How many lorries which contained clandestine immigrants have been stopped by the police in the last six months. [108235]

The police do not keep records of that information. However, I can tell the House that the records of the immigration and nationality directorate show that 11,500 clandestine illegal entrants to the United Kingdom were identified between July and December 1999.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does she recall visiting the port of Dover last September with me, and the discussions that we had with immigration officers? Is it not right that those dedicated, hard-working, experienced professionals in the port of Dover were all convinced that the single most effective measure that Government could take to deter the racketeers and those who would smuggle clandestines in the back of their lorries was the introduction of civil penalties? Against that background, does she find it extraordinary that the Conservative party is still opposed to that measure?

First, I was very grateful to my hon. Friend for accompanying me when I visited Dover, and immigration officers are very grateful for, and pleased about, the very strong support and commitment that he has shown them as a local Member of Parliament. That makes it all the more astonishing that Conservative Members should have spent their time in the Committee on the Bill that became the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 filibustering to deny the introduction of that civil penalty. Even now, they continue to oppose it. I would ask the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), if she and her colleagues returned to office—if the country were unfortunate enough for that to happen—would she reverse that legislation? What would she do?

What would the Minister's advice be to a haulier who suspects that he has illegal immigrants in the back of his truck? Should he drive to a police station and say, "They are in the back of the truck," or should he try to tackle those people, some of whom might be armed?

This is the refrain that we constantly hear from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her colleagues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If they care to be a little patient, I will tell them what the answer is. First, hauliers should check that they have the systems in place to ensure that such a situation does not arise; but then they should check before they drive on to the ferry.

Does the Minister share my view that those who pay money to be illegally smuggled into this country should forfeit their right to claim asylum, given that those with a real fear of persecution or who are subject to a real threat to themselves and their families simply have to come to a port of entry and make clear their wish to apply for asylum at that point?

I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in this subject, and of course he is Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Government are determined to do two things; first, to say that of course Britain will always uphold our international obligations; but, secondly, not to put ourselves in a position where those who engage in the absolutely illegal trade of human smuggling receive any encouragement. That is why I say to my hon. Friend that we have increased the penalty for criminal acts in this area from seven to 10 years, why we shall continue, with the immigration service, to take very firm action indeed, and why we say to all those people who are thinking of making unfounded applications, "Do not do it."

What representations he has received on the proposed standard spending assessment for North Yorkshire police for the next financial year. [108236]

I have received representations on the funding of North Yorkshire police from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and from other Members who represent that area. I replied to the hon. Lady on 25 January. Under proposals approved by the House on 3 February, North Yorkshire police's funding will increase by 2.7 per cent. next year.

Does the Minister agree that he is failing to deliver on the Home Secretary's pledge of more police on the beat, and that he is failing to deliver the necessary resources in North Yorkshire? Representations that I have received from the police authority and from town and parish councils show that the North Yorkshire police will not have enough to cover the millennium policing and the cost of the police radios, that the increase in funding is below the national average and that the rise in police pension costs will leave a shortfall of 2.5 per cent. That will require an equivalent rise in the reserves as well as an increase on the levy. When will the Government deliver on their pledges?

I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. The facts are as follows. First, in the 12 months to October 1999, crime in North Yorkshire decreased by 0.1 per cent. at a time when crime nationally was increasing. Secondly, the spending capacity of North Yorkshire police in the current year—1999–2000—is an increase of 3.2 per cent. over 1998–99, and that is above the national average of 3.1 per cent. Thirdly, North Yorkshire will receive funding from the crime-fighting fund for 25 police recruits over the next three years, which is a significant improvement for that force.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the standard spending assessment for North Yorkshire police and for other police forces in rural areas would be significantly affected if a sparsity factor were introduced? What are the prospects of such a factor being introduced in future years?

I have received representations on the sparsity factor from a variety of different forces and from my hon. Friend and colleagues on both sides of the House. We are taking that factor fully into consideration. We have published the report. The details and that factor will be part of the considerations in future spending reviews.

