If he will make a statement on the action he is taking to reduce the number of bogus asylum seekers. [64345]

What measures he is taking to deal with the recent inflow of asylum seekers into the UK; and if he will make a statement. [64354]

We are implementing the comprehensive integrated strategy for reform of immigration and asylum as set out in our recent White Paper. Fundamental to that strategy is a much faster system which protects genuine refugees but which deters abusive claimants. Legislation will be introduced shortly to help speed up the system and to tackle abuse.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that the number of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom has risen by about 50 per cent. over the past two years?

The figure that the hon. Gentleman gives is correct. The principal reason for the increase is increased instability in parts of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia and of Somalia, which account for the vast majority of those who are awarded asylum status in the United Kingdom. Moreover, a comparison of our asylum figures, as a proportion of our population, with those for the rest of Europe shows that we are 11th out of 15 countries, and in absolute terms, many other European countries have many more applications for asylum and are less effective in dealing with them.

At the last Home Office Question Time, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) announced that the number of adjudicators was being increased to deal with asylum-seeking cases. That is certainly welcome. Is it not a fact, however, that the numbers of staff within the immigration service are being reduced? If so, will the Home Secretary reconsider that reduction? Surely there is a need to increase the numbers of both staff and adjudicators to deal with the backlog of immigration and asylum cases.

As I discovered when I visited the Hatton Cross adjudication centre, under plans prepared by the previous Administration, the number of presenting officers—who are vital to processing asylum appeals—was to be decreased. I took action to ensure that the number of presenting officers was increased, and a large number of additional presenting officers are in the process of being appointed. A major programme of computerisation was set in hand by the previous Administration, which is bound to lead to some reduction in the number of clerical posts in the immigration and nationality directorate. However, under the comprehensive spending review, to make the system fairer, faster and firmer, we are increasing the overall resources devoted to immigration control.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the Government have a case backlog because we inherited a backlog of 50,000 cases from the previous Government? Does he agree also that, for 18 years, the previous Government had no strategy for dealing with immigration and asylum cases? Does he further agree that one of the most effective ways in which the Government can tackle the issue is by ensuring that decisions are taken as speedily and as efficiently as possible in line with natural justice, so that everyone involved will be informed of the decisions? Is that not the way to cut the backlog?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The previous Administration's rhetoric was entirely belied by their practice. We are aiming, as we said in the White Paper that I published in July, to secure a situation in which initial decisions are made within two months, and appeals are disposed of within four months. Achieving that goal of course depends on our getting the new arrangements and the legislation in place.

As Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Estonia have achieved the status of, and are recognised as, democratic states with sound judicial systems, cannot applicants for refugee status who have either travelled through or claimed refugee status in relation to those countries be treated in the same way as applicants coming from Berlin, France or Brussels, in relation to whom the presumption is that, as democracy and the judicial system are safe in those places, their applications should be refused? Should not applicants who have touched base with the countries to which I referred request asylum there?

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and the immigration service has had considerable success in ensuring that people who have come from such countries seeking asylum are returned whenever it is possible. We have also made increased use of the powers of detention. However, we have not been assisted by the terms of the Dublin convention—which was signed up to by the previous Administration, in a moment of madness, in 1990—in securing the return of asylum seekers who have come through European Union countries. The convention came into force in October 1997 and has made it increasingly difficult for us to enforce the return of asylum seekers to the European Union.

On the measures to combat illegal immigration, may I remind the Home Secretary of the severe measures that he is proposing against United Kingdom freight transport operators? Is it not a fact that the illegal organisations exploiting that trade are becoming ever more professional in breaking into sealed containers transported by road? Does he agree with the Freight Transport Association that the Government should exert more pressure in ensuring security at the borders of other European countries, and pay particular attention to what is recognised to be very lax security in the port of Calais?

Here we have a perfect example of the Conservatives' rhetoric on asylum seekers being belied by their practice and their subscription to clients such as the Freight Transport Association. Of course we accept the need for greater security at Calais. We are taking positive action on that with Jean-Pierre Chevenement, the French Minister of the Interior. Before we listen to the Conservatives' apologies for the Freight Transport Association, let us be clear that in many cases hauliers knowingly or negligently allow their lorries to be used for the transportation of illegal immigrants. We shall crack down on that, just as the previous Administration cracked down on civil aviation carriers.

