If he will make a statement about the cancellation of the global cultural diversity congress. [126117]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today published Gurbux Singh's report of his review of the events leading up to the cancellation of the global cultural diversity congress, and has placed copies of the report in the Library.

I am grateful to the Minister for that statement, as I think it could be called, in reply to my question. Call me cynical, but I suspect that the placing of the report in the Library may not be unconnected with the fact that I was due to ask this question today. We will consult with some care the report to which the Minister referred, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer one straightforward, factual question. Is it true, as one commissioner for racial equality claims, that the shambles over GCDC 2000 will cost the Government a total of £1 million—£600,000 of which will go to reimbursing the CRE, and £400,000 of which will be made up of Home Office expenses? If so, will the Minister take responsibility?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the placing of the report in the Library was directly related to his question, which provided a good opportunity for publication.

The Minister will be aware that the problem and its associated irregularities have delayed this year's National Audit Office report on the CRE. Will he give the House an undertaking that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have access to all relevant information—including information about the limited liability company, to which he would not normally be able to refer?

Obviously, we will give as much information as we have in our possession to the Public Accounts Committee so that it can conduct its proper inquiries. There is no problem with that. When the right hon. Gentleman studies the report by Gurbux Singh he will see that it is very thorough, but we must of course await what the liquidators have to say about the outcome of their review of the matter. I gather that their report may be a few weeks, or even months, away.

I thank the Minister for his courtesy in letting me have an early copy of Mr. Gurbux Singh's report. Would he not agree that it represents a devastating catalogue of incompetence and mismanagement in the CRE, its holding company and the Home Office? Will he confirm that, among other charges, Mr. Singh says that the original budget for the conference was over-optimistic, that its costings were never assessed independently, that the accounting officer was kept in the dark, and that the process for approving funding was

not as independent as it could have been?

I ensured that the hon. Gentleman would receive a copy of the report before questions today, and I accept that that report discloses that there were failings, especially in GCDC 2000 Ltd., the company set up by the CRE. However, I do not think that that justifies a general attack on all the good work that the CRE has often done in the past. The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful not to get involved in that.

What response he has received from the police about his proposals to amend licensing laws. [126118]

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when publishing our White Paper on the reform of the licensing laws on 10 April, it would be helpful to receive responses by the end of July. I look forward to receiving comments from the Association of Chief Police Officers and other police bodies by then.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I know that the Government's proposals are warmly welcomed by industry and by alcohol abuse organisations. However, what representations has he had from magistrates and local authorities? The magistrates bench in Coleford in Forest of Dean is particularly concerned about the issue, as the magistrates there do not believe that the local authority has the expertise to deal with the matter. Moreover, my local authority in Forest of Dean is concerned about the costs that it may incur should such a modernisation take place.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the new measures will be good for the police, business, consumers, families and local residents. We have had representations from magistrates and local authorities, and we will obviously take them into full and proper consideration. Magistrates will be involved in the process because the magistrates court will be the court of appeal for many of the issues and will also deal with matters relating to penalties which may need to be imposed on rogue landlords. So in those circumstances, they will retain a role.

The Minister will know from living in the area that Lichfield is sensibly and efficiently run by a Conservative council. I have no hesitation in recommending that local authorities, when they are Conservative, should be in charge of licensing laws. However, does the Minister accept that dour, dank, possibly even corrupt, councils run by Labour may take the view that they do not want licensing laws to be extended? In those circumstances, at certain times of the evening, people will drift from those rather dour authorities into the happy, sunlit hidden uplands of areas such as Lichfield, which are sensibly run by a Conservative council.

There was a Labour administration in Lichfield until very recently, and I am sure that it was responsible for anything good that has been done in Lichfield.

I thank my hon. Friend for his response to that question. There must be a review of the licensing laws, for planning and other issues. Given the expertise and material that magistrates and magistrates clerks have obtained over a period of time, I consider that magistrates should be on the licensing committees. It would be wrong to ignore the expertise in the clerks' offices and on the magistrates bench. I appeal to my hon. Friend to ensure that magistrates are included on the committees that will issue licenses following the change.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. I shall certainly take his views to the review that we are carrying out of the consultation on the White Paper. No doubt, many different organisations and individuals, including many hon. Members, will wish to make representations on the subject, and we shall consider them all. As I said, magistrates will continue to have an important role in the administration of licensing law and, particularly, in imposing penalties and as part of the appeals process. They will still have a role, but we wanted to ensure that we brought local authorities into the process as well. My hon. Friend's suggestion that local authorities and magistrates might work together is certainly well worth considering.