If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of General Pinochet. [108237]

My policy in deciding the case of Senator Pinochet is to carry out my responsibilities under the Extradition Act 1989 in accordance with the law.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are pleased that the processes regarding Pinochet are continuing in this country and that he has not been sent back? On the more recent speculation that his health may be worsening, is my right hon. Friend also aware that human rights groups would like to see hard medical evidence about this former criminal dictator, who in my view should certainly face justice?

I am certainly aware of the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. On the question of whether the medical report should be published, the House will be aware that the matter has been before a three-judge court of the divisional court, which is due to give its judgment later this week. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has said that, because the matter is clearly sub judice before the High Court. The case would have been eligible for judicial review had it not initially been a criminal matter. However, could Her Majesty's Government stop playing cat and mouse with the sitting senator who was admitted into this country as a VIP by the Foreign Office and whom the Government of Chile request be returned to the proper legal jurisdiction, which is in that very country?

As I have said throughout the many months in which there have been extradition proceedings in respect of Senator Pinochet, in making decisions on the case I have sought to follow the duties that are imposed on me by the Extradition Act 1989. I shall continue to do that.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be well aware of the article published in El Pais some time ago and of the release of correspondence between his office and that of Senator Pinochet. He will also be aware that he has since placed that correspondence in the Library of the House. Could he explain why an official in his Department wrote to a lawyer acting on behalf of General Pinochet to offer him medical confidentiality, which, in effect, has given him a power of veto over subsequent proceedings?

The House will understand that the issue that my hon. Friend raises is precisely one of the issues currently before the divisional court. For that reason, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment further until we have a final judgment from the courts.

Is it not odd that we should have contemplated the extradition of General Pinochet at the same time as we were creating the circumstances in Northern Ireland for Sinn Fein-IRA Ministers to serve in the Government there? Is not the truth something like this? When a democratic state makes a positive decision to overlook past misdeeds to create a new democratic settlement, other states should respect that decision.

I am afraid that I do not accept the parallel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman draws. We are signatories to the European convention on extradition and we are subject to the Extradition Act 1989, which was passed by an Administration of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member. It is my duty, as the Secretary of State, to follow the responsibilities laid down by that Act.

What plans he has to conduct a review of the work of the private detective industry; and if he will make a statement. [108238]

We have no plans for a review, but we issued a White Paper last year proposing that a new authority be set up to license those who work in private security and to improve standards in the industry. We propose that the scheme should apply to private investigators in due course.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the situation in which my constituent Mr. Kelvin Pickup found himself would not occur under the Government's proposals, which I hope they will introduce soon? Private detectives seemed to act as agents provocateurs to try to get Mr. Pickup to conduct certain physical activities that were damaging to his health, because of his forthcoming industrial injuries case. Will my right hon. Friend confirm also that he will closely examine the relationship between private detective agencies and the insurance industry?

My hon. Friend's constituent's case certainly highlights concerns that exist in the industry and stresses the importance of ensuring that the reputable industry is supported by the codes of practice and regulatory mechanisms that we have in mind. We shall certainly bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the industry is well regulated and kept in good order, because it has an important role to fulfil.

If he will make a statement on the numbers of political asylum seekers located in seaside towns. [108239]

Local authorities are currently responsible for accommodating asylum seekers. Owing to the pressure placed on local authorities in London and the south-east over recent years, a number of asylum seekers have been placed by local authority social services departments in towns and cities around the country. Information is not collected centrally on the numbers of asylum seekers in seaside towns. Once the Home Office takes over responsibility for supporting asylum seekers, such information will be available.

Does the Minister accept that there is a serious problem in seaside towns, partly because of the shortage of accommodation and partly because other local authorities are dumping refugees in those areas? Bearing in mind the problems that this creates for education and housing and for maintaining good community relations, is there any message of hope that I can give to people in Southend? Is the Minister willing to come to Southend or other seaside towns to discuss the position with local authorities?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's points. I am certainly prepared to visit Southend. I have visited other places facing similar problems. I say with all respect to the hon. Gentleman that the problems arise from the policies of the previous Administration, who placed the whole responsibility for in-country applicants on hard-pressed local authorities. That is why we have introduced interim arrangements, and I hope that the forthcoming new support arrangements will relieve local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made great progress on removals, and there has been increase of about 50 per cent. on the figure under the previous Administration.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the interim scheme that local authorities are being asked to operate is working to relieve the pressure on seaside towns and parts of London and the south-east that have large numbers of asylum seekers? What level of co-operation is being achieved? Are some local authorities causing difficulties by not being prepared to accept asylum seekers? When can we expect to be given the details of places becoming available through the Home Office scheme, which is supposed to come into operation on 1 April?

