What progress he has made in curbing the activities of unscrupulous immigration advisers. [112572]

If he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to curb the activities of unscrupulous immigration advisers. [112582]

Under part V of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the provision of immigration advice or services will be prohibited unless a person is registered with the immigration services commissioner; authorised to practise by a designated professional body; or exempt under the terms of the scheme.

May I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and encourage her to take a tough line with some of the people who currently give advice? In particular, will she ensure that solicitors are included in the scheme? I still come across far too many cases involving solicitors who give the most appalling advice at extortionate cost. Recently, a solicitor advised one of my constituents from Jamaica to apply for asylum, when that person had a straightforward application for a student visa. Of course, my constituent did not take the advice. Will my hon. Friend ensure that solicitors are covered and that nothing in the scheme has a damaging effect on the advice that is sometimes well given by small community groups?

I am extremely well aware of the problem, both as a Minister and as a constituency Member of Parliament. I assure my hon. Friend that, since January, all legal aid work has had to be undertaken by quality-assured suppliers. I know that the Law Society has that in mind—it is one of the professional bodies included in the scheme.

Does my hon. Friend recall that, in 1992, the Select Committee on Home Affairs drew attention to unscrupulous immigration advisers? The Conservative Government had five years to do something about the problem, but they did nothing. What does my hon. Friend say about that?

I certainly do recall that matter, because I was a member of the Committee; indeed, I was a member of its Sub-Committee. That Select Committee was chaired by a Conservative Member and recommended that the then Conservative Government should do something about the problem. They completely failed to do so, which resulted in the delay and has led to unscrupulous asylum cases. Who was the Minister at the time? None other than the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).

Is not the situation far too serious for such cheap jibes? Is it not true that monstrous profiteering, at the expense of the vulnerable and gullible, has to be stopped? People are gravely anxious about the steady increase in the number of bogus asylum seekers. The situation in many London boroughs is intolerable; there are neither the housing nor the schools necessary to cope. Will the hon. Lady give us hope that there will be some effective curb on unscrupulous advisers and that she will get a grip on her Department and bring the inflow to a halt?

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to say something about unscrupulous immigration advisers, because the situation is deplorable; they serve nobody. However, the hon. Gentleman was a Member when the Conservative Government, whom he supported, were in power. They introduced the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary moved amendments to that measure when we were in opposition to do exactly what we are doing at present. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman supported my right hon. Friend's amendments, but I welcome a late convert to the cause.

Is not the Minister ashamed of the fact that, owing to the Government's incompetence, the asylum application backlog has doubled to more than 100,000 since May 1997?

One of the facts that the hon. Gentleman might like to consider is that the average time, when the previous Government—

Is she ashamed?

If the hon. Gentleman would keep quiet for a moment, he might be interested in my answer. He asked a question and I shall answer it; what he is about to hear may be uncomfortable for him. First, there is the backlog left by his Government. Secondly, under that Government, the average time to determine an asylum application was 20 months; under the Labour Government, the time has gone down to 13 months—and it will go down even further.

What plans he has to change the licensing hours for public houses and clubs. [112573]

We have been looking at licensing hours as part of our review of licensing law. We shall shortly publish a White Paper setting out our legislative proposals for reform of the licensing system as a whole.

I thank the Minister for his reply. May I draw his attention to the fact that several private members' clubs are worried about the implications of the proposals? Would he meet a delegation from that group to try to resolve their concerns?

I have already met some representatives of private members' clubs to discuss their concerns. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall take on board the points that they made. When the White Paper is published, they will see that we have taken cognisance of their concerns.

As the media appear to have been briefed that it is in the Government's mind to introduce 24-hour licensing, will the Minister ensure that in his White Paper he sets out very clearly the measures that the Government propose to take to protect those private householders who live near pubs and clubs and who need to sleep between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am?

We think that there is a good case for greater flexibility in opening hours, but we need to take care that the new laws, which may well in due course come forward, take account of the interests of people who live near licensed premises as well as of those who would seek to use them. I certainly hope that, in due course, when we bring forward our proposals, there will be a proper balance between the interests of those who live near public houses or other licensed premises and want to ensure that they are not disturbed by unnecessary nuisance or disorder, and the interests of those who wish to use licensed premises in order, quite properly, to enjoy themselves.

What steps he is taking to enable new technology to be used for voting in national and local elections. [112574]

What steps he is taking to enable new technology to be used in national and local elections. [112584]

The Representation of the People Bill includes provisions to allow local authorities to pilot innovative electoral procedures, such as electronic voting and electronic counting. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been able to give provisional approval to six such schemes to be piloted at this May's local elections.

While I welcome the piloting of electronic voting at the local government elections this year, if we are to make voting as accessible as possible, do we not have to go much further and consider all-postal ballots, mobile balloting and more flexible times and dates for voting?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we need to consider all those things. I hope that, under the provisions of the Bill, we shall be able to pilot many of them and ensure that there is greater access to enable all those who have the right to vote to do so more easily. I hope that that will increase the number of people who participate in our democracy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of democracy, we should all be concerned about the declining turnout at elections? Does he also agree that people will not understand the continuing Conservative opposition to measures to make voting easier and more accessible?

We have had varying degrees of support from the Opposition for our legislation. I believe that all Members of the House should be in favour of encouraging more people to go to the polling station and vote. It was with regret that we encountered some opposition to particular aspects of this legislation that could have encouraged people to exercise their proper democratic right to vote.

