What representations he has received from chief constables about the number of police officers needed in England. [44241]

As police authority for London, I have continuing discussions with the Commissioner about police numbers and other matters in the metropolis. Four chief constables in England made representations about various aspects of this year's police funding settlement, but none made specific mention of police officer numbers. Chief constables understand that, under legislation passed by the previous Government, it is for them to determine the number of police officers in their force on the basis of the resources available to them.

The Home Secretary will, no doubt, have read the letter written, at the end of last month, by the Association of Police Authorities that makes it clear that the level of Government funding over recent years has been insufficient to sustain police numbers. Given that numbers have decreased in recent years, will the Home Secretary tell the House whether the comprehensive spending review will guarantee that in each of the three years to come, for which it is responsible, there will be an increase in police numbers across England and Wales?

We made resources available to the police forces in England and Wales for this year that, to quote one of the chief constables who made representations to us,

"were more than originally envisaged."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that however many police officers are recruited, they should be able competently to investigate crime? Is he aware that many of us are shocked by the details of police incompetence and indifference that have emerged from the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence? I praise my right hon. Friend for setting up the inquiry, but is he aware that when it is completed, many questions will be asked and certainly those in senior positions in the police force in London may be asked whether it is right for them to continue in their job?

I established the judicial inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence and surrounding matters under powers under the Police Act 1997. Given that the inquiry still continues, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it until I have received the report.

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) just said, is not the Home Secretary aware that the strength of the police in post increased by more than 15,000, or 14 per cent., under the previous Conservative Government? However, the question does not relate to our record, but to what the Government will do. Will the Home Secretary at least give an assurance that when new legislation adds new duties to the police, he will recognise that there is an unanswerable case for more police on the ground?

One thing that we shall not do is make promises that we shall not fulfil. Police numbers may have risen up to 1992 by the relatively small percentage that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but he forgot to mention that crime doubled in that period. Moreover, between 1992 and 1997, the previous Government promised that police numbers would rise by 5,000, but instead they fell by 765. We intend to ensure that police forces have the resources that they need, but we shall bear in mind the sage words of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who said:

"There is an enormous variation in the performance of police forces."

What steps he is taking to ensure that the concerns of victims of crime are taken into account in the criminal justice system. [44242]

What recent steps he has taken to help victims of crime. [44256]

We promised in our manifesto to improve the treatment of victims and witnesses. I established an interdepartmental working group on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses within two months of coming to office. Last week, I published its report. The report has more than 70 recommendations to give better protection to witnesses and victims and so ensure that more criminals are convicted.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that although there are good relations between the local Victim Support branch in Barnet and the local Metropolitan police, there are considerable difficulties with automatic police referrals of the victims of serious crime to Victim Support? That has resulted in some victims not getting the help that they need, owing to a rather restrictive interpretation by the Metropolitan police of the data protection rules. As the authority for the Metropolitan police in London, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that they refer as many victims as they possibly can to Victim Support branches under the automatic rules?

I shall certainly raise the matter with the Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon. There is a difficulty in police forces across the country to do with differing interpretations of whether the Data Protection Act restricts the flow of information in the manner that my hon. Friend has described. The Crime and Disorder Bill, which has almost completed its passage through the House, should clarify matters and enable police forces, without worry, to ensure that such information is passed on to Victim Support in appropriate circumstances.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that victims of rape are an especially vulnerable group when they appear in court, and that urgent action is needed to support them? What steps does he propose to take?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, which causes concern throughout the House and across the country. He will be pleased to learn that the interdepartmental working group's report contains explicit recommendations in respect of prohibiting cross-examination by the defendant in person—with provision for the defendant to be given lawyer —and in respect of severe restrictions on the cross-examination of the victim's previous sexual history.

I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). The right hon. Gentleman will know that the anxieties of the victims of crime would be considerably alleviated if they knew that there was continuing support from the Government for local Victim Support schemes, not least in places such as Barnet, which do invaluable work. I understand that Barnet has the lowest crime rate of any London borough, but the service is still much needed and the Government's continuing support would be much appreciated.