I can perhaps reassure my hon. Friend. We have had very good contact with local authorities throughout the country, and we are grateful for the support that we have received from local government associations, with whom we are having detailed discussions. We are also engaged in detailed negotiations with accommodation providers, including local authorities and the voluntary and private sectors. Arrangements and discussions continue, and we are very grateful to everybody who has participated so far.

Will the Minister confirm that, in a letter to the Public Accounts Committee on 13 October last year, the permanent under-secretary to her Department declared that the Government's aim was

"to clear all current asylum cases by October 2000"?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the targets that we set out in the White Paper, which were confirmed, rightly, by the permanent under-secretary. Decision making is increasing the whole time and the period is being reduced. I am grateful for all the efforts that staff have made to accomplish that.

What measures he is taking to improve the success rate in fighting crime in the Metropolitan police area. [108240]

We have put in place a comprehensive strategy to cut crime, with new powers for the police, investment in new technology such as the DNA database and a streamlining of the criminal justice system. Crime reduction partnerships between police and local authorities are well established and the Metropolitan police are being reorganised on a borough basis.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and in particular for the initiative that he has announced today which sets targets for cutting burglary and vehicle crime, but does he share my concern at the negative effect on the recruitment of new officers of the recent adverse publicity that the Metropolitan police in particular have suffered? As the Member of Parliament for Eltham, perhaps I am better placed to understand that than most. More needs to be done to demonstrate to the public the police's important role and the respect that they have in the eyes of the community, to deal with the adverse effect on recruitment.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says about the development of our strategy, the establishment of the targets and the investment that we have been making in the Metropolitan police, including putting some millions of pounds into various crime reduction programmes under the crime reduction fund and the crime fighting fund. I accept that there is a problem over the recruitment of officers to the Metropolitan police service. I am not certain of the extent to which that goes back to problems that have arisen following the Macpherson report.

Does the Home Secretary accept that crime reduction, about which he made an announcement this morning, is the responsibility of everyone, not just the police? There should be targets for central Government and local government in London, just as there should be for the Metropolitan police. Can he assure us that the selection of those three categories—car crime, burglary and robbery—will not distort policing priorities, particularly in London and elsewhere, on violent crime, where the figures have been rising hugely? What does he say to chief constables, including the new Commissioner of the Met, who have asked for additional resources, who have had only some of their requests met by last week's announcement, and who will say that, unless they see the numbers going up to the figures they want, the Government cannot expect the crime figures to go down to the targets that they are setting them?

On the last point, I want police numbers to start to rise. That is why we will put in the additional funds—£35 million in the next financial year and many millions more in the following two financial years—to ensure that the police are able to recruit an additional 5,000 officers over and above the 12,500 that they say they were planning to recruit in that three-year period in any event. However, those officers will be best used when the police service is working at optimum efficiency.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to combat crime most effectively is not merely a question of resources, but one of public attitudes? Does he accept my congratulations on the fact that this year, we shall have a Greater London Authority that will, for the first time ever, ensure the democratic accountability of the police service in London to the people of London?

Ken will make sure of that.

I share my hon. Friend's delight—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—that is, at the subject of the question, not the sedentary intervention. I support the comments made on the record by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) about the importance of establishing a Metropolitan Police Authority. My delight is all the more personal in that, 20 years ago, I introduced a private Member's Bill proposing that there should be an elected authority for the Metropolitan police area. I am delighted to have been the Secretary of State who has carried through his own ten-minute Bill.

