If he will make a statement on progress in reducing the amount of administrative work required of police officers. [69104]

Good progress is being made in reducing the burden and in streamlining the management of administrative tasks. Developments following the Masefield scrutiny have significantly reduced the number of forms that the police must prepare for prosecuting straightforward cases in magistrates courts. More recently, pilots of new measures recommended in the Narey review of delay in the criminal justice system have introduced further streamlining.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Recently, when I went out on patrol with my local police, I saw at first hand the heavy demand on police officers and the response of members of the public when they were dealing with a police officer whom they knew. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the reduction in administrative burdens on the police will lead to more police being devoted to front-line duties, which is what both they and my constituents want?

My hon. Friend is right. All of us learn a great deal when we go out and spend time with our local police. The Cheshire police in her constituency are doing well in civilianising the police force; 39 police personnel have been civilianised. That has increased the amount of money that is available to put into front-line and mainstream policing. We are determined to ensure that the administrative burden on our police is reduced to that which is necessary.

To what extent will police time be occupied in fulfilling the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, not just in the preparation of audits, which has largely already been completed, but in future?

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman will join us in hoping that, if the Act works as it is meant to work— we are sure that it will—crime will be reduced, so the amount of time that police spend on working on the requirements will also be reduced. Under present arrangements, there is considerable duplication in administration between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Those are the sorts of things that the reviews have worked towards trying to minimise. That is what I hope that we will be able to do.

Has the Home Department considered the amount of administrative time that is spent in following up malicious complaints against the police? Has it considered how it might bite back, so to speak, against those who maliciously try to disrupt policing? Has the Home Office considered the amount of time and money that is spent because of malicious complaints? What steps does it intend to take to counter that?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Clearly, malicious complaints, or abuse of the system, which does happen, is something that no one can support. It is a crime—a criminal offence—to waste police time. I hope that police forces throughout the United Kingdom are ensuring that, where it is possible to prosecute people who have done that, they do so.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Staffordshire police on their recent launch of the new Starnet radio communication system, which was jointly procured and is jointly used by Staffordshire fire and rescue service? Does she agree that such collaborative works between emergency services give opportunities for administrative savings? Will she look favourably on bids from Staffordshire police for limited Home Office funds for similar innovative and successful collaborations?

Yes. Clearly, any collaborative work, and the work to which my hon. Friend has referred, is to be welcomed and commended. We look forward to more such innovative initiatives throughout the country.

What representations have been made to him in response to the announcement on provisional police grants for 1999–2000. [69105]

I received 40 written representations on the provisional police grant allocations that I announced to the House on 2 December. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), subsequently met representatives from seven police authorities. I met right hon. and hon. Members from Kent and, while on an official visit to Falmouth. talked to the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police about the matter. Final allocations of police grant for 1999–2000 were set out in the police grant report for England and Wales, which was approved by the House on 4 February.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply. Has he made any estimate of how much of the increase of 2.7 per cent. in police grant funding that is to take place next year will be swallowed up by the ever-increasing commitments to police pensions, which are unfunded? If he is relying on the 2 per cent. efficiency savings that he expects next year, how does that square with the Audit Commission's view that further efficiency savings can be only 0.5 per cent. at most?

The continuing burden on police funds of the costs of pensions, which are pay as you go, is worrying to, I think, all hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the actual burden is taken account of in setting the formula for individual authorities. That is one of the reasons why the amount that is allocated varies from one force to another. I am satisfied that police forces can meet their 2 per cent. efficiency targets on top of that. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion on the belief of the Audit Commission. The commission has made it quite clear—not least in its latest publication "Fire and Police Performance Indicators"—that there is very substantial scope for efficiency savings, and that there is no relationship at all between the amount spent per head in an area and the effectiveness of the police service.

Will the Home Secretary assure the House that additional resources given to police are used to fight crime, and that any efficiency savings police are able to make are ploughed back into police forces for use in implementing crime prevention strategies?

Under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, allocation of resources within an overall total is a matter for chief constables. Therefore, although I very much hope that what my hon. Friend desires will happen, I cannot guarantee it. Plainly, everyone in Basildon, in Essex, and across the country will expect that the resources released by efficiency savings are used for front-line operational police officers.

In regard to the previous answer, is the Home Secretary considering setting targets for recruitment of police officers from ethnic minorities?

