What is the predicted net change in police numbers in London for the financial year 2000–01 over 1999–2000. [116785]

:In March 1997, the Metropolitan police service had a strength of 27,166 officers. In March this year, estimated strength was 26,034 officers. From 1 April, 474 Metropolitan police officers are being seconded to county constabularies as a result of the boundary changes to the Metropolitan police district, bringing total numbers to 25,556. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir John Stevens, intends to maintain overall numbers at around that level for the current financial year. In addition, administrative changes made by the new Commissioner should mean an extra 300 officers on the streets by the end of the financial year.

Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that even after that increase, at the end of the next financial year there will be more than 500 fewer officers than he inherited? Does he acknowledge that there is enormous anxiety, especially in suburban areas such as mine, which have suffered disproportionate cuts, about the loss of police officers and the resultant petty crime and vandalism? Does he also acknowledge that there is a serious crisis of morale in the police force in London, and that, according to the Police Federation, the pay and the conditions of employment lead many police officers to resort to working part-time as, for example, pizza delivery men and nurses?

I acknowledge the arithmetic at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, although the total number of police officers matters, the way in which they are used—the amount of time that they spend in police stations, on operational duties and on administrative duties—is almost as important. We propose to ensure that there is less bureaucracy in the Metropolitan police service, as well as outside it. The Commissioner is taking that plan forward. It will make sure that there are more front-line operational officers available, both in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere.

My right hon. Friend knows that the price of houses is high in London, and that approximately 40 per cent. of new Met recruits come from outside London. In view of the launch of the housing Green Paper and the arrival of a mayor, will the Home Secretary consult colleagues in the House and outside to consider creative ways in which to provide affordable housing for new police recruits?

Yes. The Metropolitan police service already provides a good supply of affordable housing for some new officers. However, I accept that there is a problem, especially with the remuneration of Metropolitan police officers compared with that offered by other employment opportunities. For that reason, the employers have made the offer in the police negotiating board, on the basis of funds that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made available to me and announced in the Budget three weeks ago. I hope that there will be early agreement in the negotiating board so that the differential—which, sadly, the previous Administration bequeathed to the police service—between officers who joined the service before 1994 and those who joined afterwards is greatly reduced.

Will the Home Secretary confirm that the substantial fall in police numbers in London means that in the past eight months, 23 London police stations have either had to close or are no longer open round the clock? What confidence has he that he can rectify the problem of Metropolitan police recruitment and retention? Is he prepared to say how much of the £80 million recently announced for recruitment and retention will be spent on the Metropolitan police? If it is not a good slice, the thin blue line will become ever thinner.

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what I think is his Opposition Front-Bench debut at Home Office questions—certainly in front of me.

By what date he estimates the police forces of England and Wales will have returned police strength to March 1997 levels; and if he will make a statement. [116786]

We anticipate that the impact of our crime fighting fund, which was announced last October, and the additional allocation of resources in the Budget, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred, will enable police numbers to reach their March 1997 level at or before the end of a full five-year parliamentary term.

Does the hon. Gentleman find it difficult to persuade my constituents and others that the information that police numbers in England and Wales will not be restored to the level that existed in 1997 under the previous Administration is not at odds with the election pledge of more bobbies on the beat? In particular, does he find it difficult to explain to my constituents in Hampshire that although our chief constable recently put in a bid under the crime fighting fund for more police officers, a 10 per cent. slice was taken off the top? My constituents do not want officers simply to replace those that we used to have; they want more officers to fight crime on the streets in our towns and villages.

We are focused on having more operational police, in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. As he has referred to his constituents, I draw his attention to the situation in Hampshire, where, although police numbers have declined by 41 to 3,411 since March 1997, civilian support staff numbers have increased by 87 over the same period. The increase in civilian numbers is significant. It includes operational posts such as scene-of-crime and fingerprint officers, and is the result of the chief constable's judgment of how to get best value in reducing crime in his county.

Does the Minister agree that even if police numbers are falling, it is essential to keep to the minimum number of police per shift, and not to breach it? That has obviously happened in Barnet over the past few months, with only 22 policemen on a shift instead of the minimum 32. Does the hon. Gentleman see any parallel between that diminishing number of police on the beat—he must address that problem, and I know that he wants to—and the turnaround in crime in the metropolis, which increased by 8.5 per cent. last year after six years of reduction?