I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he seeks. As one sign of that, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last June that the subvention for Victim Support this year was increased by £1 million. We greatly value its work across the country.

What powers are there under existing law to compensate the victims of crime when the crimes are committed outside this country by people who usually live here? We shall obviously support any measures that the right hon. Gentleman takes against those found guilty of violence in Marseilles—their actions are obviously unacceptable—but what can be done to compensate the innocent victims of crime and make the guilty pay?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those remarks, with which I wholly associate myself and the Government. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I unreservedly condemn what happened in Marseilles yesterday and today. The whole country feels betrayed by the treacherous behaviour of this criminal element who so besmirch the name of English football and undermine our nation's reputation.

What public events require the payment of policing charges. [44243]

Chief officers of police decide when to make a charge for providing a special police service, for example policing football matches. A charge is normally made where the event concerned takes place on private property, or is arranged by a commercial organisation, or the policing work falls outside the police's core duty to keep the peace and protect life and property.

Is not the Lancashire constabulary completely out of order in trying to charge football clubs in Lancashire for what is known as the reserve—police off the ground? That is a matter completely for the police, as it would be in the case of any public event. There is no dispute about the fact that police on the football ground are charged for, but those in the reserve and off the ground are a matter for the police to determine, and pay for themselves.

It is for the chief constable to decide policing needs. Forces should charge for officers deployed inside the ground, where the chief constable believes that they are necessary to preserve order, and for any reserves that are needed in order to do so. The courts and the Taylor report on the Hillsborough disaster endorsed that view. Officers deployed outside the ground are usually there at public expense, even if they are marshalling fans towards the ground. I understand that one of the issues at Burnley is whether officers held in the reserve outside the ground are to be included in the charging provisions. I hope that those issues can be resolved locally, as they have been elsewhere.

Does the Minister agree that the football clubs who pay those charges, and the police, have, by their co-operation, achieved a remarkable improvement in behaviour surrounding English football, and that many of the people who have caused trouble in the past are no longer to be seen at English football matches? When so much has been achieved, is it not that much greater a matter of concern that a travelling circus of drunken hooligans, some of whom may have had neither the intention nor the hope of attending an England football match in France, are giving the game a bad name?

The right hon. Gentleman is right. Much good work has been done by football clubs and the police—and by the House, with restriction orders and so on—to improve the position at football grounds in our country. It is shameful that the behaviour of a minority of the fans who have gone to France for the football match have besmirched the name of English football. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we need to ensure that we co-operate with the French, to tackle these people—the right hon. Gentleman rightly chides me for describing them as fans—who go abroad and damage our country's reputation.

Given the earlier exchanges, and the great effort that has been made to exchange with other policing authorities information about football hooligans, is the Minister not a little worried that, in this case, there seems to have been some failure of intelligence, or of the application of intelligence? Although we do not want to be wise before we know all the facts, is it not extremely important that we examine, with the French and other authorities, whether there is some failure to translate information into action?

We have kept in very close contact with the French authorities via the National Criminal Intelligence Service and by direct contact between the Interior Ministry in France and the Home Office here. Liaison has been very good. We have exchanged information available to us about people who are likely to cause problems, and at the moment our information is that the French authorities have acted very well on that. There is no evidence that there has been any failure on the French authorities' part to deal with those issues.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was near enough a racing certainty that there would be trouble as soon as the match was designated for Marseille? It was an open invitation to the English National Front to fight the French National Front.

There are no excuses for the way in which the fans have behaved. We know from experience of British football matches that, all too often, extremist right-wing organisations—such as the National Front and the British National party—engage some of their supporters in disruptive behaviour surrounding matches. We need to ensure that we have in place the means of dealing with those elements, and that we keep the French authorities informed about any information that we have about extremist right-wing elements that may be seeking to encourage English fans to behave disruptively.