Yes, I am; I made that quite clear to the Home Affairs Committee last Tuesday, when I gave evidence to it. I should also make it clear—as I have in the past—that we are talking about targets and not about quotas of the type that were set, quite unsatisfactorily, in America. We want targets with a single method of entry and of qualification, regardless of people's ethnic status. Despite the progress that has been made in some forces—in recent years, pre-eminently in the Metropolitan police—I do not believe that it is satisfactory that, whereas 8 per cent. of our population are from the ethnic minorities, only a little over 2 per cent. of our police are from the ethnic minorities.

If the Home Secretary is pursuing that policy, how is he able to continue saying that he has no view on police recruitment generally? Is it not a fact that police strength increased by 15,000 under the previous, Conservative Government? If he is going to pursue the policy that he has just stated, should he not now take responsibility for falling police strengths across the country?

I think that, in the trade, that is described as a non sequitur. There is no connection whatever between the fact that, under an Act passed by the previous Administration, the establishment of police forces is now a matter for chief constables and my setting of targets for ethnic minority recruitment—with the overwhelming backing of police authorities, most chief constables and the public. What we have to hear from the right hon. Gentleman is whether he supports the policies that I am implementing and that are designed to ensure that the police service more accurately reflects the ethnic background of the people of this country as a whole.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for the letter that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, recently sent to me, and ask him whether he accepts that the North Wales police authority has delivered a very high standard of policing, which is both very successful and very professional? Does he agree that our communities, particularly on Deeside, very much value their local police station? Is he also aware that my constituents are glad that five of our police stations are not to close, and that there was particular rejoicing in the town of Buckley when its residents learned that their station was not to close?

I am very glad to learn that my Minister of State has produced satisfaction—which does not surprise me, given the qualities that he brings to his job.

What plans he has for achieving greater equity in funding between police forces. [69106]

Funding is allocated between police forces in England and Wales by means of a needs-based formula. The formula is designed to be a fair means of distributing resources. However, I have commissioned two pieces of independent research to determine whether the formula can be improved.

Although that specific answer is very welcome, will not the Home Secretary concede—if I concede it to him—that there is a case for special action on, for example, the Met and centralised services, such as criminal intelligence? Will he concede also that there is concern, particularly in county forces, about the slow wind down of the establishment element, about the unsolved pensions problem and about their overall funding? Does he agree that the result is that the chief constable in Northamptonshire—which has a well-known, lean and efficient police force—will be required to dispose of the services of 43 officers next year?

The formula is not perfect, and we must go on trying to refine it. Although we will never reach perfection, hopefully the formula can more accurately reflect relative needs in different areas, over time. However, decisions about the number of officers to be deployed or on the establishment are a matter for chief officers. For Northamptonshire, the grant for 1999–2000 is increasing by 3.8 per cent.—that is 50 per cent. up on the average, and follows an increase of nearly 5 per cent. last year. Northamptonshire has done pretty well compared with other forces.

The 2.9 per cent. increase this year for Greater Manchester will be challenging for us. However, I am delighted that the police authority has managed to find £10.5 million of efficiency savings, and that it has confirmed that it can live within the budget without cuts in front-line policing. Can I commend to my right hon. Friend the innovative new best-value pilot in Salford, which looks to get the maximum value for money out of every pound spent on policing? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a fundamental look at police functions could ensure that the police concentrate on key issues—protecting the public and making our communities safer places in which to live?

I can confirm that. It is important that police resources are used wisely and not wasted. It remains the case that, as the Audit Commission has spelt out:

"Overall, the police service is spending more per head in real terms each year, but there is still no direct correlation between increased spending and improved performance at the level of individual forces."

Does the Home Secretary accept that there are difficulties with the Metropolitan police, which has accounted for three quarters of the loss of police numbers since the Government came into office and has exceptional recruitment difficulties? Does he agree that the process by which the funding formula is arrived at—which gives equal weight to the various police authorities—heavily discriminates against a major metropolitan authority such as London?

I am afraid that I do not accept that. There has been an adjustment—certainly since I became Home Secretary—to take account of the special pressures and demands on the Metropolitan police force. I have increased the amount from £130 million in 1997 to £150 million last year, and to more than £170 million next year. The criticism that I have received has been from provincial forces who say that I have been too generous to the Metropolitan police—not too mean.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that one of the two pieces of independent research being carried out relates to the sparsity element of the needs-based formula? If, as the Dyfed Powys police force believes, the research shows that there are considerable extra costs in policing rural areas, will the sparsity element of the formula be adjusted to take that into account in future?