The hon. Gentleman and I discussed that issue in detail during the debate on the police grant. I answered his points then, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, too, has addressed them directly. We are focused on getting more operational police in Barnet, and everywhere else in the metropolitan area, by the means that we have described, which my right hon. Friend discussed a moment ago.

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only police numbers in separate forces, but the way in which those police officers are used, is important? Will he note the fact that the police in my area have managed to get 14 extra officers on the beat in Burnley and Padiham without receiving any extra resources?

My hon. Friend is correct, which is why it was decided—rightly, in my opinion—to give chief constables operational responsibility to decide how to use their resources, rather than having the Home Secretary specify establishment numbers. Increased investment in technology, modernisation of the criminal justice system, and more effective partnerships such as those with which his force in Lancashire is taking a lead, are the ways to achieve more effective operational policing. I would like much more of the debate to focus on those aspects, because that is what the people of this country want.

I thank the Government, and the Minister in particular, for giving Staffordshire police the extra money for 83 more police officers, but does he not realise that that comes on top of a cut of 250, for which the Government will be condemned? He blandly says to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that he wants to leave it up to chief constables to decide what they do with the money that they are given, but does he not realise that in real terms, Staffordshire and other police forces get less money than they received in 1997? Is that not, like the Budget, another example of taking one step forward but three steps backwards?

I have discussed precisely those issues with a delegation of Staffordshire Members of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman, and directly with the chief constable of Staffordshire. I am well aware of the issues, and the fact is that we are increasing the money. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the Budget, because one of its effects will be to ensure that what was a three-year programme to recruit the extra officers to whom he refers will now be completed in two years, and that at least twice as many officers will be recruited in the first year as had been planned. We are moving the programme forward, and a little grace on the hon. Gentleman's part would be in order.

If he will make a statement on the work of the active community unit. [116787]

The active community unit, which works across Departments with the voluntary, statutory and business sectors, aims to encourage a step change and an increase in people's involvement in their communities. It focuses on three areas: raising people's awareness of the benefits of community activity and volunteering, making it easier for them to volunteer, and ensuring that the structures and opportunities are available to allow people to give their time as suits them best.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that community regeneration is not just about renewing the fabric of a community—its housing, schools and estates—but about actively involving people in those decisions and in how their community works? Will he visit my constituency in east Northamptonshire to see the work of the Corby volunteer bureau, the volunteer centre in Thrapston and volunteer action in Oundle? They have recruited people—young and old and from all walks of life—into voluntary activity in urban and rural areas. They actively take part in their communities. Will he come to Corby and see how we can make a difference if we promote these policies?

I would be delighted to visit the volunteer bureau in Corby; my officials have already met the manager. It links people with local volunteering opportunities, making the link between rural and urban areas and, importantly, between the older and the younger generation. That is the way to revitalise and refurbish the sense of community that is vital to create successful communities.

How many people are employed in the unit?

I shall drop the hon. Gentleman a line, but I can tell him that the 100 or so people employed in the unit—[Interruption.]—I shall give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure later. I can tell him that those people are all gainfully employed and doing a very good job, which is more than can sometimes be said for the hon. Gentleman.

What discussions he has had with local authorities outside the south-east about the policy of dispersal of asylum seekers. [116788]

We have had many discussions with local authorities about the dispersal of asylum seekers. The national asylum support service began operating last Monday in respect of all new applicants who have claimed asylum at their port of entry. I am pleased to announce to the House that the new asylum support scheme will be extended to cover asylum seekers who claim asylum in county while in the county of Kent on or after Monday 17 April. The effect of that will be that no asylum seeker making a claim for asylum in Kent on or after that date will be eligible for support from Kent county council or Medway council. I hope that this measure will bring considerable relief to local authorities in Kent. This is the first stage of the roll-out of the support scheme to all in-country applicants.