While I welcome new technologies, does the Minister agree that some people—such as my mother, who lives in Lichfield—are quite nervous about using things like automated teller machine cards? My mother likes writing out cheques, and I am quite sure that she would like to be able to do the old-fashioned tick on the box—hopefully against my name. Does the Minister accept that, in this ruthless drive for new technology, he may well alienate older people who are frightened of using electronic devices? Or will this new initiative be as effective as the initiative announced in the first three months of the new Labour Government, when they said that they were going to introduce new electronic dispatch boxes? Like so many other promises, it has come to nought.

I think the hon. Gentleman is at least guaranteed one vote—or is he?—and, by the way, we normally put Xs, not ticks, on ballot papers. We certainly aim to encourage all people to vote, and we have taken precautions, in the legislation and in shaping the role of the Electoral Commission, to ensure that any spread of the types of pilot scheme that we shall now consider will be of the sort that will encourage people, especially the elderly, to feel comfortable with going into polling stations and casting their ballot. Therefore, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he is to get only one vote, we shall want his mother to be able to vote.

Can the Minister put my mind at rest by reassuring me that voting will continue in person, that voting electronically will not be open to fraud and that it will be deliverable in villages and market towns such as Easingwold, Thirsk, Bedale and Boroughbridge in north Yorkshire?

We certainly want to ensure that the new pilot schemes will be safe from abuse by any of those who might seek improperly to use them. None of the applications being piloted this year involves systems such as internet voting, but we hope that, in future years, we shall consider pilot scheme applications that involve such innovations. However, we will want to be reassured that, even when we pilot them, they are secure in terms of the operation of voting and that we do not have problems with personation, improper voting procedures and electoral abuse. We want to be very careful and we hope that the Electoral Commission's role in considering the pilot schemes will assist us in ensuring that things are done properly.

What will the checks be against electoral fraud when votes are exercised and counted electronically? At present, the parties can send their people to the counts to keep an eye on the votes and to see how they are stacking up. What will the equivalent system be so that the representatives of the parties can ensure that we do not have a fiddled franchise?

We certainly want to ensure that there is no fiddled franchise and that we have a system that operates in a secure manner. If we receive any applications—I must tell my hon. Friend that we have received none as yet—we will want to ensure that the checks that are carried out provide safeguards. I cannot give him a list of the safeguards that we might have to put in place, because we have received no applications yet. I suspect that electronic and internet systems are not suitable at the moment for carrying out such operations. However, we will not close our mind to such systems in the years ahead.

If he will make a statement on his plans to change the name of the Probation Service. [112575]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to announce that we have listened to the representations of members of the House and others. Community punishment and rehabilitation will still be included in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, but in its aims for the service rather than as a name. We intend that the new unified service will be called the National Probation Service of England and Wales.

My joy at that reply is literally boundless. May I tell the Minister that, in the light of the 87 objections to his proposals that have already been publicly expressed, I was minded to ask him whether he would be willing today to concede gracefully, to withdraw his silly plan and to earn the shower of plaudits that an omission of error would bring? He has done so, and I warmly congratulate him—at the risk of inflicting the gravest possible damage on his future political career.

I am delighted to have brought a little joy into the hon. Gentleman's life.

I, too, was surprised at my right hon. Friend's response. I wondered whether rehabilitation within the community punishment service could not be called "Recompense", which seemed better than CRAPS, CARPS or the other alternatives.

My hon. Friend has made her point.

What forecast he has made of the total number of police officers in England and Wales at 31 March. [112576]

Following the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, the number of police officers at any one time is a matter for the chief constable of an area to determine within available resources. At the end of September 1999, there were 125,404 officers in post. Audited information on police numbers for 31 March of this year should be available at the end of June.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply. Given that in Greater Manchester we now have 120 police officers fewer than we had at the last general election, and that in the past year the figures for recorded crime in Greater Manchester have risen by 10,000, is it not obvious that the Government are failing to deliver on their promise to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime? Now that we know that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was only joking when he said that there would be no more selection in schools, will the Home Secretary tell us whether he was only joking when he said that he would be tough on crime?

We most certainly are delivering on our promises. I am not clear about the figures for rising crime which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because the figures that I have show that there was an increase in Greater Manchester, but it was a very small one of 0.2 per cent., or 754 offences, and not 10,000.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increases proposed for Essex county under the Government's crime fighting fund, which mean that there will be 23 extra officers next year, 40 the year after and 40 the year after that? Will he explain to both Opposition parties what increases and reductions mean? Will he also explain further to those parties the programme of civilianisation, because Essex police officers are having a job trying to explain it to Opposition Members?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, over the next three years, we have provided allocations for an increase of 103 officers in the Essex police force. On the variations that take place in particular areas, I can do no better, so far as Essex is concerned, than to quote the Colchester divisional commander, Superintendent Julian Field. He says that police numbers

fluctuate up and down all the time. Sometimes people are attached to us for a little while and sometimes people are seconded.

That is because of a programme of civilianisation of officers who performed a range of jobs like crime prevention and licensing.

The Home Secretary is often very straight with the House. Will he be straight with the House about police numbers? Is not the truth that although he has been consistent on the figure of 5,000 extra officers which he announced at the Labour party conference, that is extra to a number of recruits, which has now changed three times? The total figure for extra recruits over the next three years is now 17,500. The projections show that 16,800 officers are likely to leave, which means that the net figure of extra officers is 700, and we are already 1,600 down since the last election.