What plans he has to regulate immigration advisers. [64346]

The Government have a manifesto commitment to control unscrupulous immigration advisers. We intend to implement it and will include provisions in a new asylum and immigration Bill in a few weeks' time.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Some welcome action is imminent, which can only be good. As one hears ever more lurid stories of so-called immigration advisers indulging in what can only be described as sometimes criminal behaviour, does he agree that it is vital that those who are entitled to immigration advice should be able to rely on its accuracy and on the integrity of those providing it? Will he ensure that those who seek advice about their immigration status can rely on its quality; that, wherever malpractice is found—in solicitors offices or other organisations that purport to be able to give legal advice—it will be dealt with; and that there will be a crackdown on advisers who do little more than make money out of the vulnerable?

The activities of unscrupulous advisers are a major scandal that must be dealt with firmly and comprehensively. We shall introduce the necessary measures in legislation during this Session. We have already created a dedicated unit in the immigration and nationality directorate to investigate advisers who may be abusing our current immigration laws. The previous Administration did nothing, but we shall take the necessary action.

How can the hon. Gentleman possibly take on the regulation of the so-called advisers when his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary admitted only moments ago that the number of employees in the immigration service was being reduced?

The hon. Gentleman seems not to have heard my right hon. Friend clearly. There has been a movement towards computerisation of the IND, which may affect some clerical staff. However, the extra money that we shall be able to direct towards immigration control and the effective control of the asylum system as a result of the comprehensive spending review will enable us to target resources on having the employees that we need where we need them so that we can deliver effective immigration controls and an asylum system that works, which the previous Administration failed to deliver.

What proposals he has to consult with ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health on introducing legislation relating to individuals with personality disorders. [64347]

Extensive consultation preceded the publication on 8 December by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health of the Government strategy,"Modernising Mental Health Services". That document explains that the Government are considering proposals to create

"a new form of reviewable detention for those people with a severe personality disorder who are considered to pose a grave risk to the public."

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government recognise that under existing law it is not possible to detain for treatment patients who are deemed untreatable under the Mental Health (amendment) Act 1983? Will he assure me that the Government will not put pressure on the medical profession to detain for treatment people whom it deems untreatable? Will he set out the Government's thinking on resolving a gap in the law that has existed since the passage of the Mental Health Act 1959, more than 40 years ago, and say how the Government will act on this difficult matter?

Whether a patient comes within the terms of the Mental Health (amendment) Act 1983 is a matter for the medical practitioners concerned, not for Ministers.

Following the question from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I am pleased to hear that the Home Secretary is now having dialogue with the leader of the psychiatrists after his somewhat sharp remarks about them in this place not so long ago. The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders report recommended a separate establishment, outside the health and prison institutions, for those with severe mental illness, and that was very much the recommendation of the Fallon report last week. That is an extremely costly proposal. In the meantime, the danger is that those complex, difficult and dangerous individuals will be shunted between health and prison institutions without practical action. What timetable can the Home Secretary offer us?

I agree with the right hon. Lady that this a complex matter. Although they are relatively few in number, those individuals pose great problems for the professions concerned—but, above all, they pose a serious risk to the public if they are left at large. We are working as quickly as we can on the development of the third service. To keep costs down, we are looking at ways in which the Prison Service and the secure hospitals can be used for part of the provision. I am sorry that I cannot give a precise date for implementation, but we are proceeding determinedly against a background where the original proposal for such provision was made in 1975, in the Butler report.

Is the Home Secretary aware that a few very dangerous people—who used to be known as psychopaths—will be released from prison eventually, unless a psychiatrist certifies that their condition could be alleviated, or prevented from deteriorating, by treatment? It is no use castigating psychiatrists, and asserting—as the Secretary of State for Health did last week—that they are refusing to certify simply so that they can avoid having to treat those people, when to make such a certification would be in defiance of the Mental Health Act 1959. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, however fruitful his discussions are, there is a gap in the law that will have to be dealt with?