I am grateful for that welcome news. I am sure that all Kent MPs will leap to their feet and lavish generous gratitude on the Home Secretary for that answer. Does he agree that the impetus to cluster in particular areas came about because of the legislation inherited from the previous Government? If he agrees that that is why we have such problems in Thanet and Dover, did he find it helpful when the Conservative party tried to encourage further applications by voting to restore cash benefits for all asylum applicants? Does he find its current posture and language helpful now, when he is trying to encourage local authorities outside the south-east to become involved in the dispersal process?

I thank my hon. Friend for his expressions of gratitude. We look forward to discovering whether similar approbation is offered by Conservative Members. The policy that we are rolling out across the country has certainly been endorsed by Councillor Melvyn Caplan, the Conservative leader of Westminster city council, who has said that the proposals

offer a considerable move forward in the need to introduce a national asylum seeker policy and relieve the pressure—

When the Home Secretary talks to local authorities, will he be able to help those—including Kent county council and many London boroughs—that have still not been reimbursed by Government for a large amount of their expenditure to date? Will he be able to give them any consolation with regard to the number of applications that can be processed? More case workers are needed, so that the queue can be shortened. Finally, will he be able to commend to them both this morning's statement by the Prime Minister's press secretary, and the declaration signed by all major parties last year? According to that declaration, we need to approach these difficult issues with temperate language, but above all with an accurate statement of the facts and the figures.

Just before coming to the House, I checked the position relating to costs that fall to be refunded by the Home Office, namely those relating to the support system operating in, for example, Kent, for—say—unaccompanied minors. We are refunding all expenses that Kent has claimed, or is likely to claim. I hope that the same applies to London boroughs. The hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that unit costs must be set, and that when they are exceeded—which they are by a few local authorities, although not by others—there is bound to be discussion with the auditors about why some boroughs have not been able to meet the costs, while others, including Kent, have been able to do so.

(Dover): As we wait with bated breath for the floods of gratitude from other Kent Members for the changes that will be brought in later this month, may I add my support for the changes, not least the civil penalties? Now that it has been confirmed that just about all Kent county council's costs for the support of asylum seekers have been reimbursed, what advice does the Secretary of State have for county councillors who continue to try to attach the cost of keeping asylum seekers to increases in council tax? Does he not agree that that is politics at its lowest?

I in turn thank my hon. Friend for his gratitude. I recognise the considerable pressure that his constituents have been under, as have constituents throughout Kent, given the wholly disproportionate burden of asylum seekers that they have had to bear as a result of the system introduced by the 1996 Act. I hope that the change, which will ensure that no new asylum seekers who apply within Kent are a burden on its ratepayers, will help to reduce the overall pressure on such areas; and coupled with that is the new national dispersal system.

(Maidstone and The Weald): Perhaps I can ask the Home Secretary some very simple questions. Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, leader of Kent county council, does not share his rosy view of what he has just done. Sandy Bruce-Lockhart says that, as a result of the 1996 Act, in the last six months of the previous Government, Kent had to process 50 asylum seekers and that, today, it processes several thousands every month. The Home Secretary has talked about unjustified statements by councillors. Is that statement justified or unjustified? Is it accurate or inaccurate?

Of those who have been dispersed—

Kent bear not only the costs but also the casework.

I do not remember mentioning Sandy Bruce-Lockhart. The persons I mentioned were the right hon. Lady and others in the Conservative party, who had been making ill-judged statements. However, let me deal with the two specific points that she raised. She said that there had been very few in-country claims shortly after the 1996 Act came into force. That was true because the arrangements that the previous Government had so incompetently provided ensured that there was no provision at all in the Act for in-country applicants. Such people were due to be left wholly destitute.

Of Kent.

Yes, including Kent. That is all the more reason for us to get the national asylum support scheme in place, and for it not to be disrupted or sabotaged—in the way in which the right hon. Lady sought to do when she voted for an extra £500 million to be spent on eligibility for cash benefits, rather than ensuring that the system got off the ground effectively.

As a matter of fact and accuracy, I have never voted for an extra £500 million. The amendment that we proposed to the House simply said that the Secretary of State should come to the House and assure us that administrative arrangements were in place. What did he do? He came to the House and had to admit that they were not in place, and that he was going to delay their implementation for another six months. What that proved beyond any doubt was the viability of our amendment. I therefore think that, if he has any decent sense of shame, he might start keeping quiet about his attitude to that amendment, rather than trying to distort what we did.