If he will make a statement on the level of crime in the Chelmsford area. [44244]

In 1997, 9,339 offences were recorded by the Chelmsford police division. That is about 10 per cent. lower than the level of recorded crime there in 1996.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Essex police and neighbourhood watch schemes on that impressive fall in crime, which contradicts the soundbites from Home Office Ministers about rising crime and shows that in the last few years of the previous Government, crime overall was falling? Does the Minister share my concern that in the previous financial year, £1.1 million was allocated for the creation of 55 extra constables in Essex, but the money was used to create only 28 extra officers? Will he liaise with the Essex police authority to find out why we did not get the full number of police constables?

First, I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Essex police. Crime in the county has fallen by 11 per cent. to 90,158 offences. That compares with a fall of 9 per cent. across England as a whole. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, as he has just congratulated the chief constable, I am sure that he will agree that it is for the chief constable to decide how to deploy his resources. The hon. Gentleman just said that those resources had been deployed effectively, so I am not sure what his point is.

What steps he will take to ensure that support and guidance is given to the parents of young offenders. [44246]

Our radical reform of the youth justice system will ensure greater focus on support and guidance to parents of young offenders. We are introducing parenting orders to encourage parents to accept their responsibilities for their children's behaviour. These orders will allow courts to direct that parents exercise control over their children, and require parents to receive training and guidance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent Audit Commission report, which highlighted the serious shortcomings in the juvenile justice system? With that in mind, how will he respond to the report and, in particular, deal with the minority of serious offenders who clearly need much more help from their parents?

The recent Audit Commission report, which brought up to date the findings of the Audit Commission in 1996, painted a lamentable picture of the state of the youth justice system. Our proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill represent the first stage of our major reform of the youth justice system. One way in which we shall deal with persistent young offenders is by the fast track for persistent offenders. I am pleased to tell the House that, although at the last election there were only eight pilot schemes for fast-tracking such offenders, there are now more than 100 schemes.

The new parenting orders to which the Home Secretary referred may be a useful tool in combating crime, as long as they distinguish between parents who will not parent and those who simply cannot parent. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that, through guidance and other measures, he will ensure that the parenting orders do not set individual parents up for failure, when it is apparent that their circumstances make it impossible for them to control their children?

If there are parents who cannot parent, they should not have responsibility at all for their children, and those children ought to be in the care of the local authority. The overwhelming majority of parents must accept responsibility for their children. That responsibility lasts as long as the children are children.

What plans he has to reduce the level of crime committed by young people. [44248]

The Crime and Disorder Bill includes a number of proposals to help reduce the level of crime committed by young people. These plans are intended to nip offending behaviour in the bud, to reduce delay and to achieve better co-ordination of youth justice services.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on some estates in my constituency, young people are still abusing many of my constituents physically and verbally? Those young people are involved in criminal behaviour, such as vandalism, and the Government's proposals will certainly tackle such problems. Will my right hon. Friend look, in the longer term, at the reasons for social exclusion so that we may begin to integrate those young people into society at large?

We accept that we must tackle the underlying causes of social exclusion. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has established the social exclusion unit, and a raft of programmes, from the welfare-to-work programme to provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill, are under way. They will give the police and local education authorities special powers to tackle truancy on the streets.

May I congratulate the Home Secretary on his authoritative and statesmanlike response to the previous question, which placed responsibility for the conduct of young people firmly upon their parents? They should not be allowed to resile from that responsibility. Does the Home Secretary agree that closed circuit television systems have proved extremely effective in identifying criminals and preventing crime? I thank him for the closed circuit television systems that have been developed in the main town centre area of my constituency and in Stubbington. Does the Home Secretary agree that they are cost-effective and should be encouraged further?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for both parts of his question. There is no doubt that closed circuit television systems that are properly planned, properly introduced and properly monitored can have an important effect on reducing crime and disorder and, above all, on reducing people's fear of crime and enabling them to use public space better.

The Home Secretary will be aware of the task force that has been established to tackle crime and disorder in Langworthy in my constituency of Salford. That task force involves Government, council, police and Victim Support working together to tackle the huge problems in that area. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the task force and local people—many of whom are good, law-abiding citizens—will continue to have the Government's full support in trying to improve their community and make it a safer place in which to live?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am aware of the deep concerns of the residents in the Langworthy area of Salford as a result of my visit there two months ago. The task force that has been established to tackle serious problems in that area—not the least of which is criminality by a minority—enjoys the Government's full support. It is a very good example of the kind of inter-agency co-operative working that is the best approach to reducing crime and disorder in such areas in the long term.