What discussions he has had with local authorities regarding anti-social behaviour orders; and if he will make a statement. [126119]

A large number of discussions have been held over the past three years with local authorities and with the Local Government Association on anti-social behaviour orders. Both local authorities and the police have widely welcomed this new power to tackle a scourge in communities up and down the country. Seventy-nine anti-social behaviour orders have now been imposed by the courts following their introduction on 1 April last year. However, as the House knows, I would like to see them used much more widely. On Wednesday, I shall speak to the annual conference of the Local Government Association, and will there be publishing a new protocol—agreed by local authorities and the police—to provide a renewed impetus to tackle this serious problem.

I agree with the Home Secretary, but why does he think that anti-social behaviour orders have been used at the rate of barely one a week since they were introduced? Does he agree with the social exclusion unit report, which says that

anti-social behaviour is not being tackled effectively?

The only mixed message has come from the Opposition, who have appeared from the comments repeatedly made by those on their Front Bench not to want to have this important weapon against anti-social behaviour in place. The hon. Gentleman asked why the orders have not been used more widely. They should have been used more widely; however, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to stand up on behalf of his constituents in the Lancing area of Sussex whose lives had been made a misery by Mr. John Vyles and Mrs. Madeleine Vyles, both of whom are now the subject of anti-social behaviour orders.

Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back over the 18 years in which the Conservative party sent out the message that it did not matter what people did—that they could be as unpleasant and anti-social as they wished in the community and nothing very much would happen? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is right to use the orders to prevent anti-social behaviour and that the test should not be the number of orders, but the safety of the general public? Where a message has gone out from courageous local authorities working with the police—in Coventry, for example—the level of anti-social behaviour has gone down.

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. There is no question but that, as the police themselves report, in many instances the mere threat of an anti-social behaviour order has been sufficient to ensure that the behaviour concerned has moderated. My right hon. Friend will recall that we proposed the introduction of such orders in one criminal justice measure after another and that in each case we were told that it was neither necessary nor practical to have the orders in place—notwithstanding the fact that there were such serious problems of anti-social behaviour across the country and that the level of crime had doubled under the Conservatives.

Given that the Government were elected to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime and despite the best efforts of the Home Secretary—anti-social behaviour orders are part of a panoply of response—it appears that the overall crime figures are going up again and that violent crime figures are going up again. It appears from a ministerial answer given on Friday that the clear-up rate is less than 30 per cent. on average across the country, so does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, instead of looking for simplistic short-term solutions, it is appropriate for all the parties in the House representing England and Wales to try to get our heads together round two questions? The first is how we can prevent crime more effectively and the second is how we can ensure that there are convictions and that people are dealt with when crime is committed. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to initiate talks in the House so that there can be a collective effort to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers to deliver the goods and deliver the promise?

I am always delighted to have constructive discussions with any right hon. or hon. Member of the House about their ideas for better reducing crime and disorder.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that even in areas such as Liverpool, where anti-social behaviour orders have been used relatively extensively, they have become a weapon of last resort instead of a tool of early intervention? Will he join me in contacting the Merseyside police and the local authority and suggesting to them that they ought to intervene and use the orders at an earlier stage, instead of using them as the last weapon?

I am happy to do so. That is one of the messages that will be contained in the protocol agreed between the local authorities and the police, which I shall publish on Wednesday.

To what does the Home Secretary ascribe the fact that crime is rising for the first time in six years?

rose—

Of course I will answer. Crime has risen repeatedly since the war. It doubled under the Conservatives. As the right hon. Lady is, I know, particularly concerned about violent crime, she may like to know that in the year for which she was wholly responsible for crime, 1996—[Laughter.] In the year in which the right hon. Lady was a Home Office Minister, 1996, violent crime rose by 13 per cent. We are getting on top of the long-term trend in crime. I should like to know from the right hon. Lady whether she intends to go into the next election casting aside the record of the previous Government, under whom crime doubled, and whether she will promise that year on year, come what may, recorded crime will fall under the Conservatives.

