If he will make a statement on the pilots for drug treatment and testing orders. [61087]

Pilots of drug testing and treatment orders are taking place in Croydon, Gloucestershire and Merseyside. The first order was made in Croydon on 17 November. We shall evaluate the pilots thoroughly before national implementation.

I know that my hon. Friend has visited Pontefract and Wakefield drug court, which is pioneering a new approach to getting offenders off drugs. Will he join me in congratulating those who set up the programme, including the sponsor Marks and Spencer, Euromed, the local health authority and the police? Is he aware that the drug court is under threat just because of a six-month shortfall in funding? Given that it would be tragic to lose such a programme when we should be expanding its work across the country, will he consider any way in which the Government can help to make sure that the drug court does not go under?

As my hon. Friend rightly said, I have visited the drug court. I understand that it is in discussion with local agencies to try to resolve the difficulties that she described, and the matter is essentially a local one. Talks are well under way and there is no cause for panic. It is a worthwhile venture, and I hope that the talks will be brought to a successful conclusion so that the good work already started can be continued.

What steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of violence in the home. [61089]

We are taking forward a range of measures to achieve that, in collaboration with a number of colleagues across Departments. In particular, we have made it clear that we expect the local crime and disorder audits being carried out under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to address domestic violence, and we are working on a cross-departmental awareness campaign for England and Wales, to be launched in the new year.

Every day last year in Sheffield, a woman had to be rehoused, having lost her home because of domestic violence. Three quarters of cases reported to the police also involved children. We must recognise that far more than double that number experience violence in the home, but do not report it. I congratulate the Government on making violence against women one of the key points in the recent policy document "Delivering for Women". However, what practical steps is the Minister taking to ensure that homes are safe places for women and children, and not safe havens for violent criminals as they currently appear to be?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She may be aware that research has been commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the women's unit to look into the accommodation and support services available to those who suffer domestic violence. The research includes a survey of refuges and a comprehensive view of provision by local authorities. It will be completed late next year.

How many local authorities and police forces have set up domestic violence units? Will the Minister confirm that none of those units is expected to close as a result of resources being devoted to other laudable anti-crime and disorder initiatives that are flowing from recent legislation?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like an exact answer to his question and I am prepared to write to him as I do not have the precise information here.

Does the Minister agree that 400 women's refuges in England and 45 in Wales are not enough to help victims of domestic violence? Does she agree that we really need tougher sentencing in the courts so that the people who commit the crimes do not get away with it?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government treat crimes of violence committed in the home very seriously. Those crimes damage the family and society as a whole, and we are determined that they will be taken seriously. The review that I have mentioned is also considering long-term arrangements to achieve a fair balance between demands on housing benefits and other sources of funding. That may mean that local authorities will find that the cost of providing refuges, which may be more initially, results in savings in the long term. We do not want resources to be a reason why women—or men—have nowhere to which to flee if they are in danger.

One problem, which the hon. Lady may already know of, is that men and, particularly, women who suffer domestic violence withdraw their complaints when they get near or arrive at the court stage. What can she do to assist such people in maintaining their complaints all the way to a verdict?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. He will welcome the new criminal justice measures in the Queen's Speech, which will help vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, including those who have suffered and survived domestic violence.

How he intends to take forward the proposals to safeguard children by creating a comprehensive single access point for police and other record checks in staff recruitment; and if he will make a statement. [61090]

The interdepartmental working group that we set up to look at that matter is due to make its main recommendations by the end of the year. Subject to our consideration of its proposals, we then expect the group to take forward the detailed work that will be needed to give effect to its recommendations.

My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that response. She is aware of considerable concern in my constituency, and across to north Wales, about the fact that we have all failed to protect children from abuse by predatory adults. Can she assure me that the one-stop shop will proceed rapidly, that it will contain comprehensive information and that clear instructions will be issued on when it should be used in the recruitment and selection of staff and voluntary workers, so that we can make a better job of protecting children from violent, dangerous people who attempt to obtain a position of power and authority over them?

I thank my hon. Friend and I know how much work she has put into that important issue. It is likely that we will recommend a one-stop shop, because the group's emerging recommendations envisage a central access point for three sources of information: criminal records; list 99, which is held by the Department for Education and Employment; and the consultancy index, which is held by the Department of Health. The front-runner at the moment for the central access point is the criminal records agency, which we are hoping to get up and running within two years from the date of the formal announcement.

