however, and we believe that it is necessary.

Would not operating practices in the better-run parts of the private security industry be greatly helped by the introduction of a national identity card?

A national identity card does not necessarily resonate with what is required for the private security industry. One of the problems is that managers and owners of private firms and their employees are unregulated, and there is a lot of movement among employees. As my hon. Friend suggests, we need a private security industry that meets the standards of the best. The industry and the trade unions agree with us that legislation is necessary.

If he will make a statement on the advantages and disadvantages of a system of rolling electoral registration. [24622]

My hon. Friend will be aware that I am chairing a working party that is examining rolling registers and other electoral issues.

Are not the current static electoral registers out of date as soon as they come into use? Masses of people are missing from the registers, and many people who have moved or died are still included. We need a much more modern system. According to the figures showing the eligible population in England, 4.7 per cent. of people are missing from the electoral register, and in Richmondshire, the local government area represented by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), 15.8 per cent. of people are missing. Perhaps some politicians turn people off more than others. We need a modern, up-to-date, electoral registration system that is compatible with a mobile society.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on this subject over a number of years. He has raised concerns about the absence of people on the register due to the poll tax and for other reasons. The specific points that he has raised will be examined by the working party, which met for the first time a couple of weeks ago and includes representatives from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. We are aware of the problems, and that we need to modernise our electoral registration system and the conduct of elections. I hope that we shall come up with a set of conclusions and recommendations that will resolve the problems that my hon. Friend describes.

Does the Minister recognise that a rolling registration process runs the risk of an increase in honest and dishonest mistakes due to multiple entries? Will he undertake not to support any mechanism that could increase the risk of electoral fraud?

The integrity of our electoral system is of paramount importance to all of us, and I would not be party to any decision that undermined that. There would have to be a cut-off point at some realistic date so as to preserve the integrity of the system. Provided that we take those pointers into account, it should be possible to have a rolling register with a cut-off point before it comes into effect for any particular election.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the turnout, especially for local government and European elections, is significantly lower in this country than in other European countries, we should actively explore other radical new initiatives, such as electronic voting, voting in a wider variety of places, including supermarkets, and voting on a Sunday, which is considered on the continent to be the best way in which to maximise turnout because people do not have so many alternatives?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has established a working party that is considering the re-invigoration of local elections, and issues such as electronic voting form part of its considerations.

What has been the total amount of compensation paid to those handing in their firearms as a result of the recent firearms legislation; and if he will make a statement. [24623]

As at 21 January, £31.6 million had been paid to shooters and more than 28,000 payments have been made. A one month hand-in period for .22 handguns started yesterday, fulfilling our undertaking before the election and the overwhelming will of Parliament which was expressed in a free vote.

I and, I have found, many colleagues have had many complaints from constituents who have handed in their weapons, but who have not received compensation for considerably longer than the 21 days average that is claimed by the Home Office. The Revenue charges people interest if they pay their taxes late. First, will the Minister undertake that if compensation is unduly late, people will receive interest? Secondly, could he confirm that in assessing retail values, the Home Office is not factoring in a charge that is equivalent to VAT? Some of my constituents complain that they are not receiving full retail value as a VAT equivalent has been deducted.

I must make it clear that we have no intention of paying interest, and neither had the previous Government. The arrangement is not a commercial transaction, but the fulfilment of a promise to pay compensation to shooters for the loss of their sport, and for the fact that they cannot use their weapons and ancillary equipment as they could before the legislation. I think that the hon. Gentleman and some others underestimate the size of the task that was taken on by the previous Government, with our support. There were some 40,000 applicants. Some of them applied under the simpler parts of the scheme and some applied under the more complex parts. The rules are quite clear. All those who have handed in their guns and ancillary equipment will receive compensation in the fulness of time. We will pay the compensation as quickly as possible.