In their five early pledges, the Government promised to cut youth crime by halving the time that it takes to bring young offenders to court. How early is early? Where is the evidence of any progress in that area? Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Government do not expect to meet that pledge, as so many of their proposals—he referred earlier to the first stage—have yet to be tested and there are no new resources for the police or the probation service with which to implement them? This is the fourth early pledge that the Government have broken. When will the Prime Minister have the confidence to publish his report on the Government's first year achievements? If and when he does, will it not show that things have got worse rather than better?

The hon. Gentleman should hang his head in shame for coming to the Dispatch Box to talk about youth crime when the Government of which he was a supporter presided over a situation where more and more young criminals committed crimes and fewer and fewer went before the courts. It has fallen to us to tackle the problem. The hon. Gentleman asks when we will do so. The powers that we have to take to implement the proposals have not even gone through this House yet. It was one of the first Bills we introduced and, with luck, it will become law before the end of July. Serious progress will be made then. When we took office, we found—contrary to the synthetic comments that we have just heard—that the previous Government did not even collect information on the number of persistent young offenders, still less do anything about it. One hundred pilot areas have been established, and we will implement that pledge—like the rest of the manifesto—well before the next election.

In my constituency, the overwhelming concern is juvenile crime. At a meeting with the local police on Friday, I found that they—unlike Tory Members—were convinced that the Crime and Disorder Bill would do much to deal with juvenile crime. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents would be much better listening to the concerns and views of the local police in South Ribble than to the carping comments of Tory Members?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. His constituents and mine have the benefit of the care and service provided by the Lancashire constabulary. It was not least because of concerns raised by Lancashire police over many years that we developed the proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill for anti-social behaviour orders and the raft of reforms of juvenile justice.

What plans he has to increase the maximum sentence for indecency with children. [44249]

The maximum penalty for gross indecency with a child aged under 14—which is different from indecent assault—was increased by this Government from two years to 10 years' imprisonment as recently as 1 October last year when we brought into force section 52 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. We have no evidence to suggest that a further increase in the maximum penalty is needed. However, we do need to make sure that the system of offences and penalties is coherent and effective. I can tell the House today that we will review the law relating to sexual offences generally and we will look at this specific issue as part of that review.

Would the Minister explain to the House why the Government opposed the Conservative amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill to increase from 10 years to life the maximum sentence for indecency with children, when this would have left the freedom with the courts to pass an appropriate sentence and would have allowed the more serious offenders to be released only when they no longer posed any threat to any children? Is this not a case of the Government being soft on criminals and tough on the child victims of those criminals?

No, Madam Speaker—it is a case of a Back-Bench Member being tough on the English language and soft on his thinking. Only last year, the Conservative party thought that 10 years was a perfectly adequate sentence. With the irresponsibility of Opposition, it wants to make everything subject to a life sentence. The reason we turned that down—as I explained in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he takes the trouble to read Hansard—was because it was our intention to have a coherent review of the offences and the penalties to make sure that sexual crimes, particularly against children, were dealt with effectively, properly and coherently. We will do that.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and the changes that have been made to penalties for sex offenders. Is he aware that some of my constituents will welcome very much the changes—for example, the family of Jason Swift, who was killed by a member of the Cooke gang? What thought has my hon. Friend given to introducing indeterminate sentences to make it possible for sex offenders to be kept in prison for as long as they are a risk—a much more effective way of dealing with the problem than simply introducing blanket, long-term sentences which would not address the main problem?

My hon. Friend is right. The horrific example to which she referred makes it clear why we must take responsibility, not only for punishing people after the event, but for managing risk and for ensuring that risk does not turn into danger or an event involving a victim. We have already implemented the Sex Offenders Act 1997, and we have worked with the police and the probation service to make sure that the information required under it is used to protect children and vulnerable adults, rather than gathering dust on file or sitting in a computer.