Is the Minister aware of the stories in the Oxford Mail reporting that thousands of people with convictions for sex offences live in the Thames valley area? The head of the local family protection unit says that only 150 former sex offenders are monitored and registered by the police. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents in Oxfordshire and the people who are worried about the large number of former paedophiles in Oxford that they will be adequately protected?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have not seen that newspaper's reports and the serious allegations that it contains. As I understand it, we know about some 98 per cent. of offenders, but I am sure that the local police take the matter seriously. I will look into it.

I have written to the Home Office on several occasions querying the length of time that it takes to perform checks in the Greater Manchester area through the police. The delays are seriously damaging such schemes as the mentoring scheme run by the Bolton lads and girls club, which is intended to keep young people out of trouble. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that any new scheme will be quicker than existing schemes?

Clearly, if we are to make improvements, we want to speed up the checks. I do not have direct responsibility for the speed with which checks are made, but I am happy to look into the issue and report back.

If he will estimate the costs of the investigation by South Yorkshire police into allegations of wrong-doing by Doncaster councillors up to 1 November. [61091]

I understand from South Yorkshire police that the estimated cost of the investigation up to 1 November is £200,955, including £49,729 in accommodation and miscellaneous service costs.

I am mindful, Madam Speaker, of your proper rulings on sub judice matters, so I shall refer not to individual cases but to issues of general principle.

That would be entirely a matter for the courts, as and when the occasion arose, but, of course, all hon. Members would be concerned to ensure that corruption is treated as seriously as it deserves, from whatever source it comes.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and look forward to working with him in the months ahead. Does he not realise that people in Yorkshire have more confidence in the police to clear up the mess than they have in the Labour party? They want to know how an already overstretched police service can be expected to cope with the four inquiries that it is undertaking and at the same time deal effectively with crime and disorder. Will he give the public a cast-iron reassurance that other policing priorities are not being neglected? Is not the real scandal that the police have been put in an impossible position for no other reason than the events in the Labour party in Yorkshire?

Although I thank the hon. Gentleman for kindly welcoming me to the Dispatch Box, I am sorry that he should choose so early on to descend into party politics on this matter. He knows that the investigations in Doncaster have extended across the party political divide. He and his colleagues are the last people to be able to point a finger at us about corruption. The allocation of resources to that investigation is entirely a matter for the chief constable. We have every confidence in his ability to ascertain what resources ought to be applied and to ensure that that is not done at the expense of the other law and order priorities in Yorkshire.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we all deplore corruption in local government or anywhere that we find it, but that it ill becomes Tory Members to talk about Doncaster or anywhere else when they will not call on their old friend Lady Porter to pay back the £20-odd million that went missing in Westminster? Why do they not do so? Because she is a Tory and a friend of Lady Thatcher.

We have grown used to double standards from Conservative Members. The day that their spokesperson condemns Lady Porter from the Dispatch Box will be the day that they can give us lessons about corruption and abuse of power.

If he will make a statement on his spending plans for the police service for each of the next three years. [61093]

Following the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, I announced on 21 July our plans to allow police spending to increase by 2.65 per cent. next year, by up to a further 2.8 per cent. in the following year and by up to an extra 4 per cent. in 2001–02. That represents an extra £1.24 billion over the next three years. Part of the additional funding for the second and third years will be dependent on the police achieving targets for efficiency improvements of 2 per cent. a year.

Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating Dorset police, who have reduced crime to 1990 levels? Does he recognise the concerns that were expressed to me by the chief constable in Dorset, who said that funding increases would barely pay for pensions in the forthcoming year, let alone maintain the police service? What can the Home Secretary say or do to allay his fears and those of my constituents?

I am certainly happy to congratulate the chief constable and his officers on what has been achieved in Dorset and to provide reassurance. First, the settlement that I announced in July amounts to a real-terms, albeit modest, increase in police spending for each of those years. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must acknowledge that there is ample scope for economies and efficiency savings in the police service. That has already been demonstrated by the way in which police services have had to deal with sickness and early retirement.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recent announcement, which adds up to a reasonably generous settlement for the police. At the same time, may I encourage a thorough review of all police force management structures? Is it not about time that we started thinking the unthinkable on how to get better value for money out of top-quality managers and good management techniques in the police force—even, perhaps, abolishing the notion of chief constables for a more modern management structure that delivers the goods to the British public?