We are dealing with the matter, but I happen to believe that the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health were entirely justified. Moreover, a recent decision by the House of Lords Judicial Committee in the case of Reid made it clear that the current definition of treatability does not just include whether a potential patient is treatable by the medical profession, but can include whether, for example, they are susceptible to sex offender treatment programmes run by the Prison Service or to treatment by psychological and therapeutic services. I say again that we already know that the practice of medical practitioners in this field varies considerably. That justifies hon. Members on both sides of the House who are faced with a seriously disturbed offender—who, without almost any doubt, is likely to commit further offences—saying to the relevant medical practitioners, "Are you absolutely certain, within the law as it has been defined extensively by the courts, that this individual is not susceptible to any treatment of any kind?" That must be the question before such people are let out at large.

The Home Secretary is right, but is there not a very wide range of individuals with personality disorders? Some disorders are much milder and are treatable. If we are serious about reducing the prison population, we must take on board the fact that some people with a personality disorder that could and should have been treated need never have ended up in prison. If there is a scandal in this, it is the fact that so many young people who go out of the control of the Department of Health because of age are left with no one to care for them. It is scandalous that some psychiatrists say that they are not treatable, when the majority view is that they are.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I know of his great interest in this subject. I am sure that most Members of Parliament would subscribe to his views about mentally disordered prisoners who do not pose a serious risk to the public and could more appropriately be treated in the mental health system.

When he last met representatives from the car industry to discuss measures to reduce car crime. [64348]

I met the vehicle crime reduction action team, on which the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Retail Motor Industry Federation are represented, on 17 November 1998. I discussed the initiatives that they are driving forward to achieve a 30 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime over the next five years—a target announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 29 September 1998.

As someone who has been the victim of car crime five times in the past four years, I can sympathise with the hundreds of thousands who have suffered. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a general perception that the motor industry has not taken the issue seriously enough? What specific measures has he asked the industry to take to assist in that 30 per cent. reduction in crime, which we would all welcome?

Vehicle crime of the kind of which my hon. Friend has, sadly, been the victim, accounts for losses of about £3 billion a year and is a really serious problem. I am glad to say that we are now working in close partnership with the motor industry, not least in relation to design and structural issues about the glazing of the side and rear of motor vehicles, where modifications can make it that much more difficult for the criminal to get in, and in relation to the retail trade and the problem of secondhand cars, because secondhand cars are more likely to be the target of vehicle crime than those that are bought new, which may account for my hon. Friend's difficulty. There are lessons for all of us, and we are working in partnership with the motor industry to ensure that we learn them.

Many people who commit car crimes do so to fund their drug habit. Will the Minister bear in mind the activities of Rotary throughout this country in seeking to educate young people away from drug abuse and crime, and ensure that his colleagues in the Home Office join Rotary in promoting that excellent initiative?

I warmly welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to the contribution that the voluntary sector can make in partnerships that are designed to reduce the impact of drugs in our society. The Government, in partnership with the voluntary sector and with health authorities throughout the country, are spending an additional £217 million on the problem. It is of great assistance to have that Government intervention supplemented by the activities of organisations such as Rotary. Such partnerships are the best way to combat crime and its causes, and Rotary and other organisations are to be congratulated on their contribution.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, on Merseyside, car crime and other forms of serious crime are at their lowest levels for 18 years? Will he therefore join me in condemning the BBC 2 documentary programme "Mersey Blues", which last Wednesday described crime as a career choice on Merseyside? Does he not agree that such cheap remarks are an insult to the people of Merseyside, that they do an injustice to the Merseyside police and that they undermine those of us who are trying to regenerate the area by attracting inward investment?

The fearfulness and alarm that can be generated by programmes such as the one that my hon. Friend has described give rise to concern, not least on Merseyside. Recently, I met the chief constable and the chair of the police authority there, and I know that they believe that the programme does not represent the reality of policing on Merseyside. I am glad to endorse the product of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998: it has led to some very effective partnerships in the area which are reducing crime. All those engaged in those partnerships prove once more how valuable they are in preventing and reducing crime.

Which police authority has the (a) highest and (b) lowest rate of early retirement through sickness. [64349]

In 1997–98, Derbyshire constabulary had the highest rate of ill-health retirement among police forces in England and Wales, at 65 per cent. of all retirements. Surrey police had the lowest such rate, at 14 per cent. of all retirements.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. May I commend to her the work of the police force in Harrow, and especially of those officers working out of Pinner police station in my constituency, with whom I was able to go out on the beat on Friday?