Precisely because the previous Administration passed into law the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act, which transferred the power over police numbers from the Home Secretary of the day to chief police officers, I made no promises about the total number of police officers before the election, at the election or since. I do not believe, as the Conservative party does, in pretending to the public that it is possible for the Home Secretary to deliver something that no Home Secretary can, within the current law, deliver.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although total numbers are obviously important, their use in the police force and how forces use their resources is equally important? There is still wide variation between the best and worst force in the country, and it is a priority to ensure that resources and numbers available are better used.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The same message applies to the police service as applies to the health and education services: inputs are no guarantees of outputs. My hon. Friend and I know that Lancashire police service, with no better resources than any other, has been able to deliver significantly better results, with a record reduction in crime of 10 per cent. over last year, owing to more effective management and better strategies than some other services.

How much confidence can people who live in London have in the Home Secretary's stewardship when they have borne the hugest—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hugest?"]—rise in the decline of police numbers? Is he aware that the Metropolitan police alone accounts for 792 officers lost, and the City of London another 114 officers lost, since his term of office began? Before he resorts to the answer of "civilianisation", as he did in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), is he aware that the number of civilian staff in the Met has fallen from 11,390 to 10,791 under his stewardship?

The latter arises as a result of an outsourcing contract, under which people who were previously in the public sector are now in the private sector. As for the number of officers in the Metropolitan police service, I can guarantee to the right hon. Lady and the Conservative party—I absolutely guarantee this—that our record from 1997 to 2002 will be infinitely better than hers over the previous five years. Has she forgotten the record cut in staffing at officer level in the Metropolitan police service of 1,773 in the six years from 1993-98? She should hang her head in shame at her record on the Metropolitan police service.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, just for the record, how many police constables there were in the Met when he took over and how many there are now?

As police constables have to be supervised by sergeants, inspectors and other officers—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes, they do. Without that supervision, there is poor management, which in the past has been a major problem in the Met. I tell the right hon. Lady that, in 1993—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The excuses and explanations should be coming from the Conservative party, given its record on the Metropolitan police service. In 1993—[Laughter.] The right hon. Lady laughs at the decline in the Metropolitan police service that took place under her Administration. In 1993—

Labour is in charge now.

The hon. Gentleman's party was in charge in 1993, when there were 27,867 police officers. By 1998, under the last Budget set by the Conservative Administration, there were only just over 26,000. That was the Conservative record.

I was laughing not at crime, but at the Home Secretary. He seems to imagine that the past two and a half years have not happened; that the decline of more than 792 in the number of Met officers has not happened; that the decline of more than 2,000 in the number of officers right across the country has not happened; that the fall in the number of police constables has not happened; that the first rise in crime for six years has not happened; and that the revolving doors prison policy has not happened. The right hon. Gentleman is in charge. Let him take responsibility.

I am happy to debate the issue of police numbers, but the last people in the world to protest their own record are members of the Administration who held office between 1992 and 1997, and the very last people in the world to call for more money to be spent on the police service are the Conservative Opposition.

By those, I mean health and education

possibly … the police and defence.—[Official Report, 1 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 493.]

What recent initiatives he has taken to reduce the incidence of paedophile crime; and if he will make a statement. [112577]

The Government attach great importance to protecting children from sex offenders. We are introducing legislation this Session to create a comprehensive scheme to prevent unsuitable people, including sex offenders, from gaining access to children through working with them. We are establishing a criminal records bureau. We are also investing in the Prison Service sex offender treatment programmes. Sex offender orders and extended sentences for sexual and violent offenders are now available to the courts. In police terms, we are focusing on the international paedophile networks through the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which will be helped by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill that is now being considered by the House. The Association of Chief Police Officers has established a register of sex offenders, which contains more than 10,000 names.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the efforts being made by him and his colleagues to ensure that no danger is posed by sex offenders. I realise that the Sex Offenders Act 1997 is a valuable tool for the police in tracking sex offenders. In the Horbury community in my constituency recently, there was great concern about the fact that a registered paedophile had been seen around schools and with children due to assemble. It seems that further regulations are needed, or instructions to the police with regard to the tracking of sex offenders. Another problem involving young offenders—10, 11 and 12-year-olds who offend against small children—needs to be examined by the Department. Will my hon. Friend take note of the concerns that I express on behalf of my constituents, who are troubled by the presence of sex offenders in the community?

I note the points that my hon. Friend makes. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the police, who, under the Sex Offenders Act 1997, have achieved through the police national computer almost 97 per cent. compliance by those required to register. That is a tribute to police work on this type of crime. My hon. Friend suggests an initiative to track sex offenders; that technique is used and can be further developed.

Did the Minister see the exhibition of literature sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) that was on display in Committee Room 18 on Thursday last week? If he has not seen that exhibition, may I commend it to him? The production of such literature for influencing children at school—presumably after the abolition of section 28—constitutes in itself a sexual offence against children.

I did not see the exhibition in Committee Room 18 to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Much work is being done through the education service and schools throughout the country to make children aware of the dangers that they may experience. In the context of the section 28 debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has issued substantial and strong guidelines to help schools to guide their children effectively.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the police, the probation service and the Prison Service in Nottingham on the undoubted success of the special unit at Nottingham prison, where two of the most notorious paedophiles have been housed for six months without incident or any risk to children in the area?

I am happy to congratulate the police, especially the Nottinghamshire police. The Prison Service has made a major effort to improve our ability to rehabilitate and deal with some of the most persistent offenders. I am sure that the House would want to congratulate Nottingham prison on its work.

If he will make a statement on the procedure for supervising the activities of the intelligence services. [112578]

The Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 provide that the security and intelligence agencies are under the Secretary of State's authority. The head of each agency controls its operations. The Acts also establish tribunals.