I have no proposals to abolish the posts of chief constables. What we need, and on the whole have, are highly experienced and skilled professionals at the head of the police service. I accept the rest of my hon. Friend's question; it is not thinking the unthinkable. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities accept the case for a better career and training structure in the upper levels of the police service. On top of changes to improve the effectiveness of the police service, we shall be ensuring that best-value arrangements apply to it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statistical section of the House of Commons Library that, between 1979 and 1997, there was a real increase of 72 per cent. in spending on the police, which meant an increase in police strength of 15,000? Under his plans, there will be no real increase in spending whatever between 1997 and 2001. Does that not mean an inevitable reduction in the strength of police forces?

What I will accept, not from the Library of the House but from the Official Report, is that there is no case whatever for the Opposition to lecture us about the £1.24 billion increase in police spending because, far from criticising us for spending too little, the shadow Chancellor—the right hon. Gentleman may have been asleep when his right hon. Friend said this, and one can understand why—has been criticising us for spending too much. Indeed, he described this spending settlement as "reckless". The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) must spell out by how much he would reduce police budgets if he were in power.

I will not take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman on controlling public spending, as he knows only too well. Does he not understand that he has reduced the financial commitment to the police service? There are reports from around the country that the strength of police forces is falling, and will fall further. How does he square that with his boast to be tough on crime?

Police service numbers fell by 500 between 1992 and 1997. It is my duty to point out the Opposition's double standards. I have here a wodge of letters that I have written to the right hon. Gentleman over the past four weeks, all of which are unanswered, in which I have asked him to say exactly by how much police spending would fall following his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor's criticism of our spending, not for being too little but for being too much.

"The trouble with some of those who make much of their support for—

"is that they also oppose any measures taken to make it more effective."

The trouble with this Secretary of State is that he is not deciding; this Minister is simply going along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plans. He challenges me on public spending, but does he not know that the changes that I made to the state earnings-related pension scheme will mean eventual public spending savings of £30 billion? I am not prepared to take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman.

The most lasting part of the right hon. Gentleman's epitaph will be the other thing that he did to SERPs—which was to set up portable personal pensions, by which hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country were defrauded by private insurance companies. I have spelt it out in answers to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the spending increases that we have proposed will result in a modest but real increase in spending, year on year. That is the truth. The other truth, which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) cannot gainsay, is that, were he in power, and were he following the opinion of his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, spending on the police, as on other public services, would decrease.

What is the proposed timetable for consideration of the draft freedom of information Bill. [61094]

And now we come to freedom of information.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that legislation on freedom of information remains an important plank of the Government's programme to modernise Britain as we move towards the millennium? Does he agree that measures on openness and accountability are a central part of that constitutional programme, which includes reform of the second Chamber, devolution of power and incorporation of human rights? Will he press for that legislation to be introduced as soon as possible after consultation on the draft Bill, and for it to be moved as high in the parliamentary timetable as possible?

The answer to all those questions is yes. We do regard the matter as important. I hope that the whole House will recognise that, by having a draft Bill, we give the House a greater opportunity properly to scrutinise the legislation. In advance of the Bill, many Ministers, including me, have taken steps to secure greater openness.

Has not the information that is emerging about the handling of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy affair demonstrated that the public and the business community urgently need freedom of information? As a previous Minister, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), said in the House that the Bill was 90 per cent. drafted, does the Home Secretary acknowledge the disappointment at the fact that the process is taking so long? Will he, therefore, consider whether the process might be accelerated, and will he consider the fact that the Bill could be a candidate for the new carry-over procedures, so that, following consultation, it is introduced later this Session and carried over into the next?

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for the work that he did on the freedom of information Bill, but, as I believe that he would acknowledge, a great deal of work remained to be done before the Bill could be put in proper draft order. That work is now being done. Early next year a draft Bill will be published, which will then go to the Select Committee on Public Administration. I dare say that it will return to the House for debate. In those circumstances, and given the fact that the present Session is shorter than usual, I think the possibility of its being introduced this Session is very limited indeed.