Perhaps we can now come to the three years during which the right hon. Gentleman has been wholly responsible for crime. I asked him a simple question. The fact is that crime fell significantly and substantially for the last four years of our Administration. It then fell very lightly for the next two years, and now it is rising. To what does the right hon. Gentleman ascribe the fact that crime is rising? May I help him? Does he ascribe any of it to the decline in police numbers of 2,600 since he became wholly responsible for crime? Does he attribute any of it to the fact that 18,000 people have been released before the minimum point of their sentence? Is any of that to do with the rise in crime? It was a very straightforward question. Crime is rising. Why?

The right hon. Lady offers me a number of explanations. If it is true that the relatively small decline in police numbers that has taken place since 1997 lay behind the rise in crime that has taken place in some police force areas but not in others, she has to explain why crime fell in the four years from 1992–93 to 1997, despite the fact that police numbers fell in a large number of areas across the country.

The Home Secretary struggles. As he appears to think that he is in opposition and asking the questions, I shall answer.

I have always thought that my predecessor was not a bad Home Secretary. However, the right hon. Lady has never taken that view.

I am sure that Northampton, which is examining anti-social behaviour orders, will welcome the new guidelines. Does my right hon. Friend recall visiting Blackthorn estate with me before the election? It used to have a crime rate on a par with that of Toxteth and has serious anti-social behaviour problems. Is the Home Secretary aware that his Department funded the Caspar project to deal with anti-social behaviour? Will he join me in paying tribute to the council, residents, police and especially the schools, which have worked to identify the reasons for crime and fear of crime in the local community? Will he consider making a return visit to see the great progress that those groups have made?

Indeed, I recall the visit that I paid to my hon. Friend's constituency before the election. The kind of experience about which I learned during that visit, and visits to many other similar constituencies, made us determined to put in place tough measures to bear down on the anti-social behaviour that was ripping apart my hon. Friend's area and many others. I am glad that we have put those measures in place.

What progress has been made on determining the asylum applications of persons who arrived on the hijacked Afghan airliner. [126120]

A total of 33 applicants have so far been refused asylum. Thirty-two appeals were lodged, one of which has since been withdrawn. The remaining 31 are being heard by a panel of special adjudicators from the immigration appellate authority, but none have been determined yet. So far, three applicants have been granted asylum. Fifteen applications remain, relating either to those currently subject to criminal proceedings following the hijacking or to their relatives, and cannot be determined until the conclusion of those proceedings.

Is there not a certain contrast between, on the one hand, the forthright and determined statements that the Home Secretary made all those months ago about speedily ejecting those people and, on the other, the rather sorry answer that he has just given? Can there possibly be a clearer indication of the extent to which this country is seen as a soft touch for asylum seekers than the news in the Sunday papers that another group of Afghans is now planning to do the same thing?

The hon. Gentleman has plainly not read what I said on 10 February 2000. The consequence of our firm but fair approach to the hijacking in February is that just under half of all those who were on the aeroplane have now returned. It was always understood, and I made it clear to the House in my statement on 10 February, that some of those—as it turns out, about half—would be likely to apply for asylum, and those applications have to be processed. I took the exceptional measure of making the decisions about those applications personally in the first instance, and I made most of those decisions, but not all, very quickly. The applicants now have a right of appeal. If the hon. Gentleman or his Front-Bench colleagues are suggesting that we should withdraw altogether from the 1951 refugee convention or give people no right of appeal, we ought to hear from them.

How many performance targets the immigration and nationality directorate met in 1999–2000. [126121]

The immigration and nationality directorate met half its targets in full, and another two in part. In the final month of the year, IND made 11,340 decisions, which is a new record and almost 5,000 more than in the best month under the previous Administration.

The IND 1999 report forecast a budget of £350 million, but we know that the outturn will be nearer £597 million—which is 71 per cent. Over—and, in the same year, more than 20,000 failed asylum seekers have absconded. Is that not a disaster and indicative of the failure of the Government's policy on immigration?

The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. He is right to say that the budget has increased; that reflects the number of applications. We said at the beginning that it was difficult to predict the amount that would be needed for asylum support because it depended on numbers. This Administration have removed more unsuccessful asylum seekers than the previous Administration. Why do we not give the immigration service some credit for that?

I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that delays in decision making can have serious consequences for the people concerned. Even in what should be routine cases, people are unable to travel or to prove their status because they do not have documents. What specific targets are being set in IND for dealing with travel documents and applications for indefinite leave to remain? We are aware of the targets that have been set for decisions on asylum cases, but are there specific targets for each area, and if so, will they be published?