Yes, I can confirm that. I understand that this is of particular importance to constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend in west Wales, which I had the privilege of visiting in 1997. We are carrying out two pieces of research—one on the effects of sparse population on pressures on policing, and the other on the pressures on police in inner urban areas. I hope—although I cannot guarantee—that there will be some resolution to those different but conflicting pressures.

When does the Home Secretary expect to publish the findings of that external research, particularly the research into sparsity? Does he agree that many of our small and rural police forces are under severe financial pressure? He mentioned eight the other day, and all those that he criticised were rural. We hope that he has checked up on how bad things are. Those forces have virtually no flexibility to deal with sudden shocks in the grant formula. Many are already cutting recruitment, leaving people in rural areas feeling betrayed by the Government. Will the Home Secretary assure us that there will be no further cuts in the budget for rural communities? Will he also assure us that provision to cover any additional and exceptional need will be quickly implemented?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his birthday. He is 53 today.

What measures he proposes to protect people from repeat burglaries. [69107]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced his intention to implement in December section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which provides for mandatory minimum sentences of three years' imprisonment for those convicted for a third time of committing domestic burglary. That supports the action that the Government are already taking to reduce and prevent burglary through the crime reduction programme and the work of the local crime and disorder partnerships.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Metropolitan police on the fact that levels of burglary in the capital are at their lowest since 1980? In particular, will he congratulate my local police service in Barnet, which has achieved a 26 per cent. reduction in burglary over two years through a multi-agency approach?

I am happy to recognise and congratulate my hon. Friend's local police for their excellent work on burglary. The Met is leading the way in targeted policing to combat burglary. The Government are concentrating on ensuring swift and condign punishment for those who are caught and convicted of burglary because of the harm that they do. We are doing all that we can to support and encourage the nuts and bolts measures on the ground that the police and public can take together to prevent burglary.

Why does the Minister not recognise that the early release of prisoners on the home detention curfew scheme, many of whom are burglars, will make a mockery of the Government's attempts to convince the public that they are cracking down on serious burglars?

When will the hon. Gentleman learn not to try to score cheap party political points on a measure that enjoyed cross-party support on the Home Affairs Committee? After we discharge prisoners, we ensure that we retain the capacity to supervise them. They are punished in a condign way when they are caught. We are concentrating on making sure that there are programmes in prisons to prevent reoffending and on supervising prisoners on release. The Conservatives never did that when they had the stewardship of the criminal justice system.

I thank my hon. Friend for his response on how burglars will be dealt with. The victims of crime are usually those who cannot afford the resources to protect their property. Are the Government able to help secure the homes of people on low incomes, old people in particular, to try to ensure that they are defended against burglars?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are applying about £50 million over three years to tackle burglary and to effect target hardening to ensure that older people, in particular, and all vulnerable victims of crime in high-burglary areas get the assistance that they need to deter and prevent burglary. That holds out the prospect of about 2 million households receiving help that they never would have got had that lot opposite returned to power at the general election.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of police numbers in Sussex. [69108]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no assessment of police numbers in Sussex. Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for the chief constable to determine the number of police officers in the force, within the resources available to him or her.

I hear what the Minister says, but I hope that he shares my concern that a recent survey demonstrated that only 15 per cent. of people felt that there were enough police on the beat. I hope that he feels that he ought to do something about that. Before the general election, the Labour party was very keen to criticise the previous Government on police numbers. Is it the case that the previous Government were responsible for police numbers then and that the police authorities are responsible for them now?

The Lib Dems are trying to have it both ways, as usual. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the reality is that the number of police on the ground is an operational matter for the chief constable. The new Labour Government have provided an additional £1.24 billion for policing. We are also enabling the constabulary in Sussex to reinvest its 2 per cent. efficiency savings in front-line policing. That is warmly welcomed in Sussex. Is it too much to ask the Liberal Democrat party to recognise the good that is being done on the ground, rather than carping on and on about the number of police, which it knows is not the best criterion for reducing and preventing crime?

I thank the Minister for that thoroughly condign answer. Will he acknowledge that what he says is simply not true and that the news on numbers is not welcomed in Sussex? The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) is right to say that it is generally acknowledged in Sussex that there are not enough policemen on the beat, as the Minister himself would have said at the general election.

I have never associated the hon. Gentleman with exoticism, but, as he raises the issue, I will of course take it up with the chief constable, who will be the first to recognise that it is an operational matter and not one on which it would be proper for me to comment.