What plans he has to make community sentences more (a) rigorous and (b) effective. [61096]

It is important that community penalties are seen as credible and effective by the public and the courts. The probation services are currently working to implement a detailed programme of action to reduce reoffending. We will shortly issue further guidance to promote more rigorous enforcement of community sentences.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of a witness protection scheme would be a vigorous and effective way to make community sentences more effective? When would he like to introduce such a scheme? Will he take the opportunity to acknowledge the work done in magistrates courts in Coventry, and "Reclaiming Our Communities"—an initiative of Coventry city council?

As my hon. Friend knows, there are proposals in the Queen's Speech to extend witness protection, particularly into the magistrates courts. I hope that these proposals will meet my hon. Friend's concerns, which I know are shared by many in the community, especially when they feel in any way intimidated.

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that one of the key factors in making community service work is the quality of the probation service? Will he therefore give me an assurance that disparate probation services will be amalgamated not simply to make them coterminous with police authority areas, but only to make them more effective and efficient?

As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, a Prison Service probation review is under way. I would not want to gainsay what might come out of that. Clearly there has been a commitment in the past to try to make the probation services coterminous with police boundaries, which I think makes sense. I think also that a growing number of people in the probation service are coming to understand that that will make sense.

Does the Minister agree that, if community sentences such as electronic tagging are to command the confidence of the public, they must be respected as being effective sentences? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the public's confidence in community sentences such as tagging will inevitably be undermined when they discover that tagging is used to release prisoners early from their sentences, so that a sentence of six months in prison will mean only six weeks inside in practice? Will not the public think, as has been said, that the criminals are getting away with it? Does the Minister not agree that, if the Government are really to be tough on crime, as opposed to boasting about being tough on crime, community sentences and sentences of imprisonment should mean what they say?

The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The purpose of the curfew orders to which he refers is not to let prisoners out early to do what they want but to have a properly managed and supervised period between the completion of a sentence and the time when they are completely free of any penalty. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is not sensible, I suggest to him that he examine some of the projects where such a transition has been effectively run. That process does not necessarily involve tagging, but the process that tagging enables to happen is an important one.

If he has plans to require senior police officers to confirm whether or not they are freemasons; and if he will make a statement. [61097]

All police officers, of whatever rank, will be asked to disclose whether they are freemasons as part of the Government's policy to set up voluntary registers across the criminal justice system.

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. Indeed, I commend the work on freemasonry that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench have been carrying out. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that a society that is secret and deemed to have extensive powers is capable of precipitating real fear in society? Indeed, some Members have told me that I was courageous to table the question. In these circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will bear it in mind that a voluntary code may not be enough and that the timetable that she is suggesting may be much too lenient.

I thank my hon. Friend. We are committed to a voluntary scheme. Clearly, compulsory steps requiring employees in the criminal justice system to disclose freemasonry membership will be introduced only if a review of the voluntary register arrangements show that they have not been effective.

I can assure the House that I have absolutely no direct interest in the matter, but will the Minister reflect on the unwisdom of singling out any particular group that happens to be a minority, because the principle could be extended to other minorities in terms of the practice of their religion, to ethnic minorities, or, in extremis, even to old Labour?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a perception that any secret organisation might have something to hide. Clearly, it is in the interests of the criminal justice system to be open and accountable. The voluntary way forward—voluntary registers—has so far received support from all the chief constables and is the right way forward. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that, just because someone registers membership of an organisation, it in any way implies that that person has done something wrong.

What measures he proposes to introduce to reduce car crime. [61099]

The Government regard vehicle crime as a very serious matter; after all, it amounts to about 24 per cent. of all reported crime. On 29 September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a national target, aimed at delivering a 30 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime over the next five years. To achieve that, we have recently established a ministerial task force, the vehicle crime reduction action team.

Does my hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the work of Barnet motor project, which is based in the Peel centre in my constituency? The project has been working with young offenders and those thought to be at risk of offending, channelling their enthusiasm for the motor vehicle into more constructive work—for example, by teaching them to drive and service vehicles off road. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a constructive and useful way of tackling motor crime?

It is certainly one of a range of activities in which young people can be engaged so as to get them to recognise the implications of motor vehicle crime, both for themselves and, more important, for the general public. It is a real mischief with which the Government are determined to get to grips. Our challenging but achievable target is an indication of our seriousness.

What representations he has had from Surrey police force regarding funding for expected manpower levels over the next three years. [61101]

We have received representations from the chairman and the treasurer of Surrey police authority about the funding of the Surrey police. The provisional police funding settlement for England and Wales in 1999–2000 will be announced later this week.