I am glad that my hon. Friend went out with his local police. It is important for Members of Parliament to do that and thereby learn what is going on in their areas. Clearly, more efficiency is needed, especially with regard to sickness in the police force, although there has been some improvement: for example, the early retirement rate as a result of sickness has fallen on Merseyside from 77 per cent. to 54 per cent, and in Cleveland, from 58 per cent. to 32 per cent. However, police authorities, chief constables and the public know that that is still not good enough. More has to be done to ensure that fewer police officers retire early.

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the attempts by the North Yorkshire police to boost morale in an area where the early retirement rates are unacceptably high? Given that background, will the Minister join me in putting pressure on the Minister for Local Government and Housing to give a more generous standard spending assessment to North Yorkshire police? Under this year's settlement, the force will not be able both to meet last year's pay awards and to install the more expensive radio system that is vital in such a sparsely populated rural area. The North Yorkshire force also intends to raise manning levels to cope with the millennium celebrations: will the Minister come to our aid?

I should have mentioned the North Yorkshire force in my previous answer, as its retirement rate from sickness shows one of the best improvements in the country, having fallen from 76 per cent. to 49 per cent.

How confident is my hon. Friend that early retirement is not used as an excuse by incompetent or corrupt police officers to avoid the proper disciplinary process? What plans has she to address that issue in the wake of the bungled murder inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case?

My hon. Friend would not expect me to make any comment on the particular case to which he refers, which involved an ordinary, not a medical, retirement. However, the issue is one that causes great concern both to the public and to the police and we look forward to the report of the Lawrence inquiry, from which might come suggestions that we shall be able to take up. It is clear that the public will not accept police officers who face disciplinary proceedings being able to avoid normal procedures, and we shall ensure that anything that can be done is done. Changes already made to the disciplinary code and police regulations will take effect on 1 April.

How does the Minister account for the fact that my local police force in Sussex has suffered the second-largest fall in the number of on-duty police officers of any force in the country since May 1997 at a time when police resources are greatly stretched by the legislation emanating from her Department? Will she try to put that down to early retirements, or is it, in fact, another example of the Labour Government's actions in office failing to match up to their pre-election rhetoric about being tough on crime??

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the police settlement for the past two years was made by the previous Government; it has nothing to do with the Labour Government. The settlement is fair and those police forces that are careful about how they spend their money will be able to ensure that the public are policed properly.

What recent discussions he has held with his European counterparts on reducing serious international crime. [64350]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I discussed co-operation in reducing international crime with our European Union counterparts at the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 3 December. International crime issues have also formed part of the agenda for meetings that my right hon. Friend and I have had in the past three months with the German Ministers of the Interior and of Justice, the Austrian Minister of the Interior and the French Minister of Justice, and for the meetings that I had with the Hungarian Ministers of the Interior and of Justice during my visit to Budapest in December.

What discussions has my hon. Friend held with the French Minister of the Interior about the high level of smuggling of cigarettes, beer, spirits and drugs? Such smuggling can cause harm in my constituency in Coventry, with many off-licences and newsagents being badly affected.

As my hon. Friend may know, although the French Minister of the Interior is now back at work, he has been ill for the past few months, during which time on-going discussions were held with his officials. My hon. Friend is right to point out the problems of alcohol and tobacco smuggling: that is a serious criminal activity, which robs decent, honest taxpayers. We are doing more to tackle the problem and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is implementing tougher policies and better targeting. Those efforts are beginning to work and we shall continue to work closely with the French Government.

Does the Minister agree that the organisation of illegal immigration is one of the most serious aspects of international crime within Europe? In that context, will she or her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hold discussions with European Justice Ministers to ensure that each EU member country deals properly with bogus asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, and that they are dealt with in the first country they reach? If Her Majesty's Government cannot reach an accord on that matter, will the Home Secretary tear up the Dublin convention, which he so rightly criticised?

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not make those views clear before the previous Government signed the Dublin convention. However, I agree that the problem of gangs organising illegal immigration is very serious. The matter is discussed continually by our European partners and by the accession countries because it is not simply a European Union issue: it affects all of Europe. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), has just returned from a visit to Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia during which precisely those sorts of issues were discussed. It is a serious problem,which we must tackle at source.