Will the Home Secretary re-examine the case of Mr. Peter Bleach, who is currently in prison in India? He has argued in detail that he is in prison because of unfair treatment, and inaccurate information that the intelligence service provided to the court. If it is not possible for the Home Secretary to re-examine the case, will he at least make representations to the Government of India to ask them to review their legislation to enable Mr. Bleach to serve his penalty in the United Kingdom? That facility is available in many other countries.

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am happy to meet him to discuss the case, but any question of an appeal, and the admissibility of evidence in the case, has to be a matter for the appeal courts in India. Neither I nor any other Minister have any locus in the case.

Will the Home Secretary reflect on the fact that, uniquely among western democratic countries, we have the least parliamentary oversight of our security services? Not only is that an embarrassment to us as a democratic country: it flies in the face of our human rights obligations. Former presidents of the National Union of Students might be content with current arrangements, but some of us are not. Our security services have no accountability in this place. They are out of control and it is time that the Government—a Labour Government—applied themselves to remedying that wrong.

I do not accept the assumption behind my hon. Friend's question that our agencies are subject to less parliamentary oversight than those of any other European country.

There is none.

There is considerable oversight by parliamentarians. If my hon. Friend is making the nice point that the Intelligence and Security Committee is not appointed by the House, I accept that. However, any hon. Member who has appeared before the Committee knows that it is composed entirely of parliamentarians and that it does its job thoroughly and effectively. It is one of many ways in which the agencies are under control and accountable to the House.

Does the Home Secretary agree that no intelligence service can operate effectively if its former employees break their lifelong obligation of confidentiality? Given that the Government are pursuing relentlessly the egomaniac ex-officer of MI5, David Shayler, will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that some of the criticisms that the Labour party made of the previous Conservative Government when they pursued the egomaniac ex-officer Peter Wright were less than justified?

The House will excuse me if I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman down the path that he invites me to take, except to say that I confirm that there is a lifelong obligation expected of staff, and I am glad to have the support of both sides of the House for the fact that that obligation should properly be enforced.

As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, may I say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), that there is accountability to Parliament through the Committee, and that its members are diligent in the way in which we carry out our duties? However, my hon. Friend has a case. I agree with him that the Committee should be a Committee of Parliament.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming the reality of the accountability from, as it were, the other side of the table. I am sure that he will confirm also that Secretaries of State, heads of the agencies and many others who are examined by the Committee on which he sits are subject, as they should be. to extremely thorough scrutiny, and that in due course a report is made to the House.

If he will postpone his plans to change the right to jury trial until after the publication of the review of criminal justice under the chairmanship of Sir Robin Auld. [112579]

No. This measure is part of the Government's programme to modernise the criminal justice system to make it more responsive to the needs of the victims of crime, of the public, and of defendants alike. This issue has been considered extensively over the past seven years, not least by the royal commission on criminal justice in 1993. On each occasion the conclusion has been the same—that reform is required. Lord Justice Auld is aware of our intention to legislate and will, no doubt, take this into account in conducting his review. However, the Lord Chief Justice has already made it clear that our measure has his support and that of an overwhelming number of the senior judiciary.

At the risk of being accused of being a Hampstead liberal, and a bearded one at that, may I suggest to the Home Secretary that those who oppose the measure do so not because they are weak on crime or because they wish to preserve the salaries of lawyers but because they have a real interest in British justice?

On independent and thorough review, this issue has been considered time without number by senior and independent people, including the members of the royal commission on criminal justice, who came to a unanimous view that the proposed change was needed in the interests of justice. On that basis, it is needed both in respect of victims and defendants. I am aware that there was some anxiety and concern among Members on both sides of the House, but I am delighted to say that there was a majority of 126 on Second Reading, and that only one Labour Member voted against the Bill at that stage.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the research that shows that the majority of defendants who opt for Crown court trial in an either-way case plead guilty once they reach the Crown court. Those of us who have worked in magistrates courts are aware that putting off the evil day is a powerful motive for defendants. Does he agree that this approach imposes an intolerable stress on the victims of crime and prevents other defendants who are awaiting trial in the Crown court from having their cases dealt with expeditiously? Will he take that into account in proceeding with his proposals, so as to ensure that other defendants are given an equal hearing in any discussions?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings considerable experience to the issue. The truth is that these are cases in which, typically, the defendant will plead guilty anyway, and knows that he or she will do so, and the amounts involved—a can of Tennents lager may have been stolen—are relatively small. They string the system out in the vain hope that they will get a shorter sentence when, in practice, they get a longer one. The Conservative party, having originally supported the proposal, has to explain why it is contributing to substantial extra delays in serious cases coming before the Crown court that could and should be tried only by the Crown court.

The Home Secretary must recognise that he has considerable lack of conviction on this matter, having attacked the proposals—which were not supported by Conservative Members as he suggests, but put forward for consultation—when they were made by the royal commission. In view of that attack, it is a bit rich to tell the House and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) of the royal commission's support. When, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, the Home Secretary's Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is thrown out by the other place, like the (No. 1) Bill, and as he failed to convince some 29 of his own Back Benchers in last week's debate, will he recognise that, as the proposal was no part of the Labour manifesto at the last general election, he would be entirely wrong to try to force it through the other place after a defeat? Will he then lick his wounds and crawl away?

The hon. Gentleman is being a touch economical with his recollection of the position of the previous Administration. We had it confirmed by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) only last week that, had the Conservatives won the last general election and had he been in office, he would have introduced the measure. It was not put out for consultation, but for deliberation and for decision. As for the position of the other place, I hope that it will recognise that this is the elected House and that the will of the elected House must take precedence. If the hon. Gentleman is offering the alternative suggestion, I have to tell him that having any truck with it is dangerous for the future of the Conservative party.