I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that that matter is under consideration, but, when examining the overall funding position of police authorities such as Surrey, as well as the funding position of the national crime squad and the national criminal intelligence service, he will be aware that value added tax and the ability to reclaim it are currently a big issue. I see the Home Secretary nodding; will the Minister confirm that that issue will be carefully looked into? We do not want our police forces to be handicapped by being less able to reclaim VAT, with the result that there is less money for police officers on the beat, which is what concerns all our constituents.

Only last week, I met our former colleague Sir John Wheeler regarding the matter. He is doing excellent work with the authorities in that respect. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are taking a careful look so as to ensure that the police service is not disadvantaged.

What representations he has received on the proposals for divorce information meetings contained in his consultation paper "Supporting Families". [61102]

The consultation period on the document "Supporting Families" is due to run to 31 January next year. Once the consultation period has ended, the responses will be analysed. However, none of the responses received so far has focused specifically on the proposals for divorce information meetings, the policy concerning which is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he tell the House how he intends to evaluate the pilot schemes that are currently being undertaken in that respect? Does he agree that the proposals in the consultation document run the risk of setting up a series of hurdles through which divorcing couples will have to run? There will have to be one meeting for couples by themselves; a second, for individuals, to obtain information about the divorce process; and a third, a meeting of groups of people, to get information about the property and financial implications. Is that not overkill in terms of advice and provision of information?

The points that my hon. Friend raises are important in considering which way we go forward on that difficult issue. On the one hand, there is the view that divorce should be considered to be an entirely private matter, in which there should be no encouragement to mediation by the state or by anybody else; on the other, because children are almost always involved in divorce cases, there is a public interest. Trying to find a way through that will be difficult; it is difficult for this Government, and it was difficult for the previous Government, but we hope that some improved arrangements will emerge from the consultation.

What plans he has to make police authority members more accountable. [61103]

I have no plans at present to change the arrangements for police authorities. The majority of members on each authority are councillors who are democratically accountable to local people. Any member of a police authority may also be required to attend council meetings to answer questions about the conduct of police authority business.

My right hon. Friend is aware of a recent controversy involving Merseyside police authority, which has managed to appoint a new chief constable without its selection panel apparently carrying out the most basic of duties, such as reading the papers in front of it and raising important questions with the candidate. Some of those members have resigned, but many have not. What advice can he give my constituents who are writing to me regularly asking what they can do to hold to account those members who are not elected councillors and who have yet to resign in view of the mess that they have made?

Of course I am aware of the controversy which has surrounded the appointment of the chief constable of Merseyside, but I want to make it clear in the House, as I have done already outside the House, that Mr. Norman Bettison was appointed in accordance with the standard procedures. His nomination was approved by the then Minister of State—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—and by me; he got the job fair and square; and he has my full confidence.

If he will make a statement on the licensing of door supervisors. [61104]

We are committed to introducing statutory regulation of the whole of the private security industry, including door supervisors. As we suggested in opposition, there is no time for legislation on this issue early in our term of office. In the meantime, we are working with the industry and others to draw up firm proposals for comprehensive, effective and streamlined regulation of the whole of the private security industry. The consultation exercise was completed last year to inform that process. We are reflecting on the outcome, and hope to be able to announce our proposals for regulation shortly.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but he will be aware from the endorsement in the foreword by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), that the code of practice produced recently by the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Local Government Association called for the registration of door supervisors to be put on a statutory basis as a matter of urgency. They say that that is the best way of tackling drug-related crime in night clubs. In view of their call for urgency, and the fact that the comprehensive legislation proposed by the Government is not imminent, will my hon. Friend consider extending to other areas the current provisions in the London Local Authorities Act 1996?

We will certainly have a look at that; it is our policy to keep these matters constantly under review. All the organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned recognise that it would not be wise to regulate door supervisors alone, ahead of the rest of the industry. I commend all those—local authorities, the private sector and the police—who have already set up more than 100 schemes that are about registering door supervisors, and involve effective police checks and training. Good work is being done in Bradford, Middlesbrough, York and Liverpool. We want more of that work to be done, but, in the meantime, we will indeed keep the matter under review. There is an issue that needs to be addressed, and we are addressing it.