I declare an interest as a practising lawyer. Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways of curbing the smuggling of loose tobacco which is used in hand-rolled cigarettes would be to persuade the Belgian authorities—the Antwerp warehouses supply 70 per cent. of the rolled tobacco available in the United Kingdom—to allow the extradition of Belgian citizens to stand trial on conspiracy charges before the British courts?

In his usual way, my hon. Friend has made an important point that we shall examine and pursue. We shall clearly do anything that we can to prevent the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco.

In relation to international co-operation, the Minister will be more than familiar with the recent success of the Garda Siochana in intercepting a huge consignment of drugs headed for Northern Ireland, with which were included 16 machine pistols and silencers. Does she recognise that, if there is a diminution in the level of terrorism in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain, the infrastructural and logistical capability will be filled by international terrorists who are involved in the drugs trade? Will the Home Department pay particular attention to encouraging police constabularies in Great Britain to co-operate even more than at present on a day-to-day basis with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana on that issue?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that timely question. It is important to recall the amount of drugs seized and to congratulate the Garda and the RUC on their continued co-operation, which is very good at present. We must obviously extend and improve co-operation within the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is already happening. Terrorism affects everyone and may be a by-product of other organised crime.

If he will discuss with the chief constable of Manchester the availability of information on the investigation of accusations of rape in the case of Owen Oyston. [64351]

I am afraid that I cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request. The disclosure of information about an investigation is a matter for the chief officer of the police force concerned. Ministers have no authority to intervene in such matters, nor would it be appropriate for us to do so.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that many people in the north-west of England believe that Owen Oyston is innocent of the crime of rape and that his trials were a travesty of justice. He will know also that Mr. Oyston has refused to concede any element of guilt in this case, even though he might secure early parole. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that all the documents in the possession of Manchester police—including the many documents that were not given to the defence, and particularly all of those relating to Cullis—will be handed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission immediately? Is it not quite wrong that this man—who many people, including me, believe is innocent of this crime—should languish in prison simply because the CCRC does not have the necessary resources to conduct an earlier inquiry?

It is not for me or any Minister to give the undertakings that my hon. Friend requests. Mr. Owen Oyston was convicted by a jury on serious charges and made an appeal to the Court of Appeal criminal division, which was dismissed. I now understand that he has made an application to the CCRC. What transpires is entirely a matter for that commission, not for Ministers.

When he expects to achieve his target of halving the time between an offence being committed and the young offender appearing in court. [64352]

In 1996, the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders was 142 days. We are committed to halving that time in this Parliament. On coming to office, we took early action to begin the process of change. There are now more than 150 fast-track schemes in operation covering almost half of all courts in England and Wales. Provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were brought into force on 30 September last year to enable the courts to manage cases more quickly and efficiently. Other measures are currently being piloted with national implementation planned for October this year. The Government have set demanding performance targets for all stages of proceedings up to and after trial and for all youth justice agencies.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that justice delayed is justice denied and that victims, in particular, will welcome the Government's efforts to eliminate any delay in the criminal justice system? Halesowen and Warley magistrates courts, which cover my constituency, operate fast-track schemes and early administrative hearings, so that the first hearing takes place within four days. The clerk at Warley magistrates court has told me, however, that sometimes there are delays if subsequent hearings are required because other agencies involved have difficulty in meeting the court's timetable. Is my hon. Friend having discussions with all agencies connected with youth justice?

I have visited Warley magistrates court and I know how seriously its staff take their duties, not least to the victims of crime, who particularly suffer as a result of delay. The sort of delays that have occurred in the past, particularly in the implementation of youth justice, have a very damaging effect on our capacity to make young people understand what the consequences of their offending will be for themselves and the victims of crime. We are therefore right to set those demanding and challenging targets.

What plans he has to implement the recommendations of the independent commission on the voting system. [64355]

We made it clear in our manifesto that implementation of the recommendations of the independent commission on the voting system would require the endorsement of those recommendations by the people of this country in a referendum, and that remains the position.

I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Why should we give up the British electoral system, which is the most widely used in the world—it is used in 62 countries and by 49 per cent. of the world's electors—in favour of the dog's breakfast served up by the noble Lord Jenkins, which has never been tried anywhere in the world? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when, as long ago as 1974, the then Labour Cabinet rejected Lord Jenkins's first paper recommending electoral reform, it demonstrated a wisdom that he would be well advised to follow 25 years later?