What plans he has for reform of police pensions. [69109]

Following our consultation document of last year on police pensions, work is in hand on detailed proposals for the pension arrangements for new entrants to the service and for changes to the medical retirement procedures. We plan to publish our proposals in the spring. They will be published in advance of implementation to allow for full consultation with the interested parties.

Does the Minister accept that the total size of the pension package expands year after year, and that it expands incrementally into a fixed budget? Is not the logical conclusion that there will be fewer policemen on the beat, in Sussex, Croydon or anywhere else?

No, I do not accept that. As we have said all along, it is up to local police forces to use their resources as they think best to ensure that front-line policing is not affected. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the predicted need to spend on pensions has gone up from 13.2 to 14.5 per cent. It is up to the police forces and the chief constables to ensure that police on the beat and on the front line are not affected by the overall settlement.

Does the Minister agree that the current operation of police pensions has a direct bearing on front-line police services? Is she aware that, this afternoon, the Essex police authority is considering spending cuts of £7 million, partly brought about by the police pensions fund formula, which means that Essex will have 135 fewer police officers next year, the entire motor cycle fleet will be sold off, there will be less overtime for police officers to tackle crime and the mounted police section will be disbanded? Surely we need to tackle police pensions so that there is more money for front-line police services.

We are all aware of the difficult position on the future of pensions. That is precisely why we are conducting a consultation exercise, why a document was published and why we shall consider the issue and make sensible, well-thought-out proposals that will take all those points into consideration. Although the hon. Gentleman believes that his force is particularly harshly affected, I do not accept that. There is a general problem that we need to tackle on a cross-party basis; police pensions are not a party political issue, but a problem that we all have to work towards solving.

Is the hon. Lady aware that there are reports that the Home Office is considering punishing police officers who are convicted of serious disciplinary offences by cutting their pension by up to 75 per cent? I do not defend police officers who are found guilty of such offences, but can it be right to use their pension scheme as the penalty for a disciplinary offence?

The right hon. Gentleman has been slightly badly briefed on this matter because that is the law at the moment, so exactly that action can be taken.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are concerned that sexist, racist behaviour does not, in many cases, lead to a loss of pension? If we are to strike out the cancer of racism in the police force, far more action is necessary, including cutting pensions.

Clearly, every police officer has to be treated fairly. We are strengthening the position on discipline and the new arrangements from 1 April will take account of all that. The matter is on-going and some changes have already been made. I hope that my hon. Friend will wait to find out how those changes work in practice from 1 April.

Does the hon. Lady agree that a pension is, in effect, pay deferred and that the question of punishing a police officer by removing his pension entitlement raises profound questions about the rights of property? Although that can be done now, will she inform the House that it will not be done?

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be equally badly briefed as his Front-Bench colleague, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). At present, up to 75 per cent. of a police officer's pension can be taken away, so this is not a new proposal that has suddenly been pulled out of a hat; it can happen already.

If he will make a statement on the measures being taken to prevent asylum seekers attempting to enter the United Kingdom illegally by hiding in vehicles. [69112]

We shall tackle the problem of illegal immigration rather than specifically asylum seekers. We are developing increased European and international co-operation to crack down on traffickers. The Immigration and Asylum Bill contains several important provisions, including a civil penalty that will apply to drivers of vehicles found transporting clandestine entrants to Britain.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that everyone will welcome a fairer, faster and firmer system for immigrant applicants and asylum seekers? Does he accept that, despite some whingeing in the press, there is widespread support for fining those who bring in illegal immigrants, particularly via freight lorries? The time is past when drivers could turn a blind eye and say, "I did not know what was going on," when there were up to 100 people in the back of a lorry. Now is the time for action for a faster, firmer and fairer system all round.

My hon. Friend is right: 8,000 illegal immigrants were brought into Britain in the backs of lorries last year, at a cost to the taxpayer of tens of thousands of pounds. Lorry drivers are neglecting to check their loads. It is difficult to resist the idea that most drivers are either culpable, because they accept bribes, or, at best, negligent, because they do not check their loads. The civil penalties of £2,000 per illegal immigrant will concentrate their minds. We do not want to be forced to fine anyone. Indeed, the best result would be that we never have to fine anyone because no illegal immigrants are being brought in.