How many persons have been found in possession of forged United Kingdom passports in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [61105]

The only comprehensive figures available relate to foreign nationals seeking entry to the United Kingdom who are detected in fraudulent possession of UK passports by the immigration service at our ports or airports. There were 584 such detections between 1 October 1997 and 30 September 1998.

I thank the Minister for that reply. What about individuals already in this country who have access to forged UK passports? My hon. Friend must share my concern at the revelations in The Observer a week ago yesterday, which alleged that Mr. Abdullah Azad of the welfare centre in Manchester was making forged passports available to people who walked in through the door. That is appalling. The same article said that Mr. Azad was suggesting to people whose immigration status was in doubt that they should apply for asylum. Is it any wonder that legitimate applicants for asylum status are disconcerted by the fact that persons such as Azad can make the queues grow ever longer by encouraging people bogusly to apply for asylum status, to which they are not entitled?

My hon. Friend makes a good case for regulation of immigration advisers. The Home Affairs Committee recommended such a measure in 1992, as did the Labour party during the passage of Bills introduced by the previous Government. The Conservatives did not do so, but we shall regulate unscrupulous advisers. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) has, for many years, held a list of approved advisers whom he can recommend to his constituents. Other MPs should consider their experience of advisers, and should give clear advice to their constituents about which corrupt or incompetent advisers they should avoid.

Is the Minister aware of other recent press reports, which have detailed plans that the Government may offer an amnesty en masse to illegal immigrants? Will he comment on that, and confirm that, if any such amnesty is offered, it will not include anyone who is found to be in possession of forged documentation?

There will be no amnesty of people who have been refused asylum. The Conservatives left a backlog of cases: tens of thousands of asylum seekers, some of them genuine, had not been given a decision in six, seven, eight or 10 years. It was a shameful dereliction of duty. Now they complain when we are having to clean up their mess. If they had decided cases quickly, the mess would not have been created in the first place. We are determined to restore integrity to our asylum system by tackling bogus applicants. We have taken the tough decision that the Conservatives ducked. They carp, we act. Where they failed, we shall succeed.

If he will make a statement on the deaths in custody in Norwich prison during the last year. [61106]

Regrettably, there have been five self-inflicted deaths at Norwich prison during the past year. Inquests held in three cases resulted in verdicts of suicide, and two inquests are outstanding. Each death has been investigated thoroughly. A review of suicide awareness procedures was undertaken in May, which found no deficiencies in the procedures.

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing my concern about the events in Norwich prison. Will he meet me and share some of the information that he has with me as soon as possible, so that I can see what has happened, because I have been denied information?

Yes.

When he proposes to change police disciplinary regulations. [61108]

As my right hon. Friend announced in March, new police discipline regulations will come into effect on 1 April 1999.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he reassure the House that, under these new regulations, early retirement will not be a way of avoiding disciplinary regulations when they are required?

Abuse of the discipline system through early retirement is to be deplored. The regulations will deal with that mischief. This is a long-overdue measure, which is widely supported in the police service.

What representations he has received recently about improper practices by solicitors and immigration advisers. [61109]

Many Members of Parliament have made representations to me about constituents whose immigration or asylum cases have been undermined by incompetent or unscrupulous advisers. The Government will introduce legislation to regulate advisers in the forthcoming immigration and asylum Bill.

I have drawn my hon. Friend's attention to a number of firms in my constituency that have been involved in very dubious practices.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that a number of reputable small organisations—and, indeed, law firms—operate in this sphere; but unscrupulous, incompetent, dishonest firms also operate. We need to introduce a system that regulates advisers.

The Minister will know that, as a result of the practices of some solicitors and immigration advisers, the county of Kent is now playing host to a large number of economic migrants, who impose a burden on it. In the Queen's Speech, the Home Secretary indicated that that financial burden would be removed and that central Government would pay, but in earlier parliamentary answers he has suggested the payment would cover only board and lodging. That means that the burdens of health care, education, policing and social services will continue to fall on the county.

We very much appreciate the work of Kent county council, and many councillors of all parties on that council. It has handled with skill and fortitude problems arising from the number of asylum seekers. I also praise the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and many others in Kent, for the way in which they have responded to the pressures on the area.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of so-called immigration advice firms encourage unrealistic claims, at a high cost to clients? When it is clear that there is no way in which an appeal can be upheld by an adjudicator, the client is told to go and see his Member of Parliament. Is it not time that all the racketeering that is going on in so-called immigration advice was cleaned up? It is unfortunate that the last Government took no action, but we hope that the present Administration will do so soon.