How many reparation orders have been made since September 1998. [112581]

A total of 1,110 reparation orders were made across the five pilot areas from 30 September 1998 to 31 January 2000. The reparation order requires young offenders to face up to the consequences of their offence for their victims and the wider community. The order will be implemented nationally on 1 June.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and assure him that there is widespread support for reparation orders, not least as a measure of restoration to the victims of crime. What assessment has he made of the effectiveness of the orders that have been made so far and what steps is he taking to ensure that the courts make maximum use of the orders when they become available nationally later this year?

We are analysing carefully the effects of the various schemes in the five pilot areas: the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster; Hampshire, Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight; Wolverhampton; Sheffield; and Blackburn. The general impression—I have seen a number of the schemes myself—is extremely optimistic and we are encouraged by the extent to which people are taking part. Our assessment of the courts' willingness to use the orders is that they are positive and enthusiastic because they recognise the major advantages of reparation as a means of dealing with young offenders.

How many of those who have received reparation orders have committed further crimes?

I cannot answer that question, but I can say that 5.1 per cent. of all reparation orders made in the period have been breached compared with 13 per cent. of probation orders. Generally, there has been less breaching and we believe that there has been less return to crime.

How many DNA tests his Department has carried out in Norfolk in the last two years; and with what results. [112583]

Between April 1998 and December 1999, the Forensic Science Service received from Norfolk 8,425 criminal justice samples taken from suspects charged, reported, cautioned or convicted of a recordable offence, and 719 samples from stains left at scenes of crime. From those samples, the FSS reported 871 matches on the national DNA database between criminal justice samples and samples from crime scene stains, and 61 matches on the database between stains from different crime scenes.

Clearly, the Norfolk service is using the new DNA technology to great effect. Is my hon. Friend aware that the technology is in some disrepute in some quarters in the United States, because some commercialised labs have misinterpreted and miscalculated the data? Will he ensure that, as we build up the national DNA database, we use the best and most up-to-date DNA technology, and that the information that is fed into it is accurate and independent?

I can give the House those assurances. During the process, we shall introduce more up-to-date methods of sampling DNA. As my hon. Friend is aware, I know the force in Norfolk very well. It is one of the forces that has been leading in the use of DNA technology. What is most impressive is that a crime stain loaded on the database has a 40 per cent. chance—a four in 10 chance—of being matched against a potential suspect. Approximately 500 matches are reported to the police for investigation each week. It is a substantial means of attacking crime.

What steps he is taking to reduce absence through sickness in the Prison Service. [112585]

We have targeted staff days lost and introduced an annual key performance indicator to measure success in reducing staff absence through sickness. We have taken steps to improve data collection so as to provide managers with better quality information, and have introduced new guidance for managing and reducing days lost through sickness.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and congratulate him on his firm, thorough and systematic approach to this difficult problem. Does he share the views expressed in last year's report of the Public Accounts Committee that certain prisons are vulnerable to unrest as a result of the high level of sickness absence?

I am grateful to the Prison Officers Association and the National Audit Office for their work in this area. There is no doubt that excessive staff absences due to sickness have an adverse impact not only on good order and discipline, but on our capacity to deliver programmes to reduce reoffending. We are determined to bear down on those absences to stamp out bad practice. We also want to celebrate good practice, because prison managers, in conjunction with staff and their unions, are doing excellent work to get a grip of this problem.

If he will make a statement about the asylum statistics for 1999. [112586]

There were 71,000 applications made and 32 decisions taken during 1999. As a result of the Government's investment in the asylum process, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of decisions taken so far this year. The total number of decisions taken during January 2000 was 4,000, and the early indications are that the figure for the past four weeks is likely to be more than 8,000. In the first week of this month alone, more than 2,200 initial decisions were made. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the numbers of decisions taken are now at record levels. The average time taken for an initial decision in December 1999 was 13 months compared with 20 months in April 1997.

Although I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply, it sounded a little glib and complacent. In an earlier response, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), suggested that the number of applications pending was due to the backlog left over from the previous Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that about 104,000 applications are outstanding? His complacent reply that the number of decisions has gone up to 4,000 from 32 last year shows that he misunderstands the problem. More importantly. will he also admit that the number of applications has doubled since the Government came to power. that it is rising and that they are doing nothing about it?

I am not in the least complacent about the situation: indeed, I am very concerned about it. Had I been complacent, I would not have put any provisions in place to deal with the problems caused by the Siemens contract, which was signed indelibly in 1996 by the previous Administration and has caused such severe problems ever since. It is a mark of our concern about the system that we have significantly invested in the asylum and immigration process. The investment is now showing signs of paying off: as I have said, 8,000 asylum applications were decided in the past four weeks.

My right hon. Friend has taken welcome action to relieve pressure on communities in Kent and London from those seeking asylum, but will he ensure that local authorities outside London receive information and advice as quickly as possible about the extra assistance that may be available to them, so that they can plan ahead carefully to receive asylum seekers?

We are doing everything that we can to ensure that local authorities are fully informed in respect of asylum seekers who are being dispersed to their areas. I have asked that arrangements be made to inform hon. Members so far as is possible when there are significant developments with regard to asylum seekers in their constituencies.

What response is the Home Secretary giving to local authorities such as mine in London, where the cost in the next financial year of accommodating asylum-seeker families will be about £25 on the average council tax? When precisely do the Government intend to assume financial responsibility for a national problem, as they have undertaken to do in principle?