How can the Minister lecture lorry drivers in that way, when the Government's message is that they have granted what is in effect an asylum to up to 30,000 asylum seekers? Is it not highly likely that many of those 30,000 are not properly entitled to asylum and may be economic migrants? What sort of message is that sending to other would-be asylum seekers about trying to get into the United Kingdom?

In 1992–93, the Tory Government made a secret concession that granted exceptional leave to remain to more than 26,000 asylum seekers. Parliament was never informed. That is a greater number than we will involve in our special procedures announced in the White Paper entitled "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—a modern approach to immigration and asylum". Unless we clear the inherited backlog, we cannot create a faster system. The Tory Government left us with so many cases that it would take five years to train the staff needed and to clear the backlog. The problem is too great and we cannot afford that much time to solve it. We had to take a tough decision, and we have taken it. We expect criticism, but it ill becomes the people who created the problem to complain when we are clearing up their mess.

What discussions he has had with the chief constable of South Yorkshire about the funding of the defence costs for members of the police force involved in civil suits. [69113]

My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with the chief constable on this matter. I understand that the South Yorkshire police authority has set aside from its reserves the sum of £500,000 for legal costs in connection with the Hillsborough disaster. The funding of the defence costs of police officers is entirely a matter for the police authority.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern in Liverpool and Sheffield that the South Yorkshire police authority may have acted outside its authority in offering to fund the defence costs in a private prosecution of former police officers Duckenfield and Murray. Who will fund the costs of settling the matter in the High Court? If any expenditure has been unlawfully authorised to date, will my hon. Friend ensure that it will be repaid to the South Yorkshire police authority? Does he agree that the public in South Yorkshire do not deserve to suffer reduced resources now, as a result of shortcomings that led to the tragic loss of life at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989?

The House shares a continuing sense of loss at the tragedy surrounding Hillsborough. The decision of the South Yorkshire police authority is, of course, a matter for that authority. It has decided to stop funding the defence costs of the two former officers. Whether the matter is vires is for the courts to decide, and it is not something on which I wish to comment. Any matters to do with the misuse of funding are the business of the district auditor. However, if it will assist my hon. Friend, I shall write to her in connection with any detailed matters that she might wish me to address.

I hope that the Minister will agree that the police authority has behaved properly in recently seeking fresh legal advice and withdrawing the funding for the former officers' defence costs. However, is he aware that the police are worried that, whatever decisions are taken, they may face the prospect of judicial review? Will he consider offering assistance to forces, such as South Yorkshire, when they face judicial review, which is very expensive? Such consideration would have less to do with the local case than with the need to clarify national guidelines. The Hillsborough case has revealed how desperately such clarification is needed.

We are always prepared to look at guidelines and their review whenever matters emerge that require us to reassess them. Of course, police authorities must act according to Home Office circulars and guidelines, when they are applied. It is clear that section 88 of the Police Act 1996 does not apply to criminal proceedings but, if there is any necessity to tighten or clarify the guidelines, we shall certainly take that on board.

If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards prisoners who smuggle drugs into prisons. [69114]

We are committed to reducing the use of illegal drugs in prison. As part of an overall strategy, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced proposals on 25 January to introduce a co-ordinated range of measures against both prisoners and visitors who smuggle drugs into prison.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that deterrence is the best mechanism by which to stop drugs being smuggled into prison? Evidence suggests that drugs most commonly get into prisons through domestic visits. Where that is proven to have occurred, should not the prison authorities have the ability to ban domestic visits for a set period? Will my hon. Friend ensure that, when such powers become available to the prison authorities from 1 April, they are rigorously enforced to ensure that we continue to see, as we have over the past couple of years, a reduction in the number of drugs smuggled into prisons?

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that restrictions on visits to prisoners are likely to act as a strong deterrent to visitors and prisoners. Visitors found smuggling drugs will normally be banned from visiting the prison for at least three months. Prisoners found to be, or believed to be, engaging in such activity will normally take all visits in closed conditions for a period equivalent to three months in total. Those regulations will be introduced on 1 April, and they will be enforced.