Some people take the hon. Gentleman's view; others take a different one. There is one thing of which I am clear: any change to the electoral system should have the full support of the British population in a referendum. It is of course a matter for the British people whether they wish to stick with the current system.

Before my right hon. Friend allows his colleagues to blunder into the incompetent system suggested by Lord Jenkins, who proved conclusively that he could not even run a political party, will he show sufficient confidence in the British electorate's ability to study carefully the selection procedures for and elections to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament and, only after those arrangements have had sufficient time to run, put to the British people the suggestion that even this Government can occasionally make mistakes?

I entirely subscribe to my hon. Friend's final proposition—as was said to Jack Lemmon in the last line of "Some Like it Hot", "Nobody's perfect." That certainly includes the present Home Secretary. There is a case for seeing how the new systems of proportional representation for elections to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and, indeed, the European Parliament, fall into place before proceeding with the referendum. We shall take those findings into account.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that his view of electoral systems could be described as horses for courses, as he has said previously? Will he confirm, to echo the debate on the euro, that, while the Conservatives say that they want no change and my party is committed to change, the Government's position is to consider the national interest in deciding whether to change? Will he therefore also confirm that it remains his Government's opinion that it is in the national interest that a referendum of the British people should decide the matter?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It goes without saying that we speak and decide things only in the national interest. We have always been committed to a referendum. Which recommendations Ministers and Members of Parliament make to the electorate remain to be seen. Let us be absolutely clear: the decision on future voting systems for Westminster is not in the hands or the pockets of any Minister or Member of Parliament. It is for the British people to decide. I am quite sure that, when it comes to it, there will be a vigorous and open debate on the issue.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Jenkins proposals would allot a disproportionate share of the say to minority parties and that that is not an acceptable way forward? Is not it a fact that, if we accept the Jenkins fudge, between 15 and 20 per cent. the incumbents of parliamentary seats would not be directly elected?

It is patent that that could be a consequence. During the debate on the Jenkins report, I pointed out some of the questions that still remain about its recommendations. The Jenkins commission felt that the current system produced a lack of proportionality. If one examines its subsequent proposals, however, one might consider that the fact that the Conservative party's position—this is not a partisan point—will remain the same suggests that the committee's recommendations are not robust on proportionality, if on anything else.

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has said, does the Home Secretary remember that, when he was in opposition, he wrote an article for The Times, in which he said:

"Proportional representation is not a matter of morality but crude party advantage—which is why the Liberals only adopted the idea in 1922, when their decline really began"?

Of course I remember the article. It is one of a series that I used to write for The Times, and which I much enjoyed writing. It might be to the advantage of the House if I were to publish my extensive collected works on first past the post. I believe that the position that I have taken on the subject is no secret.

What plans he has to expand provision for diverting vulnerable youths away from criminal activity; and if he will make a statement. [64356]

We are pursuing a wide-ranging programme to reform and speed up the youth justice system and to divert vulnerable young people away from crime. We are currently piloting a range of new measures stemming from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, including the final warning scheme, the child safety order and the parenting order, all of which are designed to help ensure early action when children and young people first offend or are at risk of offending.

I am not talking of the measures under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; I am talking about some of the very good schemes—such as one running in the Home Secretary's constituency—designed to provide young people who live in areas vulnerable to crime with constructive activities to prevent their involvement in crime in the first place. I want to be sure that that issue is now being taken seriously in the Home Office; that did not happen under the previous Government. Such an approach requires co-ordination with other Departments that have a part to play—such as the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The results of the scheme to which he refers, youth works, have been laudable, and that scheme is an example of the good practice that we want to be spread across the country. As my hon. Friend must be aware, we have established the Youth Justice Board, which has responsibility for developing similar initiatives. We have underpinned its work with more than £80 million so that progress may be made on that agenda. That is good news for young people and for society. We are determined to deliver on the agenda that includes effective diversion from crime.

I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), on his question.

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in this matter and he knows that we are working on the issue not only with the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—with which we are making progress on a range of projects as a result of research and funding—but, importantly, with the Department of Health. As a result of the partnerships that are being established pursuant to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the youth offender teams, for the first time the Department of Health has an input at local level, through local health authorities and trusts. Evidence has shown that early intervention works, and we believe that our new investment in such schemes will deliver rich dividends.