I am sure that the Home Secretary accepts that, during the last Parliament, the number of front-line crime fighters in police forces throughout the country rose by 2,200. Since the last general election, he, as Home Secretary, has cut the Metropolitan police force by 1,100 officers who actually work in London. Is it not a cheek for him to set crime reduction targets for the police without setting himself a target of restoring police numbers to the level at which they stood when he took office? Instead, he continues to stretch the thin blue line ever thinner.

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on home affairs. However, may I offer him some friendly—not to say comradely—advice? When he produces such figures, he should remember who set the budgets for the Metropolitan police. The budget for the Metropolitan police service for 1997–98 was set in January 1997, when the Conservative party was in power—that is on the record. If we take account of the fact that the Conservatives set the budget for 1997–98, about which we could do nothing on entering office, we see that, over the six years from 1992 to 1998, there was a 2.060 reduction in the strength of one single police service, namely the Metropolitan police service.

What penalties are available to ensure road hauliers do not bring illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. [108241]

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides new powers to impose civil penalties on those who bring clandestine entrants into the United Kingdom.

Does my hon. Friend agree that whereas it has traditionally been the role of the Conservative party, as evidenced in the House again today, to put the interests of the road hauliers first, it is the job of Labour to put the interests of the British public first? Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that it is necessary to see that both the facilitators of the trade and the immigrants are appropriately dealt with?

I am astonished by the attitude of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her colleagues. Criminal gangs are facilitating illegal entrants into the United Kingdom, often preying on extremely vulnerable people, yet once again the right hon. Lady and her colleagues refuse to back the Government on an important measure to deal with the problem. They have refused to do so time and again. They say one thing and do another, which is typical of their behaviour.

Does the Minister agree that the problem not of illegal immigration, but of political asylum seekers could at least be alleviated if it were Government policy not to entertain any application from people who come from the seven countries in Europe that are members of the Council of Europe? As the Council of Europe has high standards on democracy, the rule of law and human rights, no one ought to be allowed in from those seven countries, and if there is cause for such a person to be allowed in, that should be a matter for the Government to take up immediately with the relevant country or with the European Court of Human Rights.

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and important point. As he knows, the difficulty is that the Government, like the Government whom he supported, are a signatory to the 1951 convention on the rights of refugees. That gives us an obligation to consider applications for asylum on an individual, case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, I shall certainly pursue the hon. Gentleman's point.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, Slough, there is a belief among those who support asylum seekers that there is a lorry driver or someone else bringing in people from Romania once a week on a particular day of the week? I suspect that our local experience is not unusual. Will my hon. Friend make sure that when the urgently needed measure is introduced, such local intelligence is used to make sure that we target the organised gangs of lorry drivers who are bringing in people seeking asylum, sometimes as a totally bogus arrangement and sometimes genuinely, but who are in every case being facilitated by that kind of criminal activity?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. There is a problem with organised crime being behind the vile trade in the smuggling and trafficking of human beings—men, women and children. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need intelligence-led operations. Those are being implemented, and I am pleased with the professional approach of the immigration service. Once again, however, we are being let down by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the Conservative party, who are soft on that crime.

If he will make a statement on the numbers of asylum seekers currently awaiting a decision on their asylum application. [108243]

The overall backlog of asylum seekers awaiting a decision is currently just over 100,000. Of those on board the hijacked Ariana Airlines aeroplane, 73 have returned to Afghanistan, 13 men have been arrested and charged in connection with the hijack, and 69 passengers have applied for asylum.

Does the Home Secretary accept that the backlog of unprocessed asylum seekers has doubled under this Government since 1997? Is it not the case that while the Government estimate that 38,000 people can be processed in a year, more than double that number are appealing for asylum? Can the Home Secretary understand the anger and incredulity of people in Lichfield, at a time when both Staffordshire and West Midlands police are being slashed and when hospitals are under threat, that asylum seekers from Afghanistan are put up in luxury accommodation in the Hilton hotel? Does he understand that that gives the wrong sort of message and leads people to believe that Britain is a soft touch?