Yes, there are, and we will publish the new targets. I can tell my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, that decisions in straightforward cases are being made rapidly, but he will know, as will all hon. Members, that more complex cases take considerably longer. The way to deal with that is to make sure, as we are doing, that the proper administrative procedures are in hand and that there are enough experienced caseworkers. Unlike the previous Administration, whose policies resulted in the voluntary redundancy of hundreds of experienced caseworkers, we are taking on more people.

Is the hon. Lady convinced that the immigration authorities are totally colour blind in routine cases? Is she aware of the difficulties experienced by Maori people in coming to the UK—difficulties which, one suspects, would not have arisen in the case of white citizens from New Zealand? Will she make sure that, in the work of the immigration authorities, we are as generous to people coming from countries such as New Zealand as those countries have been to UK citizens?

The immigration service and the immigration and nationality directorate operate in a completely non-discriminatory way. If the right hon. Gentleman has evidence of any practice that is not correct, I will be delighted to hear about it, and I undertake to investigate it as speedily as possible. We have only a small proportion of such inquiries, but the right hon. Gentleman may be assured that if such cases arise, the most rigorous investigation takes place.

Is it not the case that investment in making decisions quickly saves the Home Office money? If that is the case, what is my hon. Friend's prediction of how quickly decisions will be made in future?

My hon. Friend is right; she has great experience of such matters. Not only is it right to make the decisions as quickly as possible, but it reduces the distress of those involved in the process. We are speeding up the asylum and non-asylum decision-making process. A good example is Oakington reception centre, where we consider cases in about seven days.

Can the Minister explain why, although she is so reluctant to detain asylum seekers on arrival in the United Kingdom, her Department is now considering building asylum prisons for those whose cases have been determined and who ought to be deported immediately? Does she understand just how horrified my constituents are to learn that, in spite of representations, her officials are still trying to find sites in North Thanet to build asylum prisons for people who ought to be deported?

I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the position. We are talking about further detention spaces for those at the end of the process. It is unpalatable but true that those whose claims are unsuccessful have to be removed at the end of the process, so they have to be detained. That is why we need an increase in that space. The hon. Gentleman knows—I have met and corresponded with him—that I am certain that that is the way to proceed. The previous Administration sought to introduce such an increase, but did not do so.

If he will make a statement on the progress of efforts to reduce the backlog of outstanding immigration cases at the immigration and nationality directorate. [126122]

The backlog is being progressively reduced and we aim to clear it by the end of July. We have streamlined the process for dealing with the intake of after-entry casework. We have introduced revised procedures to speed up the consideration of cases and have allocated all available resources to deal exclusively with backlog cases.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am delighted by the undoubted improvements that have occurred. May I ask her about the evidence and inquiry unit? She will be aware that when an entry clearance officer abroad asks the Home Office for a statement of the case, it comes from the evidence and inquiry unit, but often takes six months to arrive. Bearing in mind the fact that many applicants have already waited a year to get an interview, will she consider increasing the allocation of staff at the evidence and inquiry unit? I understand that six hard-working individuals cover the globe. Will she ensure that re-applicants are interviewed in less than a year, because the failure to do so is keeping many families apart in heartbreaking circumstances?

I well understand the important points that my hon. Friend makes. She will know that there is some good joint working between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, with the establishment of the joint entry clearance unit. In the context of that work, I undertake to consider her proposals to find out what we can do to assist in the matter.

The Minister will know that there are reports that many of the Kosovans who were given leave to remain have extended the time that they have been allowed to stay in the country. Doubtless, many of them will apply for asylum. I wonder how long it will take to process their cases simply because such people are kept in limbo while their cases are processed—often for a long time, which is grossly unfair. It is not a question of statistics; real people are involved and the longer they are kept in limbo, the greater the problems for them and everyone else. When will the cases of those Kosovans be dealt with?

I completely understand the hon. Gentleman's point and appreciate the context in which he makes it. More than half those who came on the humanitarian programme have now returned. The great majority of those who remain have claimed exceptional leave to remain rather than asylum. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall deal with the cases of those who have made asylum claims as quickly as we possibly can.