What plans he has to change the licensing arrangements when releasing sex offenders from gaol. [44250]

The Crime and Disorder Bill makes provision for the extended supervision of offenders following release from prison. The Bill gives the courts power to order additional supervision of up to 10 years in those cases. Offenders will be liable to be recalled to prison if they breach their licence conditions.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but I draw her attention to a case in my constituency in which a convicted paedophile was released into a small village community on a licence condition lasting only four months. I understand from a previous answer that the Government reject the Conservative option of optional life sentences, but will she consider whether there are, in those revolting cases of sexual abuse of children, grounds for licensing conditions on release to be extended as far as the natural life of the offender, when the relevant authorities consider that that person still poses a risk to the community?

The hon. Lady has written to me about that case, and I have responded. She is to meet the agencies in her area which, I understand, are co-operating effectively to try to cope with the situation in respect of the individual concerned. Our proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill will make the situation much more satisfactory. The sex offender orders are liable to apply to that individual if he appears to present a risk, and, indeed, to other individuals. The measures in the Bill, including the sex offender orders and extended supervision, will go a great way towards tackling the problem.

Some sex offenders have had two or three cases brought against them, served different sentences and been released back to the same community again and again. Will my hon. Friend examine those cases and what goes on in prison, and will she consider the issue of psychiatric care and the concerns about that?

There are sex offender treatment programmes in prison which have been shown to be effective. We are conducting research into the way in which they have been carried out to discover what further lessons we can learn. It is also important that the prison and probation authorities work closely together. That is one reason behind the Government's prison and probation review: we believe that, in areas such as risk assessment and exchanging information about people who have been in prison and who are under supervision in the community, the two services could do a great deal in co-operation to reduce risk to the community.

Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) said, may I draw the Minister's attention to the case of Roger Gleaves, the self-styled bishop of Medway, who was convicted in the mid-1970s of offences against young people? Two months ago, he was sentenced to 15 years for further offences against young people. Is not the lesson of that case that information of past offences was available, but was not passed on, not only to organisations, but to the parents of the young people? If there was a central register, which I support, would the information on it be publicly accessible?

The important point is for the agencies that manage cases to have the information and to share it between them. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that information has not always been transmitted between agencies as it should have been. Our approach, particularly the partnership approach, is aimed at improving the flow of information so that people do not fall through the net and the system works effectively in the public's interest.

What steps he is taking to improve the strategic management capacity of police forces. [44251]

Since 1992, all applicants for appointment in the most senior police ranks must have attended the strategic command course at the police staff college, which is intended to develop and enhance senior officers' capacity to exercise strategic management and leadership. We are considering how best to promote continued training and development for those who achieve Association of Chief Police Officers ranks.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the training of senior managers in the police force tends to be exclusive and inward-looking, and that good management is good management? Is not it about time that we started to expose senior police officers to the best management schools in the world, if not in the country, because strategic management is strategic management?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some senior officers have gone to great lengths to expand their own training and experience, and to look at the quality of management developed outside the police service, while others have not. My right hon. Friend and I, with officials and ACPO, are looking at how we can develop the quality of training. As I said in my first reply, we are considering how to encourage and improve continued training and development once officers achieve ACPO rank.

If he will estimate the impact of the implementation of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] on the prison population in the next three years. [44252]

The prison population will always largely depend on the sentencing decisions of the courts. The provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill will help to target the use of prison on serious offenders. The Government's policies are aimed at early effective intervention to turn young offenders away from crime and possible later imprisonment. Home detention curfew in the Bill is intended to free up some 3,000 prison places a year.

Will the Minister consider the Bill's effect on the provision of prison places for serious sexual offenders? Will she assure the House that a serious sexual offender will never be released from prison earlier than he or she would otherwise have been if he or she is considered for electronic tagging, and that that would not be an acceptable reason for releasing serious sexual offenders earlier?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have said that serious sexual offenders would not qualify for home detention curfew unless there were exceptional circumstances. It is important to bear in mind the fact that, in general, home detention curfew will operate only after a stringent risk assessment.