We are committed to taking such action, and we shall do so as soon as possible. The whole way in which these rackets have been run is a scandal. All too frequently Members of Parliament are dragged into such cases, supposedly making representations that have often been made by law firms. Let me tell hon. Members that they should consider carefully before deciding to support an application from someone who has merely written to them. They should consider whether it is a good case. If it is, by all means let them put it to the Minister—but Members of Parliament should not advance cases that have been submitted to them as a way of dragging out the procedure, with requests for them to meet the Minister, so that people can stay in the United Kingdom for longer.

I agree with the Minister that unscrupulous immigration advisers are appalling, but will he take this opportunity to remind the House of the existence of the Immigration Advisory Service, a free national charity that gives expert legal advice? It has offices throughout the country, to which applicants could and should go to get the good, free and independent advice that is often missing.

The hon. Gentleman is right. The Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Legal Centre and other organisations have a great record in advising asylum applicants and people with immigration problems. Unfortunately, that record is not replicated among some unscrupulous advisers. In passing, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's work in setting up the Immigration Advisory Service and to his record as its chairman.

How many persons are currently awaiting decisions on political asylum; and what was the total in each of the previous three years. [61110]

The number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision at the end of October 1998 was 59,000. The corresponding figures at the end of December in 1995, 1996 and 1997 were 70,000, 57,000 and 52,000 respectively. There are also cases in the appeals backlog, although that is being reduced because we have employed more adjudicators.

This is obviously a serious and worsening problem which makes it more difficult for genuine cases to be dealt with. Is the Minister aware that, for some of the old hands in the Commons, it is depressing to hear Ministers trying to blame the problem on the previous Government? Would it not be infinitely better, when dealing with the real problems of real people, to try to find a way of resolving them by putting forward sensible proposals, instead of going in for party politics—particularly bearing in mind the nightmares that many genuine applicants suffer?

The previous Government had 18 years to try to sort out all these problems. They failed to do so. It is right that this Government should point out that we have inherited a shambles in the asylum system. Nevertheless, it is now our responsibility to sort it out. We propose to introduce legislation that will bring firmer, faster and fairer controls to our immigration system. Up to now, the system has not worked effectively. After we pass the legislation during this parliamentary Session, we will ensure that we have a system that works far better than that inherited from the Opposition.

I know that my hon. Friend is doing everything possible to try to eliminate the appalling backlog of cases that we inherited but—recognising the problems that the backlog causes to the individuals and, in many cases, to the families—can he give any indication of when he believes he will get rid of the terrible legacy of the last Tory Government?

We are proceeding to deal with the cases in the backlog. Many of them are being decided as quickly as possible. We are introducing new working methods during the period up to the end of January, which will help to make much more efficient the making of decisions in relation to the asylum backlog. We are also dealing with a number of cases that date back to 1993 and 1995, which we have inherited. We intend to proceed with dealing with those cases as quickly as we possibly can.

How many gun owners are waiting to receive compensation for handguns surrendered under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [61111]

Around 23,000 individual compensation claimants have yet to receive full payment of their claims. However, the great majority of those have received a part payment. Full or part payments totalling £62.6 million have been made to more than 50,300 claimants. Those figures were correct as at 20 November.

I thank the Minister for that accurate and informative answer, but does he agree that 23,000 is a very large number of debts outstanding from the Government to individuals, many of whom live in my constituency? When Parliament decided that handguns should be given up, those people willingly gave up their handguns and, therefore, the recreational use of those guns, and they are now waiting for compensation so that they can reconstitute the sporting clubs to which they belonged for some other purpose. They cannot do so without the money that is owed to them by the Government. Will the Minister undertake to pay those claims as soon as possible?

I hope that the hon. Lady is equally concerned about the number of unlawfully held and adapted handguns in her constituency. She will realise the danger that they present. She will realise also the action that the Government have taken to speed up processing claims under the compensation scheme. My predecessor as Minister of State—now the Secretary of State for Wales—took action on the matter as long ago as last July. Only recently, I announced expansion of the scheme, to bring forward the completion date for the task as far as we possibly can. The task is a complex but important one. I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish unlawfully held and adapted handguns to be dealt with.