I think that what the electors of Lichfield will understand is that the hon. Gentleman is soft. They will also understand that the Administration he supported left extraordinary chaos behind them and that, despite the backlog, the time taken to make initial decisions in asylum cases has decreased from 20 months—the length of time they took in April 1997—to 13 months today. We do not plan only to deal with 32,000 asylum applications a year—thanks to the fact that we have returned investment in the immigration and nationality directorate to an upward path following extraordinary Conservative party plans to cut 1,200 staff even though people were waiting 20 months for an asylum decision. Asylum decisions are 250 per cent. higher than they were before the problems last year.

I accept that hijackers must be dealt with firmly under international law, but does the Home Secretary agree that all asylum seekers must be judged fairly on the evidence, and not in relation to political statements that he or other members of the Government make?

I made it clear in my statement last Thursday and in subsequent comments that asylum applications are judged in accordance with the law—the 1951 convention as it has been interpreted by statutes here and decisions of the courts—but I wish also to make it clear that the hijack presents us with a clash of obligations. We have obligations under the 1951 convention; we also have clear obligations under international law, which the British public plainly support, to ensure that we take the strongest possible measures to prevent and deter the international terrorist crime of hijacking.

The Home Secretary knows that the national fire college at Moreton-in-Marsh is in my constituency. I say in parenthesis that it would have been courteous if someone in Gloucestershire had been informed, before we heard it on the news, that the refugees were coming there. I want to re-emphasise the Home Secretary's comments on "On the Record". We in Gloucestershire hope that the status of the asylum seekers will be determined as quickly as possible, partly for their own good—because the accommodation in Moreton-in-Marsh is spartan and unsuitable for long-term residential use—and partly because the asylum seekers should either be granted asylum, in which case they will receive long-term accommodation in this country, or refused it and immediately sent back to Afghanistan. Will the Home Secretary use whatever influence he has to ensure that the hijackers are brought to justice and dealt with swiftly so that, if they are convicted, they can be sent back to Afghanistan as a deterrent to others?

On the first point, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman and the authorities in Gloucestershire were not informed, but he will understand that decisions had to be made very swiftly. In a perfect world, he would have been informed: we do our best to ensure that people are informed in similar circumstances. If he does not mind my saying so, we are getting a mixed message from the Opposition. The Essex police are criticised for using the allegedly luxurious accommodation in the Hilton hotel, yet the hon. Gentleman seems to believe that accommodation that is perfectly acceptable for trainee firefighters for many weeks is too spartan for asylum seekers.

The right hon. Gentleman informed the House on 10 February:

"In the special circumstances of this hijacking … I personally will make the determination of any application for asylum made by persons on board the aircraft."

"would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable."

Again, the Opposition need to sort out their line.

Answer the question.

I am answering it. On Sunday, the right hon. Lady was saying the things that she is saying today; on Friday, she was, unusually, expressing sympathy for me, saying, "This is a horrible decision and not one that I would want to take"—I happen to believe that that view is shared by the country. The right hon. Lady said that she was quoting from the record; in fact, she was quoting only partially. What I said was:

"Subject to compliance with all legal requirements, I would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable."

Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine a circumstance in which a judge would say to a jury, "Subject to all your deliberations, I expect you to find a guilty verdict"? That is the exact equivalent of what he said.

I note that the right hon. Lady slid fairly quickly off her first point. She well knows that no Secretary of State is in the same position as a judge and jury—or even magistrates under our Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when he talks about removals being 50 per cent. higher, what he actually means is that he removed 3,000 asylum seekers in the last full year for which statistics are available—compared with the many tens of thousands of refusals of asylum applications? If not, his figures are wrong, and he should apologise, because that is what he said in a parliamentary answer.

I made it quite clear to the House last Thursday—I thought to the general approbation of the House, including the right hon. Lady and her party—that I would consider the asylum applications on their merits, as I always do consider decisions involving a quasi-judicial matter that is before me. What I said remains the case:

"Subject to compliance with all legal requirements, I would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable."—[Official Report, 10 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 418.]