What discussions he has had with the magistracy about the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. [126124]

Lay and stipendiary magistrates have been closely involved in preparations for implementing the Human Rights Act 1998. They have contributed to the programme of seminars and working groups that the Government have organised to ensure that the courts are ready for 2 October, and have been actively involved in devising and delivering, as well as receiving, the nationwide training organised by the Judicial Studies Board. I know that my colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department regularly discuss with the magistracy issues about implementation of the Act.

I thank my right hon. Friend. Is he confident that, in both urban and rural areas, the Act will be implemented well by magistrates, the police and the probation service? Is he confident that they have the right training programmes in place to ensure full implementation of the Act?

We have invested a considerable amount of money, time and effort with the magistrates, the police and the probation service to ensure that everyone involved in the criminal justice system is properly apprised of the requirements of the Act when it comes into force on 2 October, but I respectfully remind my hon. Friend that we have been subject to the convention for more than 50 years, so an awful lot of what it contains will not be new to any of the criminal justice agencies.

Having been on a Judicial Studies Board course on the Human Rights Act, I can tell the House how good that course was. I have heard from magistrates in my area that they have much benefited from the course that they have been on. However, what concerns me is that Ministers seem to be woefully ignorant of the terms of the Act. Is the Home Office making arrangements for Ministers to attend courses, so that they can learn about their own legislation?

I would require more details to answer that question. Home Office Ministers are pretty well apprised of the terms of the convention. We do our best to observe it, but I am glad to learn from the hon. and learned Gentleman, who played quite a role in the passage of the Human Rights Bill, that there continues to be support for that important measure on the Conservative Benches; it was welcomed by Conservative Front Benchers on Third Reading.

I understand that, in publicising the Human Rights Act, my right hon. Friend plans to hold a competition for schools looking for creative ways of giving expression to the rights and responsibilities within the Act. Will he join me in congratulating a firm in my constituency, Crayola, on its work with children to promote creativity, positive self-expression and problem solving through today's launch of the first ever national colouring week?

On balance, having thought about the question, I think that the answer is yes. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend, his constituents and Crayola, whose products I used at school with such astonishing effect.

Although the Home Secretary is right to say that there has been a lot of all-party support for the Act, what we have repeatedly questioned is whether the Government's estimates of the costs in taxpayers' money of the implementation of the Act are accurate. In the light of further indications that far more cases relying on the Act will be brought before the courts, have the Government massively increased their estimate of the costs in taxpayers' money of implementation?

I am glad to have that further reminder of the constructive role that the Conservative Opposition took in the passage of the Bill and of the way in which the then shadow Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), wished it well from the Opposition Front Bench and advised his colleagues not to vote against it—indeed, he advised them to support it on Third Reading. It is possible that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has been going on and on about the cost of the measure. It is the first time that I have heard him raise it. I do not recall such matters being raised to any degree during the passage of the Bill. By definition, we cannot exactly predict the behaviour either of defendants or, more particularly, of the courts. However, there have certainly been no major revisions of the estimates that we previously made public.

What estimate he has made of the cost to internet service providers of complying with the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. [126126]

The Government have estimated that the cost to internet service providers of complying with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill will not exceed £20 million in aggregate over the first four years' operation. I am satisfied that the requirements that we have in mind will be consistent with comparable countries. I should also draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that Parliament will have a further chance to scrutinise the detailed technical proposals before the requirements come into force and before any costs are incurred.

What does the Minister have to say in response to the British Chambers of Commerce report that the Bill will cost the economy £46 billion? [Laughter.] Yes, £46 billion. Will he give an outright commitment that the Bill will not drive British business out of the United Kingdom?

My short answer is that that is total nonsense, as I have told the British Chambers of Commerce. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that on our website, we go through the BCC figures; they are nonsense. We also do not accept the charge that e-commerce will be driven out of the country, although I emphasise that we have entered very close dialogue with the industry to try to ensure full agreement. A requirement for the Act to work effectively will be close working with business. We are extremely conscious of that at every level.

Does my hon. Friend agree that people who oppose the Bill are playing right into the hands of some of the most evil criminals on this planet? Are not charges already imposed in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Sweden and France for internet service providers in this field?

I half agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to identify the benefits to crime of the way in which the internet can operate and we need to contest it. Examples of his point are clear. In 1996–97, through using such surveillance, there were 1,200 arrests, and the seizure of drugs with a street value of more than £600 million and of more than 450 firearms. I only half agree with my hon. Friend because although some people are motivated in the way that he described, some are partners in dialogue—I mentioned business in this context—who are worried about the process, and it is incumbent on us as a Government to work closely with them. I do not impugn their motives, although I impugn the motives of some of those who have made some of the arguments.