Which police authority had (a) the highest and (b) the lowest level of absence through sickness in the last year for which figures are available. [64358]

The latest figures available are for 1997–98. The highest level was in South Wales, where the average figure per officer was 17.39 days per annum, and the lowest was in Wiltshire, at 8.76 days.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Although I accept that the overwhelming number of sickness absences in our police forces are genuine, can she assure me that, where there is evidence of abuse, it will be dealt with firmly—not ignored or swept under the carpet—and that the perpetrators will not be retired without facing disciplinary action?

My hon. Friend is right. We are taking the matter seriously. He will be aware that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary recently published its report, "Lost Time", which highlighted sickness levels in the police last year. We obviously cannot allow such levels to continue without tackling them effectively. Sickness absence costs between £210 million and £250 million a year; we must all work to reduce that.

Obviously, greater efficiency is important, but will the Minister confirm that last year, there were more than 13,000 assaults against individual policemen and policewomen, and that Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary reported that the amount of time lost through sickness because of assault was "remarkably low"? Would it not be a grave mistake, therefore, if we failed to recognise the exceptional devotion to duty of the vast majority of members of the police service in this country?

The right hon. Gentleman's remarks show that there is no relationship between inputs and outputs. Clearly, some members of the police force will have to leave because of the assaults that they have suffered, or the stress of the job and all the difficulties that being a police officer entails, but there is no reason why sickness levels in certain parts of the country cannot be brought down. I hope that we would have support from across the Chamber for all the measures that can be taken to do that. It should not be seen as a party political issue.

Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that there are many stressful occupations? Teachers and many others have a stressful life. The police force is in a privileged position: its members have a shorter career term than most other professions—on average, 30 years. Although we have great respect for our police force, it is a matter of concern if there are high rates of sickness and of early retirement through sickness, especially if that retirement is used to evade scrutiny and the proper procedures of police security.

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, particularly about the levels of stress associated with other jobs. Answering questions in the House is sometimes rather stressful. My hon. Friend's comments underline the need for us all to work together to reduce sickness levels. Police officers should not be allowed to make sickness an excuse for avoiding disciplinary measures, and we will make sure that that does not happen.

When he expects to end the practice of holding 15 and 16-year-olds in adult prisons. [64359]

I hope that we can all agree that juveniles in custody on remand or under sentence should be held in facilities appropriate to their needs. The Government intend to start work during 1999 to establish a distinct estate within the Prison Service for 15-to-17-year-old boys remanded or sentenced to custody, and to improve the care and regimes delivered within it. An assessment is already under way of the needs of young women under the age of 18.

Does the Minister recall that when his party was in opposition, its shadow Home Affairs team, led by our present Prime Minister, repeatedly castigated as inadequate the Conservative programme for providing no fewer than 170 secure local authority places, and that the present Prime Minister said that the problem could be solved "without delay"? Does the Minister realise that the admission from his Department, in response to repeated questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), that the present Government have provided only six extra places since they came into office shows that the Labour party says one thing in opposition and produces a heck of a lot less in government?

No. The hon. Gentleman should take a little more time to reflect on what the Government whom he supported achieved over 18 years. In just 20 short months we have started to deal with a problem that has been festering for many years. The hon. Gentleman should judge us on what we achieve over the term of this Government. At the end of that period, proper arrangements will be in place to deal with juvenile offenders in a way that would not have entered the imagination of our predecessors, the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. He should be ashamed of their record. We are putting right the wrongs that they perpetrated.

Is not the Minister overlooking the words of the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Affairs spokesman, when he said that the places in local authority secure accommodation could be provided "without delay", and when he said that

"This country does not want to wait years before the problem is dealt with"?—[Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 40.]

I find that outrageous. The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the previous Government and they did nothing about the growing problem of how to deal with juveniles. Conservative Members criticise our spending plans, and when we decide to do something about problems by spending money on them they criticise us for doing so. They should hang their heads in shame for the mess that they made of dealing with juvenile crime and the juvenile criminal justice system. For the hon. Gentleman to lecture the Government from the Dispatch Box is laughable.