If there is a shortage of prison space as a result of the implementation of the Bill, why do we not substantially reinforce the resources available to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which will meet in Birmingham and which is responsible for establishing whether there have been miscarriages of justice, as I believe happened in the case of Owen Oyston? If the commission were given the resources, the inevitable consequences would be that more people would be released from prison, more spaces would become available and we would be able to deal with any additional offenders who were put into custody.

We have increased the availability of prison spaces to accommodate people sent to us by the courts. The Government strongly support the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and very much endorse its approach and work. However, in terms of the prison population, we believe that home detention curfew plus the other measures that the Government support, such as effective use of community sentences, are the best way for the criminal justice system to proceed in the future.

Does the Minister accept that members of the public believe that the prison sentence passed should be the prison sentence served? What message are the Government sending to the public by introducing measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill whereby although maximum sentences of six months are passed in magistrates courts, no defendants will ever serve more than six weeks if they behave properly?

The Government are committed to enabling the courts, when sentence is passed, to tell people exactly what that sentence means in practice. We feel strongly about that because it is important for the public to know that information. The hon. Gentleman seems to object to the home detention curfew. It will mean a reduction in prison places, and we think that it is right because it involves a managed transition from custody to release. The structure that it imposes on offenders is one of its most valuable aspects.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now imperative to have a range of stringent, community-based sentences that inspire the confidence of the public and sentencers because they are not easy options? What measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will promote such sentences? How will sentencers be encouraged to use them?

The probation service will have new responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Bill, which will show the public that community sentences are worth while and effective. The action plan order and the reparation order will be particularly significant. Other important sentences will be served in the community under other orders in the Bill, such as the drug treatment and testing order.

Does the hon. Lady recognise that recent legislation, including that on mandatory sentencing, is contributing to a relentless rise in the prison population, which is likely to consume resources needed for rehabilitation inside and outside prison? Many of the good measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will require resources to be put into the probation service. If those resources are instead consumed by prison spending, we shall not be able to do the job that needs to be done.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have a responsibility to imprison people who are sent to us by the courts, and that we must imprison serious offenders. However, the Crime and Disorder Bill contains many effective measures that, through the emphasis on early action and intervention, will have a helpful effect, especially on young people. We hope that they will deter them from crime and, ultimately, imprisonment.

Does not the risk assessment guidance say that in the prison population as a whole, prisoners will usually be eligible for home detention curfew and early release? Does that not drive a coach and horses through the principle of honesty in sentencing? As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Matins) said, sentences will not mean what they say. What else can right-thinking members of the public conclude when a sentence of six months' imprisonment, which is the maximum that can be passed by magistrates courts, will mean in practice only six weeks spent in custody? How can that engender public confidence in sentencing?

First, the courts will spell out what sentences mean in practice. Secondly, I invite the hon. Gentleman to take a closer look at some of the electronic monitoring schemes in this country and in other parts of Europe. Schemes such as the home detention curfew are extremely effective in providing punishment for people and preparing them for ultimate release. The system that we are introducing will be tough and effective.

What plans he has to pilot provisions contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]. [44253]

We plan to pilot a number of initiatives to tackle youth offending, such as measures to tackle delay in the youth justice system; the drug treatment and testing order; and the use of live television links between prison and court. Provided that the Bill receives Royal Assent before the summer, we plan to commence those pilots in the autumn.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I also thank him for taking the time recently to visit Harold Hill in my constituency to witness the work of the partnership that is evolving between the police, the local authority and other agencies, including London Transport Buses. Does he agree that the best way to tackle crime in our towns and cities is through genuine partnerships with local communities, police and other organisations?

My hon. Friend is right. However, as we saw when I visited his constituency, the process cannot be easy or immediate. There needs to be a commitment on the part of police and local authorities; they need to win the support of the local community, and they need to listen to members of that community, who best know the type of crime that spoils their lives. A commitment to such a partnership, and to cutting crime, is essential, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he is encouraging that in his constituency.