Given the worries about which the Minister has just spoken, and the increasing concerns of Members of both Houses of Parliament and ordinary, law-abiding citizens who use the internet, will he tell us what changes he intends to make to the Bill?

We are looking at two or three specific changes. The first is to make explicit issues on cost, of the kind with which I dealt in answer to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). The second is to consider definitions of certain aspects of collection of communications data about which questions have been raised. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary commented on that last week. The third is to make more explicit in the Bill the fact that we are principally requiring plain text rather than any encryption key in order to get the data that we want, about which there has been some concern. A number of those points will arise during the third day's consideration of the Bill in Committee in the other place.

If he will make a statement on the problems being experienced with housing asylum seekers in the areas to which they are being dispersed. [126127]

The arrangements for dispersing asylum seekers are working well. As of 9 June, 2,650 asylum seekers had been dispersed to national asylum support service accommodation around the country. All accommodation has to meet strict criteria and is inspected on our behalf by independent property surveyors.

Is my hon. Friend absolutely certain that there have been all necessary discussions with local authorities and health authorities on arrangements for receiving dispersed asylum seekers? Is she absolutely certain that cowboy landlords are not charging exorbitant rents for appalling properties—despite what she has said about accommodation?

I know of my hon. Friend's concerns in these matters and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met his council leader and officers and, indeed, written to him. I am confident that we ensure that all the proper procedures are in place for inspection and consultation. However, I shall keep a close eye on the matter and, if a specific meeting is needed, I shall be delighted to arrange it.

Will the Minister clarify the circular dated today which the Home Secretary sent to all Members of Parliament? It states, in paragraph 3:

A central feature of the new … arrangements involves … dispersal … from London and the South East,

Our policy is to disperse away from London and Kent.

I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's points. I was delighted to undertake my visit to his constituency and I found it useful. We are dispersing those who seek asylum away from hard-pressed areas in London and the south-east, and the areas to which people are currently being dispersed are concentrated in the north-west, the north-east and Scotland.

May I urge my hon. Friend to keep a close eye on the workings of the national asylum support service? It recently entered into an agreement to provide accommodation on one hotel site in Leicester for 400 people, but the local authority was not informed at an early stage. Will she ensure that there is adequate dialogue between NASS and local authorities, so that they are able to provide the services needed to support those 400 new people in Leicester?

I understand my hon. Friend's points. I assure him that I hold regular meetings with NASS. Not only do we make sure that local authorities are informed through the regional consortium—that is why we encourage local authorities to sign contracts with us—but we notify health authorities as well.

How many asylum seekers disappear while on dispersal?

The hon. Gentleman is confused. Dispersal relates to when asylum seekers make application to NASS because they are destitute. The system replaces the shambolic arrangements left by the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman is talking about temporary admission, but that is completely different.

How much funding his Department will provide in the current financial year to support CCTV schemes. [126128]

Under the crime reduction programme CCTV initiative, we are investing £153 million over three years in new or extended CCTV systems in England and Wales. Nearly £60 million of capital funding has already been allocated to crime and disorder reduction partnerships to support more than 340 CCTV schemes. Partnerships have begun to bid for the remaining £90 million under a rolling programme of funding that will run until the end of 2001. Details of any new CCTV awards will continue to be posted on the Home Office website.

My hon. Friend will be aware that several CCTV schemes in the Wirral have been or are about to be approved and that such schemes are effective in reducing crime. However, there is a related issue of the trading environment: for example, in my constituency, the shopkeepers and licensees of New Ferry are collaborating to improve the trading environment in a small community shopping area; they believe that CCTV's effect on youth theft and vandalism, general crime and night-time disturbances would be such that local people's shopping facilities could be much improved. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the money made available so far is welcome, far more needs to be made available, so that areas such as New Ferry can tackle such issues?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which explains why the guidelines for the further rolling-round that we published in February emphasise, first, the need for joint bids from local authorities and local business, because there are significant economies of scale to be made, and secondly, the need to go for schemes on small shopping precincts outside the city centres, which have not always been economic. The guidelines on the web set out clearly how that can be achieved. I hope that my hon. Friend's crime reduction partnership in the Wirral will produce proposals which meet that point and the points that he raised in his question.