Is not one of the best ways in which to inhibit drug smuggling and trading within prisons to prevent overcrowding? Last week, the Minister was unable to answer my written parliamentary question on that subject, which was designed to find out how many people were sharing three to a cell meant for two prisoners. If the Minister were to visit, among others, Belmarsh prison near Greenwich, he would find a number of prisoners sharing cells in such conditions. If the Minister viewed that problem, he would perhaps learn a little about how to solve the problems of drug smuggling and trading in prisons.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is being somewhat imaginative in making that connection. There are difficulties in disentangling that information and, as I explained in my written answer last week, the statistics are not recorded in the manner that he suggested. I am satisfied that the problem raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is not a major one, and that the real problem lies not in what passes between prisoners inside a prison, but in how the drugs get into the prison in the first place. That is the area on which we are right to concentrate our attention. If we followed the logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman, we would bother not with what went into prisons, but about what was circulating in them. Clearly, that would not be equal to the problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the smuggling of drugs into prison is the cause not only—and obviously—of drug taking, but of a great deal of prisoner-on-prisoner violence and feuding, and a great many tragic suicides in prison? Is he further aware that it causes a great deal of theft outside prison as relatives steal money to buy drugs to smuggle to their drug-taking relatives in prison?

My hon. Friend is right. It is important that we should get two messages across. First, prisoners found guilty, through mandatory drug testing, of trading or using drugs in prison will be punished in serious cases. More importantly, those who visit prisoners should know that, as of 1 April, serious measures will be enforced if they decide to take drugs into prisons. Violence, theft and much else are caused by drugs. We shall not tolerate what has happened in the past in our prisons, and we intend to start dealing with the problem severely.

What recent representations he has received on the rate of crime detection in the United Kingdom. [69115]

We regularly receive representations from hon. Members, members of the public and others about crime issues, including the detection rate.

Is the Home Secretary aware that fewer crimes than ever will be detected in Essex as a result of the wholly inadequate funding provided by the Government? Why did the Home Secretary give Essex one of the worst four settlements in the country—an increase of only 1.7 per cent., effectively a cut of £7 million—especially in the light of the extra burdens, costing £1 million, caused by the four extra bank holidays? Why has he got it in for Essex, the very county that was responsible for educating him? Will he pull himself together and give Essex the tools to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels better for that rant. Calmly, as an Essex man, I shall give him a few facts which are contrary to his assertions. His claim about Essex's alleged underfunding is wrong. Essex received an increase of 2.9 per cent., which is above, not below, the rate of inflation. Also, there is absolutely no warrant for his claim that, as a result, Essex police officers will detect fewer crimes.

I must tell my right hon. Friend that I have a more than particular interest in this matter today, having had my constituency office broken into last night. We talk about the detection rate, but what about the rate of crime reported to the police? Are not many crimes not reported because people feel that there is little point in doing so as nothing will happen?

The level of the recording of crime varies considerably as between the types of crime. There is a pretty high level of recording of domestic burglary and of thefts of motor vehicles, not least because many of the items stolen are of high value, and there are insurance consequences of not reporting such thefts. There are relatively low levels of reporting of, for example, theft from cars, as opposed to theft of cars. Overall, the evidence from the British crime survey, which assesses total levels of crime, suggests that the reporting of crimes has increased as people have more confidence in the police to solve those crimes.

What is the annual cost of keeping a category A inmate in prison. [69116]

The average annual operating cost per place for 1997–98 in the five dispersal prisons which house the majority of category A prisoners was £38,100, excluding any Prison Service headquarters expenditure. There were 854 category A prisoners on 31 December last.

Does not that figure simply take one's breath away—£08,000 a year each to keep just over 600 category A prisoners? [Interruption.] It costs £23,000 a year to keep every ordinary prisoner in gaol. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) should listen to this because it was under his Government that crime doubled, which led to the explosion in the prison population. Given that this is a Government of targets, does my hon. Friend have a target for bringing the prison population down to more manageable levels? As we are about to consider adding to that population 2,700 people who may suffer from personality disorders but who have not been convicted, can we have a target for getting the prison population down?

My hon. Friend is well aware that it is not the Home Office or Ministers who convict people and give custodial sentences but the courts. Our job, and that of Parliament, is to ensure that the legal framework is correct so that the courts can operate effectively. The important task is getting the rate of crime down so that courts do not have to have recourse to custodial sentences. In all places and at all times, there will be a need for some type of prison system, but if we can start to defeat crime, the number of people convicted and given custodial sentences will inevitably fall. That is what we have tried to achieve through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and what all our legislative attention will go on in the coming period. It is right for everyone to get crime down. I am sure that the whole House accepts that and will support our legislation.

What steps he is taking to speed up the asylum appeals system. [69117]

The Immigration Asylum Bill will introduce reforms to the appeal system to reduce opportunity for frivolous appeals. Our target is to have appeals processed within four months.