Now that the ban on handguns is on the statute book, what are the Government's plans for reducing the huge quantity of shotguns in circulation and for the introduction of some sort of licensing system for air weapons which, as hon. Members will be aware, cause a great deal of low-level mayhem and some serious injuries?

The Minister is not required to answer that question as it does not relate to the main question.

Does the Minister realise that he must be the only person in the country who thinks that this compensation scheme is being run fairly and efficiently? Everyone else knows that it is a shambles, and it is about to be made worse by the needless banning of .22 calibre pistols. The Minister told the House that there was no need for the Government to accept a 30-day time limit for compensation payments because payments would be made as quickly as possible. Will he agree to pay interest on all claims that are outstanding not for 30 days, but for three months?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is simple and I have given it already. It is no, and the hon. Gentleman's Government would not have paid interest either. There is some inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's question. He is speaking about the legislation that was passed by his Government, and that is the legislation on which we have been compensating up to now. The .22 legislation relates to additional guns—about 10,000—that are to be handed in over the next month. [HON. MEMBERS: "A shambles."] It is not a shambles; the matter is being handled well. It is a major task which is being undertaken properly and as swiftly as possible. I am surprised by the pettiness of Opposition Members in a discussion on the removal of handguns from private possession to protect the British public.

What measures he plans to implement to ensure that there is a framework for local action to tackle youth offending. [24624]

The Crime and Disorder Bill establishes new youth offending teams throughout the country, bringing the relevant local agencies together in partnership to work more effectively with young offenders. The Bill also establishes a youth justice board for England and Wales, which will provide a clear national framework for that local action to tackle youth offending.

I thank the Secretary of State for his response. I am sure that he knows that his proposals have been widely welcomed. However, it is also accepted that we need to be tough on the causes of offending. With that in mind, does he agree that, as part of the framework, we must have adequate resourcing of youth services, as well as promotion of education, training and employment opportunities for young people?

I pay tribute to the work of the youth service, which is a much neglected service. The issue in all these cases—this applies generally throughout the public sector—is not just the money that is spent on the service, but how effectively that money is used. As we saw from an Audit Commission report last week for the police, the police forces that have been most effective in reducing crime have not necessarily been those that have had an increase in resources.

I congratulate the Home Secretary on his good fortune in being in the Prime Minister's good books. We hope that relations with No. 11 are equally good. May not the Prime Minister have less reason to feel pleased with the Home Secretary if he considers local authority secure accommodation? Is it not true that, in the previous Parliament, when a substantial amount of extra local authority secure accommodation was being provided, the Prime Minister, then the shadow Home Secretary, promised that he would provide more? Is it not true that it was said that sending 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prisons rather than secure accommodation was a scandal? Is it not true that, under this Home Secretary, the Government are not providing a single extra local authority secure accommodation place, are set to continue remands of 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prison accommodation long into the future and, on top of all that, have abandoned the promising experimental regime at Colchester? Is all that not proof that they have failed to deliver on a commitment?

Even by the standards of the Opposition Front-Bench team, that was a remarkably poorly researched question. The truth on secure accommodation is that, in 1991, the previous Administration promised a programme to increase the number of secure accommodation places by about 170 and it took them nearly seven years to achieve that. They also completely confused the legislation, with the result—until the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Bill—that some of those places were having to remain empty for 12 and 13-year-olds, while there were insufficient places for the remands of 15 and 16-year-olds. We will take no lectures on the issue of secure accommodation for young people. We have proposed a national youth justice board. One of its tasks will be to sort out the present incoherent and expensive system of custody for young people.

What plans he has to implement the incorporation of the European convention on human rights. [24625]

The Human Rights Bill gives effect to our manifesto commitment to incorporate the convention. It will enable everyone in the United Kingdom to enforce their convention rights before our courts. It will bring rights home to the British people. Our judges must be trained and our courts ready to implement the convention's incorporation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information and welcome the Government's initiative. He has rightly told us that the process of implementation will inevitably be lengthy, despite the Government's swift action. That makes the previous Government's failure all the more regrettable. When does he expect that the British people will be able to apply the protection of the convention in UK courts?