CCTV cameras are quite effective against young vandals, but if the young vandals were not on the streets in the first place, that would be even more effective. How many child curfew orders have been issued since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998? If, as I suspect, the answer is none, how great has the impact of such orders been in keeping young vandals off the street? Is this a new example of zero tolerance, or perhaps of the third way? The first way is to do something, the second way is to do nothing, and the third way—the Government's way—is to do nothing but put a spin on it.

The hon. Gentleman's cynicism is uncharacteristic. It is unfortunate that the various anti-social behaviour orders and child curfew orders—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many?] There have been very few. Those orders have been opposed down the line by the Opposition. We are doing our best, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described, to roll out the anti-social behaviour orders. CCTV is an effective weapon to help to ensure that young people in all areas of towns and cities behave in a social way. We intend to keep on funding that programme to a much greater extent than the Conservatives ever did.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the guidelines issued by the Data Protection Commissioner for the use of CCTV have largely allayed the fears expressed by some people about their operation? Will he accept the congratulations of people in Beeston and Kimberley in my constituency, who greatly welcome the imminent arrival of the cameras as a major step forward in combating youth crime in our area?

As my hon. Friend says, some of the doubts that existed have been allayed by the guidelines. I know that many constituents of many hon. Members are delighted by the CCTV schemes that we have introduced and paid for, which are setting about reducing crime and disorder consistently and effectively.

What estimate he has made of the impact on police budgets of the public safety radio communications project. [126129]

Once the service is fully established across England and Wales, the cost of the public safety radio communications service is estimated to be £157 million per year at today's prices for the police service. Currently, that represents about 2 per cent. of police authority budgets in England and Wales. In addition, there will be costs to forces in buying control room and radio terminal equipment and so on, but many of those costs would be incurred irrespective of the public safety radio communications service. The allocation of £50 million from the capital modernisation fund to the service, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in September 1999, will go towards reducing the cost of the service during the first few years of operation.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he share my concern that although the Government have agreed with North Yorkshire police to top-slice its budget, the rurality factor should be taken into account? It must be recognised that the new equipment cannot be shared in sparsely populated rural areas such as North Yorkshire. Is the Minister aware that 16 per cent. of North Yorkshire's operational budget is currently spent on retirement pensions, and that 50 per cent. of it goes on early retirement for police officers? Will that also be taken into account in future budgets?

I have discussed with the chief constable of North Yorkshire—the force covering the hon. Lady's constituency—the important benefit of the national police project to her constituency, perhaps more so than to many other police authorities, because of the geography of the area. The police force recognises what we are doing. On rurality, may I point out to the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend announced 10 days or so ago an extra £15 million for rural forces in the current year to meet some of the costs associated with rural forces? The Government can say that we are doing a great deal for rural forces and will continue to do so.

Now that Ray Mallon and seven Cleveland officers have been cleared of any criminal charges, what will the Government do to bring Operation Lancet to an end? It has been a great drain on public resources, on the police budget—

Order. I am sorry, but that does not relate to the question at all.

How many police officers were (a) in place and (b) funded on (i) 31 March 2000 and (ii) 31 March 1997 in Essex. [126130]

The Essex police had 2,961 police officers on 31 March 1997, which I understand was in line with their budgeted plans. I have been informed by the chief constable that the Essex police had 2,809 police officers on 31 March 2000 compared with a budgeted figure of 2,859. It is for chief officers to determine the number of officers to be funded within the overall resources available to them. Specific funding is being made available to Essex under the crime fighting fund to enable it to recruit 103 officers in addition to existing plans over the coming two years.

However likeable the Home Secretary is, it would help if he would cut some of the flannel and spin, because the figures show that there are fewer police officers in Essex now than in March 1997. Does he accept that, notwithstanding the 103 funded officers for the future about whom he spoke, his announcement on Friday of the increased money for the Metropolitan police has produced the double whammy that people in Essex who want to be police officers will be drawn to the Met to serve because they will earn more money, and existing officers in the Essex constabulary will resign and move to the Met because the financial differentiation will be £6,000?

The hon. Gentleman's initial criticism was not well placed. I answered the questions that he asked, and just that.

Shame.

That is always my aim in the House, from wherever questions come, as it is my hon. Friend's too.

And Surrey.

And Surrey.

And Hertfordshire.

And Hertfordshire, and Kent.

And Staffordshire.

Staffordshire is not a home county.

With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.