If he will discuss witness protection arrangements with chief constables. [108244]

We set up an inter-departmental working group in 1997 on vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. Its report "Speaking up for Justice", published in June 1998, made 78 recommendations aimed at improving the way in which vulnerable or intimidated witnesses are treated and providing better access to justice. We have made considerable progress in implementing those recommendations, and Home Office officials regularly meet representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers as part of the national witness support unit network to ensure that progress is maintained.

My hon. Friend is aware of my concerns about the judgment in the Oyston case and the handling of the McGrath case in Preston. Will he ask the chief constable of Lancashire why it is that Lancashire constabulary refuses to respond to the complaint made by my colleague Mr. Andrew Rosthorne against a north-west business man, of harassment during inquiries that he has been carrying out into the Oyston and McGrath cases? Can we find out whether the Cellnet records have now been checked?

I shall certainly refer my hon. Friend's comments to the chief constable of Lancashire.

On the subject of vulnerable witnesses, what arrangements has the Home Office made with the Prime Minister to give political protection to the party's nominee for mayor of London following the successful defenestration of the Prime Minister's nominee as Welsh First Secretary last week—as that London nominee, with increasingly faltering steps, bears witness to the collapse of the new Labour project?

That was a rather contorted political point—possibly following the hon. Gentleman's failure to land any punches in an Adjournment debate on funding in Lincolnshire last week. I do not think that any of the Labour candidates for mayor of London could be described as vulnerable.

What criteria he has set for the funding of portable CCTV; and if he will make a statement. [108245]

Under the crime reduction programme, portable closed circuit television systems should be directed at specific crime problems with targets for reductions. They should also integrate well with the local crime reduction strategy and include measures to preserve privacy. The general criteria that must be met by all bids will be explained in the prospectus for the second round of the CCTV initiative, which is due to be issued shortly.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response, and I congratulate him on the Government's campaign to reduce crime. However, some areas in my constituency require special attention, as crime is causing fear among many of the people living in those areas. Portable CCTV would be an economical and impressive way of reducing crime and the sources of crime in those areas. I therefore hope that Ministers will give serious consideration to an application that has been submitted for portable CCTV in the West Yorkshire area, which would service my constituency.

I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall indeed give very serious consideration to all applications for portable CCTV. To date, seven proposals solely for mobile systems have received awards totalling £627,000, and 16 others proposals—to the value of £2.3 million—are being deferred for further consideration of bid details. I very much hope that my hon. Friend's application will be considered as part of that initiative.

When considering both portable CCTV and fixed systems, will the Minister consider very carefully the affordability of those systems to local authorities and to police? We have just been granted CCTV in Dorset, but we are trying to ensure the availability of match funding. Weymouth and Portland borough council—which is a Labour council—has received no additional grant from the Government in the past two years, so it will have to find funding from somewhere. Furthermore, although council tax is being increased by about 10 per cent., our police are being forced to cut back on everything, including uniforms, just so that they can ensure that there are bobbies on the beat. It is most important that we receive match funding.

I urge the hon. Gentleman—if he is pressing us to spend more money—to ensure that the Conservative party is also advocating the expenditure of more money. Currently, Conservative Members seem to be describing all extra expenditure as reckless. Nevertheless, this Government have the biggest ever investment programme in CCTV, totalling £170 million, to add to the £250 million in the crime reduction programme. In their four years in office, the last Government spent a total of £38 million on CCTV, which is less than a fifth of what we are spending on it. This Government are showing that we are the Government who are tough on fighting crime. The previous Government totally failed in that.

If he will make a statement on the number of robberies in England and Wales in the year to 30 September 1999. [108246]

The number of robbery offences, in the year to 30 September 1999, is recorded as 74,843. The figure represents about 1.4 per cent. of all recorded crime.