We want to ensure that this important step for giving British people rights is done in the best possible way and that all the facilities and training are in place. Therefore, we have not yet set a date for completing incorporation, but we want to ensure that it is done as quickly as possible because it is enormously important that we bring those rights home to the British people.

Those who approach the Prime Minister and ask his views on the introduction of privacy legislation are firmly told that he is against it, even by the back door. However, the Lord Chancellor—both in another place and elsewhere—has let it be known that he is fanatically in favour of judicially driven privacy law. The Home Secretary sits on the fence, a leg dangling on either side, waiting to see who will win. When will the Government speak with one voice and ensure that if there is to be privacy legislation, it emerges from this place and not from the law courts?

The shadow Home Secretary is somewhat confused, is he not? Does he not understand that the European convention on human rights applies in any event? Legislation will not change the substantive rights under the convention, but it will enable British people to enforce their rights in British courts. Why is the Conservative party so unwilling to allow the British people to enforce their rights under the European convention in the British courts?

"One thing you can say in favour of the Bill is that it domesticates the powers of the institution of the Convention with the result that our own judges are now making decisions instead of the judges in Strasbourg."

If he will ensure that revised guidelines are issued to police forces with regard to the retention of vehicle evidence in car accident investigations.[24626]

The Home Office issued general guidance to forces on the disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which includes the length of time material obtained in a criminal investigation should be retained. The retention of vehicle evidence is an operational matter, but we are discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service the implications of recent court decisions, including the Regina v. Beckford judgment on the retention of vehicle evidence.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the tragic case of my constituent Sarah Burton? She was killed in a car crash and the case went to court, but it collapsed because the police had destroyed the car that was needed in evidence. Although it is an operational matter for chief police officers, will my hon. Friend ensure that they introduce guidelines to ensure that cases such as Regina v. Beckford, and Sarah Burton, do not happen again?

My hon. Friend has brought an important matter to the House. Indeed, it is partly as a result of a letter that he wrote to me that we have decided to look afresh at the issue. As he rightly said, these are operational decisions for chief constables, but we need to consider the implications. That is why we are discussing the matter with ACPO and the CPS.

What plans he has to lower the age of majority.[24627]

The Family Law Reform Act 1969 reduced the age of majority to 18. The Government have no plans to change it.

I accept the Minister's response, but has she thought about the anomalies in this country, such as the age of majority being 16 in Scotland but 18 in England? In view of the much-publicised events over Christmas and the new year involving the reporting in Scotland of proceedings affecting 16 to 18-year-olds in England, will she think again about whether the age of majority in England should be the same as the age of majority in Scotland—whether that means reducing the age in England to that in Scotland, or raising the age in Scotland to that in England?

Although we do not have any plans to change the system in England, we are studying the handling of cases involving juveniles before the courts, along the lines mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Is my hon. Friend aware that our system means that although at the age of 18, members of the public may vote for their elected representatives, they may not stand to be an elected representative of either this House or a council until they have reached the age of 21? They cannot indulge in a number of other activities until they reach the age of 16, 17, 18 or 21. There should be consistency in the ages at which people attain rights. Will my hon. Friend review the matter and carefully consider whether we should ensure that people attain rights at one age?

We believe that it is important to examine the separate issues, and then to decide the most appropriate age that might apply in the circumstances. Although we do not have any plans to change the age at which people may stand as a candidate, as it seems to be very much in line with practice across Europe, the working party on electoral procedures, which was mentioned earlier and is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), may wish to examine that issue.

Has the Minister received any representations on lowering the age of majority from the Minister without Portfolio—who, in a desperate search for supporters for the millennium dome project, has very wisely hired the services of an eight-year-old boy?

The citizens of the future are important voices to listen to in that process, but I have received no such representations.