On the funding that is directly the responsibility of my Department, I have arranged that we meet additionally an £8 million shortfall for 1999–2000, so that local authorities are compensated in full for their costs, as I believe they should be. There has been a particular problem in respect of unaccompanied minors who claim asylum, which is, at the moment, the responsibility of the Department of Health. I am in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and hope for a satisfactory outcome for local authorities. All of us recognise that the arrangements have placed a considerable burden on local authorities. We recognise the strength of their case to be compensated properly for that.

What target did the Home Secretary set the national asylum support service on the units of accommodation to be secured by 1 April this year and on the introduction of the new support system? How many units of accommodation has it been able to secure for that date? What is the shortfall in the Government's figures? Will he finally admit to the House that the new asylum seeker support system, about which he has been boasting for so long, is turning out in practice to be a complete and utter shambles?

I would be happy to provide the details that the hon. Gentleman sought by letter. We determined that there was adequate accommodation to start phasing in the national asylum support scheme, so that we could end the entitlement to cash social security benefits for all new applicants from 3 April 2000. The availability of cash social security benefits, which was instituted and confirmed by the previous Administration, has been one of the major pull factors in this country being seen as more attractive than others. It is we who are bringing that to an end for new applicants from 3 April. Far from supporting that, the Conservative party—following a pledge by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—would have maintained the availability of cash benefits not only for existing applicants, but for all new applicants, at a cost of £500 million per annum.

What recent estimate he has made of the number of clandestine immigrants brought into the United Kingdom in heavy goods vehicles. [112587]

Immigration and nationality directorate records show that 11,500 clandestine entrants to the United Kingdom were identified between July and December 1999.

I thank the Minister for the proper, responsible manner in which she is tackling the issue. Does she find it extraordinary that Conservative Members should line up with those who make vast sums from smuggling people illegally into the United Kingdom, rather than backing the measures that the Government have proposed to extend carrier liability to the owners of lorries, buses and coaches? Will she say what progress is being made with the industry in working out a code of practice to assist in better deterring and detecting clandestine entrants arriving in the backs of lorries?

We have consulted widely with the industry, and we have tabled the draft code of practice. I have also announced that, on 3 April, we shall introduce the civil penalty provisions. We have repeatedly given the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other Conservative Members opportunities to join and back the Government on the issue, but they have completely refused to do so. Criminal acts are clearly being committed, and it would be nice to have the support of the right hon. Lady and other Conservative Members in trying to do something about them.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 131.

New clause 1 and amendment No. 131 will extend the functions of the Electoral Commission so as to include a role in relation to pilot schemes. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 makes provision for local authorities to bring forward proposals for pilot schemes for the purpose of testing electoral innovations such as early voting and electronic voting at local government elections. Section 11 of that Act also provides for the Secretary of State, in the light of the success of such pilots, to apply such electoral innovations to local government elections generally.

Is there any way in which an individual or organisation can appeal if a local authority is refusing to undertake a pilot scheme in particular areas? I have it in mind that certain areas may have a heavy Labour or heavy Conservative vote. What is to stop the party that does not control the council making representations that the pilot area should be extended to other areas of the council?

We have not yet been able to approve pilot schemes, but we shall consult local authorities this week. The orders are being drafted, and I hope to be able to lay them before Parliament on Thursday, when we will be able to announce which pilots we are approving. We have, however, considered the provisional pilots and, where we have been informed of a substantive disagreement within various councils, such as Conservatives disagreeing with a Labour-controlled council, we have in most cases decided not to proceed with the application. I have had a few discussions through the usual channels to find out whether there are any particular problems.

The Minister referred to UK general elections. Although we are dealing primarily here with local government, how will the legislation interface with the National Assembly for Wales, with regard to the Assembly's involvement with local government, which is obviously directly relevant, or with any wish by the Assembly to develop pilot schemes that are particularly relevant in Wales?

We would want to proceed with changes in the operation of electoral procedures in local government, or indeed in national Government, only after full discussion and consultation with the Welsh Assembly and Executive. Throughout consideration of the Representation of the People Act and this Bill, which deals with the organisation of political parties, we have sought to ensure that the views of parties in the Welsh Assembly are considered. We have also had several discussions with the Executive at different stages to ensure that, although our proposals might not have universal approval, they are at least broadly supported by parties in Wales.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if a local authority proceeds with a pilot scheme and decides that it is beneficial but subsequently changes its mind, its initial decision would be revocable?

A local authority could decide to undertake a pilot scheme and undertake it, but it would then have to submit a report on the scheme and, before it was able to repeat the exercise, receive the consent of the Electoral Commission—indeed, the Home Office would have to approve the scheme. Therefore, in the sense that the local authority could not undertake another pilot scheme if we were dissatisfied with the way in which the first one was conducted, its initial decision is revocable. The fact that an authority has decided to undertake a pilot scheme once does not mean that it would be able to do so in subsequent years.

Or would have to?

The hon. Gentleman is correct.

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. The Government amendments show the efficacy of proper scrutiny of legislation, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House. Last week, by contrast, a guillotine was imposed on discussion of the Representation of the People Bill. The quality of legislation may suffer as a consequence of the quantity, but I hope that we shall make progress on the present Bill in the next two days.

the Government should consult the Commission before making or proposing any changes relating to electoral law and administration.

We will use our best endeavours, but I cannot provide a complete reassurance that everything will be in place by that date. However, we are doing our best to get things moving.