What representations he has received urging a ban on the sale of that. [44254]

We have received one letter this year suggesting that khat should be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. If, however, there is any new evidence on the matter, I shall be happy to consider it with a view to a further reference to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which last considered it 10 years ago.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that khat is an addictive drug that causes stimulation of the person taking it, leading to euphoria and hallucinations? The person ends up stoned and unable to do anything. Is it not nonsensical that that drug can be legally imported and have value added tax charged on it, when cannabis—a much safer drug in these terms—cannot even be used for legitimate medical purposes, although many doctors are calling for that to be allowed?

The hon. Lady will know that khat is regarded as coming within the terms of the Medicines Act 1968.

Is not the lesson clear—that the prohibition of khat would not decrease but increase its use? It would increase the amount of khat crime, and would drive a wedge between the Somali and Yemeni populations and the police.

If my hon. Friend wants to use international examples, he should consider Amsterdam. Its drug policy is far more lenient than ours, and its murder rate is three times higher.

If he will review the financial arrangements for commercial activities carried out within prisons. [44255]

The financial arrangements for commercial activities within prisons were recently reviewed, and I am pleased to announce that governors have been given increased flexibility in the use of income from commercial activities. That should enable them to use some additional income from increased industrial activity, which should further the goal of expanding prison industries—a goal to which the Government are firmly attached.

My question was prompted by a recent visit to the Ford establishment in my constituency. In that establishment, commercial activities such as horticulture, metalwork, woodwork and laundry work do not have the investment capital that would enable them to bid for contracts. The trustees and the head of the prison told me that all the revenues were retained by the Treasury. Will the proposed changes specifically address the streamlining of investment decisions to gain maximum scope from commercial activities in prison?

The changes that I have announced will help reinvestment so that prison industries can expand in places such as Ford. I also understand that Ford is likely to take part in the workshop expansion scheme, which is an important part of our efforts to increase workshop activity within prisons.

What steps he is taking to ensure that there is early intervention with young offenders to prevent reoffending. [44260]

The Government are introducing a number of early intervention measures as part of their youth justice reform programme. These measures include the child safety order, local child curfews for children under the age of 10 and the final warning scheme for those above the age of criminal responsibility. New requirements for district or borough-based crime reduction strategies and new youth offending teams will provide a new focus for local action to cut crime. We are also providing new powers to allow the police to deal with truants.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent Audit Commission report on youth crime describes the previous Government's appalling record in this area? Does he agree that truancy and exclusion are major causes for the commission of crime and reoffending by children? What steps is he taking to help parents to control their children's behaviour? Will he ensure that parents, and especially working parents, of children who do not go to school are given the support that will enable them to send their children to school?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight truancy and school exclusion as problems. That is why the Government have looked at the matter across Departments and why the social exclusion unit gave it priority in its work. We have introduced in the Crime and Disorder Bill an amendment that will give the police the power to pick up youngsters and take them either back to a school or to another agreed place when they do so in partnership with education authorities. Making such a link between different problems and ensuring that local solutions are produced in partnership are two of the ways in which to remove the scourge of youth crime.

What recent research he has commissioned into the link between drugs and crime. [44261]

Current research includes work on the criminal life styles of crack addicts; on the effects of treatment on addicts' criminal behaviour; and on developing performance indicators for police anti-drugs strategies. Consideration is also being given to extending a project on drug testing and interviewing arrestees, the first results of which were published in April.

I remind my hon. Friend of a recent visit to my constituency by Mr. Keith Hellawell to examine a ground-breaking drugs initiative called Project Charlie at Culloden school. Its aim is to educate young children on the dangers of drugs. Does my hon. Friend agree that education is the way forward rather than the approach that has been advocated by the shadow health spokesman, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), whose support for the legalisation of all drugs is surely irresponsible and simplistic? He should be asked to withdraw that support.

My hon. Friend is right. He will recall that I made a similar visit to his constituency some time ago. Part of the new strategy that Mr. Hellawell announced recently is to concentrate resources on helping young people of primary school age and older to resist the messages on drugs. My hon. Friend is right to note that in a book called "Saturn's Children", the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said:

"The only completely effective way to ameliorate the drug problem, and especially the crime which results from it, is to bring the industry into the open by legalising the distribution and consumption of all dangerous drugs, or at the very least by decriminalising their consumption."