My compliments to the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that, in Scotland, fully 30 per cent. of all cases involving immigration appellants are handled by the Scottish Refugee Council, a charitable body that receives no public funding for that legal work? What steps will he take to ensure that such appellants receive legal representation in the courts or will he suggest that this might be a matter for the Scottish Parliament?

It may or may not be, but we want to ensure that, where possible, those who need legal representation are legally represented. The Refugee Council in England and Wales receives some public funding. It will be a matter for others in due course to review the position of the Scottish Refugee Council. We need to ensure that the legal aid system and the grants issued under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971, which are given by the Home Office, can respond to the demands on them. We are examining that to ensure that, as far as possible, they can.

In answer to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), the Minister said that 8,000 would-be asylum seekers had been found in the backs of lorries. Can he confirm that they have all been deported after being found illegally entering the United Kingdom? If not, how many have been deported?

I suspect that, under the system that we inherited and under which we still operate, very few have been deported. We inherited substantial backlogs. It takes years to process asylum cases. The aim of our change to the immigration and asylum system is not only to introduce effective civil penalties to stop people bringing in illegal immigrants in the first place but to ensure that the system processes cases quickly so that we can remove those who need to be removed, unlike what happened under the previous Government.

What steps he proposes to take to ensure that new support arrangements for asylum seekers reduce the incentive for economic migrants. [69119]

Cash payments to asylum seekers provide a strong incentive for economic migrants. As a disincentive to economic migration, we have therefore decided that support for asylum seekers in real need should be in kind rather than in cash. However, we are speeding up the decision-making process so that genuine refugees should be on the system for only a very short time.

I welcome the fact that we are continuing to receive genuine refugees. I also welcome the Minister's reply. Inevitably, there will still be residual costs. Can he assure me that the matter has been discussed with receiving authorities such as Leeds and that a disproportionate share of the costs will not fall on council tax payers?

As a result of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, an enormous burden was placed on local authorities which was not really intended. As part of our reform, we aim to introduce a national system, with a national agency which will take responsibility for the support and accommodation of asylum seekers. Obviously, we will be working very closely with local authorities, to try to ensure, so far as we can, that they are able to recover moneys from national sources, which is where the responsibility should lie. As far as I am able, I give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks. The system that we are trying to create will put most of the burden where it belongs: with the national Government.

What assessment he has made of the reduction of the number of experiments on animals since the ban on testing (a) cosmetics and (b) their ingredients on animals. [69121]

During 1995 to 1997 inclusive, an average of 130 procedures a year were carried out on animals to test finished cosmetic products, and about 1,900 a year to test the ingredients of those products. The figures for 1998 are being collated. They will include some testing of cosmetic ingredients, as we did not end such testing until November.

I thank my hon. Friend very much for that answer, but ask him to consider the area of necessary animal experimentation, such as the proper testing of genetically modified food. Is the Home Office insisting that experimental design is always optimised, so that the minimum number of animals are used, consistent with proper scientific results?

Most people would agree with my hon. Friend. Although we seek to minimise the use of animals in all such procedures, some animal usage is necessary in some procedures, such as medical research which can often lead to the saving of human lives or research that ensures people's safety. We shall pursue relevant measures across Europe, rather than risk exporting animal experimentation to countries where, often, less rigorous controls apply. Of course we will ensure that measures are sustainable and do not disadvantage United Kingdom research, medicine and industry, while at the same time ensuring that the public's safety is not compromised. My hon. Friend is right: we must strike a balance between the welfare of animals and the necessary requirements of science, especially medical science. It is a difficult balance to strike, but we are working very hard to do so.

If he will visit Surrey probation service in Godalming to discuss its performance in relation to its charter mark award. [69122]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to be able to visit the service this year. He wrote to the chief probation officer on 25 January to congratulate the service on achieving a 1998 charter mark award.

Surrey probation service was very proud to win a charter mark award, which followed it being highly commended two years ago. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the citizens charter initiative, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), was an inspired contribution to public services.

We accept entirely that the approach of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) to charter marks, and so on, was useful. Indeed, we have carried on with it. I echo the right hon. Lady's congratulations to Surrey on its excellent work, but rather than putting a sting in the tail of her supplementary question, she over-egged the pudding. If there is a problem in Surrey, my noble Friend the Minister and I would be more than happy to hear about it. I suspect that she is slightly exaggerating the problem, although we are always willing to receive representations.