I am grateful for that response. The Minister knows why we are worried about the matter.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked me about the composition of the Electoral Commission. We believe that, essentially, members of the commission should be above party politics. Generally, that would mean those who were not recently actively engaged in the party political process. We would want to be sure that those who were appointed to the commission had the broad support of all the political parties in the House. We would not wish it to be thought that an attempt was being made to put in place a group of party political hacks, who might try to manipulate the situation to their own advantage. That is not the way in which the Neill report envisaged the commission operating, and it is not the way in which the Government want it to operate. I trust that we shall have the Opposition's support in ensuring that the process takes place in a way that is seen as above the fray.

Will the Minister give way?

I will clarify the matter and then give way.

I am grateful for that reassurance. Will the Minister therefore confirm that no current Member of the House of Lords will be eligible for membership of the commission? Given the number of hereditary peers who have left the House of Lords, does he envisage some of them being used for the commission? I hear what he says about consultation with leaders of political parties that are represented in this place by two or more Members. Will each political leader have a black ball to put against any names that come forward if he is unhappy about those people?

I hope that these things can be done by consensus rather than black balls. We do not want to get into black balls—that approach leads to the situation where one side blackballs, followed by the other. We want there to be a number of individuals who are seen to be above the party political fray, whom broadly everyone can accept.

Will the Minister give way?

I am not getting very far in responding to the debate, but I shall give way.

Perhaps I might tempt the Minister to go a little further. The debate in Committee on this matter focused not only on where potential members of the commission might come from but on where they might go. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I moved some amendments to prevent members continuing in office if they were going to take up political activity. We should have some poachers becoming gamekeepers, but not gamekeepers becoming poachers.

I do not envisage these people subsequently deciding to become involved in politics. I suspect that those who are likely to sit on that body would not be likely to get involved in partisan politics or to put themselves into the fray but, if they did so, questions would have to be asked about whether they would continue in that role. We would want to be very careful about the types of individual who were members of the Electoral Commission and avoid that problem arising in the first place.

Our view has nothing to do with the Conservative party wanting money to distribute our publications, but everything to do with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—and everyone knows that, so the Minister's point is a smokescreen. It was a hard-won victory in the other place. We are keen to ensure that the Government take the Electoral Commission's views seriously if it says that it is vital to have free postage to ensure that the electorate are fully informed of the various merits and policies of the candidates.

I am not sure whether this new clause is the appropriate place to debate that issue. I was a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this was nothing to do with the Conservative party, and everything to do with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). The Conservative party's advocacy of this proposal now seems to have everything to do with its support for the hon. Member for Brent, East. I suspect that Steven Norris would be a little chagrined by the hon. Gentleman's view. The Conservatives moved from supporting Lord Archer to Steven Norris, and now they are supporting the hon. Member for Brent, East. That is a surprise.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 15, 90 to 93, 96, 23, 97 to 100, 103 to 106, 111 and 114.

I am intrigued that the Minister is not speaking to what is a large group of amendments. When we discussed the Bill in the Standing Committee, I was delighted that the Government promised to revisit on Report the two important aspects that are covered in the amendments. One concerns the international links that our various political parties have. Under the Bill as drafted, there is a danger that we may cut ourselves off from the outside world to prevent any money flowing through the international links that our parties have. It is clear that a modern political party should be able to deal with its sister parties overseas.

any donation received by a registered party by way of a donation by a trustee, in his capacity as such, shall be regarded as a donation received by the party from a person who is not a permissible donor.

In recommendations 22 and 23 of their report, the Neill committee addressed the wider issue of donations to individual members of political parties or to unofficial groups within a party, as distinct from donations to political parties as such. The Government sympathises with the view that the principles of openness and accountability should apply equally to such donations.

For my part, I welcome the direction in which the new clause is going. The discussion in Committee covered many of the points, and I echo what the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has said.

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members who have supported this group of amendments, which give effect to the prohibition on foreign and anonymous donations.

from a person who is not a permissible donor.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 140, in schedule 1, page 99, line 21, at end insert—

'or by the Scottish Parliament in pursuance of section [Transfer to Commission of functions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland] (8)'.

'save with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly (as the case may be)'.

'(iv) local government elections in Scotland (with the consent of the Scottish Parliament); and'.

'unless the Scottish Parliament requests otherwise'.

'except with the consent of the Scottish Parliament'.

We are revisiting an issue that was touched on in Committee. There appeared to be a possible problem that the House could help to solve.

It may assist the hon. Gentleman to know that he does not have to convince me in principle. We are having discussions with the Scottish Executive on how to move forward. We may well be able to table amendments in another place in due course.

I am grateful to the Minister. I knew that the matter appeared to be of some interest to the Government when we raised it previously and I am grateful for a progress report. We were waiting for the Report stage to see how matters were progressing. In those circumstances, I do not intend to take up more of the time of the House.

The hon. Gentleman should give the Minister an opportunity to reply before he does so.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked me for an update. 1 thought that I might not have a chance to give one.

I am sorry to have had to rush in for this debate, which I had not expected to start so early. I am aware that the debate applies to Scotland, but the Minister has referred to Wales. Some parts of the electoral law in Wales come under the Home Office, and others come under what used to be the Welsh Office and the National Assembly. To what extent are the Minister's comments about Scotland applicable to Wales?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that he has to be quick in this House, and I am pleased that he managed to get here for the debate. However, I am not sure of the focus of his question. The Government would always seek to consult the Welsh Executive and the Welsh Assembly if there were to be any change to the way that things were done in Wales. We would also hope that the Welsh Assembly would let us know how it wanted to proceed in relation to any matters with which it deals.