In the past three years, in the relatively incident-free town of Shoreham in the heart of my constituency, not only have several banks been robbed in daylight hours, but one building society has been robbed three times. We seem to have taken more than our fair share of the first increases in robberies and violent crime since 1993. To what does the Minister attribute the increases? Is it anything to do with the facts that we have 1,700 fewer policeman or that 16,000 prisoners have received early release—or does he have another explanation for the surge?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I know Shoreham because I have relatives there—who, unfortunately, are his constituents. The facts are that, in the Sussex force area, to the year ended September 1999, 911 offences of robbery were recorded, against total recorded crime of 135,000—so the number of robberies as a proportion of all crime in his area was lower than the national average. Generally, I believe that the Sussex force has been extremely effective in fighting robbery and other forms of crime, and that the various initiatives that we are taking, on CCTV and on local government crime and disorder partnerships, are extremely effective in bearing down on that type of crime.

I understand that the Minister intends to have targets for robbery at basic command unit level. Is he concerned that the local resources may not match the targets and, more important, that the targets will distort the deployment of police resources in a constabulary area so that the cities and high-crime areas continue to act as magnets for police resources, denuding the rural areas and areas with low crime?

We intend to have targets for violent crime, not only robbery, in all basic command units over time. We have set out our programmes today. Our targets for vehicle crime, burglary and violent crime are reasonable, and most people will welcome them. They will prioritise certain issues in a way that is necessary. They will also draw resources to where they are most needed to fight such crime. I do not accept the suggestion that that will result in some areas being denuded of resources.

What guidance he issues to chief constables with regard to protecting property and persons in neighbourhoods which are subject to regular demonstrations; and if he will make a statement. [108247]

None. The policing of demonstrations is an operational matter for chief officers of police, who are well aware of the need to protect the public and property from harm and who have the necessary powers to do so.

I wrote to the Home Office more than three weeks ago about my constituents living adjacent to Shamrock farm. They have had their windows smashed and have at times been barricaded in their houses for three hours as a result of demonstrations which the police admit are aimed at achieving the closing down of the farm. Will the Home Secretary hold discussions with Sussex police to ensure that their measures to protect citizens meet the criteria of the Public Order Act 1986?

The hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 24 January about the policing of protests at Shamrock farm, and copied his letter to the chief constable of Sussex police. I am advised that a new dedicated team has been established under a chief inspector as an acknowledgement of the growing seriousness of the situation. The police hope that those protesters who have been targeting the owners and work of Shamrock farm will soon end up before the courts. Those are operational matters for the chief constable, but we are in touch with him on them. I acknowledge the seriousness for the hon. Gentleman's constituents of the events that are taking place at Shamrock farm. I assure him that the new dedicated team that his chief constable has established will focus energy on resolving those issues.

What representations he has received on the report of the Jenkins Commission on reform of the electoral system. [108248]

We have received several hundred representations both for and against the proposals made by the Jenkins commission.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Given that our electoral system is used in 62 countries and by no less than 49 per cent. of the world's electors and that there is no evidence of a public demand for change, will the Minister confirm to the House that he will fight, fight and fight again to save the system that works? What better day's work could he do than to slap down Lord Jenkins, the Foreign Secretary and the people whom his boss, the Home Secretary, has described as the "scavengers of British politics"—the Liberal Democrats?

The straight answer is that setting up the independent commission on the voting system was a way of offering the people of this country an opportunity to vote on a suggested system. It is part of our manifesto commitment, which we intend to honour.

Will my hon. Friend admit that we have seen enough of the failures of the proportional representation system and that the best thing to do with the Jenkins proposals is dump them in the waste bin, where they belong?

I suspect that there are many who share that view on this side of the House. [Laughter.] Perhaps I should say on both sides of the House.

If he will make a statement on progress in relieving the pressure on accommodation for asylum seekers in London and the south East. [108250]

About 1,000 asylum seekers have been dispersed from London and Kent to other areas of England since the start of the interim dispersal scheme on 6 December 1999.

Will my hon. Friend do what she can to expose and publicise the apparent double standards of some political parties whose representatives in London and the south-east make loud demands for dispersal while those in other parts of the country not only resist dispersal but use the issue to fan the flames of anti-foreigner feeling?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as has been illustrated once again this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) says one thing one day and another thing the next. She goes to Kent and says that something must be done to relieve the burden and the pressures there, and then she supports an amendment tabled in the other place that would delay dispersal—which would help the people of Kent—and cost our hard-pressed taxpayers £500 million a year.