I agree that, where good will exists, the system can be made to work. However, I seek some clarification from the Minister. Orders may occasionally need to be made, and I was asking about the facility that exists to enable the National Assembly for Wales to make them. Given that the local government legislation has transferred powers to the Assembly, will provisions equivalent to those that apply to Scotland be made?

The Government do not at present propose to transfer to the Welsh Assembly matters relating to council elections. They are not devolved matters, but there is no reason why the Welsh Assembly should not refer a matter to the Electoral Commission for advice. I am not sure that I have got the drift of the right hon. Gentleman's point—or perhaps I have and have answered it.

I shall try and clarify my question. On several occasions, order-making facilities have been added to Bills going through Westminster, with the result that the National Assembly is able to undertake extra functions. Will the Minister bear in mind the possibility of making such provision for Wales in future, where it seems appropriate that orders should come from the Assembly?

I certainly agree to bear that in mind. If matters are best dealt with in Wales, it is appropriate that they are dealt with there, just as it is right that matters best dealt with here are dealt with here. There may well be occasions in the future when we will be able to act as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was seeking to curtail the debate. Opposition Members are usually accused of trying to spin out debate on their amendments for longer than is justified.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rather than call for state funding we would welcome the Committee's views about how more individuals could be encouraged to donate. We note that in some countries individuals are offered tax relief for political donations, elsewhere tax credits or matching grants are provided. We believe that the Committee should give serious consideration to the practicalities of these approaches in the context of the United Kingdom's voluntary system.

Tax relief by deduction at source should be introduced, limited to the basic rate, on donations of up to £500 a year to eligible registered political parties.

Political parties should be eligible to claim under the tax relief scheme if at the last general election two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons or one member was elected and the party won at least 150,000 votes.

The Government do not believe that that is the appropriate way to respond to the Neill committee, which proposed a package of recommendations that should be considered together. That is why I shall ask the Committee to reject the new clause.

The question of whether there should be tax relief for donations to political parties—and, if so, how it should operate—must be considered alongside all the proposed measures that we intend to publish in the draft Bill before the summer.

We should not try to deal with this one aspect in isolation.

It is also necessary to consider the issue of tax relief for donations to political parties alongside the review of tax relief for charitable donations—something that we are already working on with the charitable sector. It would be most unfortunate if the system appeared to be more generous in relation to smaller donations to political parties than in relation to smaller donations to charities.

I urge hon. Members to await publication of our draft Bill on donations to political parties and campaign expenditure. I hope that, in the spirit of fraternity … the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will agree to withdraw the new clause.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 June 1999; c.778.]

I think that as a weapon for the political parties to build up their membership base in particular … as part of that armoury as long as it was structured in a way that was designed to benefit the small donations, I wouldn't be against it.

I think that this is a very attractive idea. I think anything that encourages people to participate in a political process, to get involved in political parties, to broaden the base of their membership is to be welcomed because I think politics is a very honourable profession and supporting a political party is a very worthwhile way of spending one's time and money.

Tax relief is of value only to people who pay tax—

and where the donations given are of significant size. It would be of little value to the Labour Party, which has 400,000 members who are paying an average of £20 each to the Labour Party's coffers. It would be of enormous value to our opponents.

As I was a member of the Neill committee, which drew up the original recommendations, hon. Members will be unsurprised to know that I warmly support the new clause. We should understand from the outset the important difference between tax relief and public funding. Neill did not recommend public funding for general party political purposes, nor is there any stomach in the country for such a proposal. Tax relief, however, depends on individual donors deciding where they want their money to go and making a direct contribution accordingly.

I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the marginal rate and the limitation on the amount of tax relief. Does he agree that he and his colleagues on the Neill committee would have been better advised to recommend a tax credit, such as the system they observed in Canada? That would ensure not only that the marginal rate was the same, but that the amount of subsidy would be the same for everyone, regardless of their rate of tax or how much they paid.

That is similar to our proposal. There would be a difference for those who pay no tax at all. However, as I have pointed out, few people who pay no tax would be likely to make a contribution to a political party.

I, too, support the new clause, although perhaps not with as much warmth and enthusiasm as others have expressed. I feel that it is an important step forward. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the principle, which has been well outlined and has a pedigree that makes it worthy of support and careful consideration.

I shall speak briefly on behalf of the Independents in the House. As we have just doubled our number, I think that we have a contribution to make.

I am pleased to support new clause 4, which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter).

The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who opened the debate, said that the new clause is important to him, but is it a priority for the people of this country for us to give tax relief on support for political parties? I suspect that they would rather we spent the money that is available directly on health or education or on tax relief such as allowances for children or lone parents, individual allowances or business allowances.

If that is the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he wants to rest it on the basis of putting the question to the people of this country, does he not think that they would feel exactly the same about the big increases in funding for special advisers?

Special advisers are a different issue. That is a question of whether Ministers should have advice from someone who is able to support them through contact with their local party and the people who elected them. A Minister making a decision therefore has not only the civil service view but an independent view from someone who has a different political perspective. That ensures good decision making and is effective expenditure of public money. It enables Ministers to hear more than one point of view and therefore to reach better judgments.

Until we heard the Minister's contribution, I thought that a considerable consensus on our new clause was building up in the House.

Tax relief by deduction at source should be introduced, limited to the basic rate, on donations of up to £500 a year to eligible registered political parties.

Political parties should be eligible to claim under the tax relief scheme if at the last general election two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons or one member was elected and the party won at least 150,000 votes.