Let me deal with the first point, about the £500 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Don't forget the second."' I was asked two sets of questions, and I certainly shall not forget the second one—I never do.

The Home Secretary promised to answer about the word "bogus", but he did not—I suppose that we must just add that to the list of promises broken. How can the Government say that they have not made this country a soft touch when the facts and figures speak for themselves? We left the Government, under the 1996 Act, a 40 per cent. decrease in asylum seeking. Since then, the numbers have doubled, and the backlog has more than doubled. Every year, tens of thousands of people who are refused permission to stay still stay on regardless.

The right hon. Lady should have looked behind her. That rant was not impressive even to her erstwhile supporters, still less to the House and the country.

Marvellous. Wonderful.

The hon. Gentleman says that with a broad and disbelieving grin across his face.

we have learned from that mistake—[Official Report, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1056.]

What plans he has to stop accused persons from changing their appearance prior to an identity parade. [116790]

Effective identity parades always depend to some extent on the co-operation of suspects. The Government do not believe that legal powers to prevent them from changing their appearance before a parade would be workable, but if they do so between the taking of a photograph at the time of arrest or after charge and any attempt to hold an identification parade, that may be given in evidence if their case comes to trial. The police may then consider whether an identification can be made by other means. Group identification, use of video film and confrontation are methods specifically provided for in the code of practice on identification procedures.

I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive comments. May I draw his attention to the case of my young constituent Gemma, who was indecently assaulted last November? Due to the suspect changing his appearance, plus the use of woolly hats and a two-month delay, when she eventually got to the identity parade, she was unable to pick him out. Perhaps we could make greater use of photographs or videos on arrest to protect the likes of Gemma, so that further women and girls do not have to experience such a distressing and unresolved situation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I have been briefed on the case of Gemma, her constituent. I pay tribute to the campaign work that has been done by Gemma's mother to highlight the issue of suspects changing their appearance prior to identity parades. She assembled a petition and there has been press coverage of this important matter. I emphasise that the code of practice governing identification procedures is under review, so an opportunity is provided to reconsider the detailed rules. A particular issue in the review is how the police should react where the suspect dresses in such a way as to disguise a distinguishing feature, as in the ways mentioned by my hon. Friend.

I appreciate that there is a real problem of a suspect changing his appearance at an identity parade. Will the Minister support my move to bring English law in line with Scots law, where a trial must be brought within 110 days of the accused being charged, for the simple reason that witnesses tend to forget appearance, even down to the colour of a woolly hat, as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned?

The hon. Lady raises a fair point for debate. I can confirm that we are considering ways of meeting that point. It is the case that identification parades in particular are made less reliable the more time passes between the event and the parade.

If he will make a statement on the availability of drug treatment facilities for offenders. [116791]

A key element of the Government's crime reduction strategy is to get drug misusing offenders into treatment and thereby reduce drug-related crime.

I thank the Minister for that response. I am sure that he will be aware of the recent report of Viscountess Runciman of Doxford and the comments within it that it is important that diversion via the criminal justice system does not distort the use of current drug treatment services or the allocation of future resources at the expense of the majority of problem drug users who do not commit crime or who, with effective treatment, could be prevented from committing crime in future. In the light of those comments, what targets will the right hon. Gentleman be setting for the maximum time that anyone, offender or not, should have to wait for drug treatment?

We will not be setting targets, but we will be working closely with the Department of Health, with a view to recruiting about 300 drug workers to complement the existing facilities. There is, as the hon. Lady has identified, a capacity issue. By April 2001, we have a target of 685 drug workers to be recruited and trained. We believe that that will ensure that the concerns that Viscountess Runciman expressed are not realised.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the drug treatment programmes will be more successful if a significant number of the drug workers are recruited from outside agencies that have built up expertise, mainly by using former addicts, who have far more credibility in the eyes of prisoners?

We know from experience in the prison service that the voluntary sector, including the use of people who have hands-on, day-to-day experience of having to cope with drug problems in their own life, can make a real and appreciable difference to the success rate in turning people around from drugs.

(Hitchin and Harpenden): Does the Minister accept that many drug addicts finance their habit by crime? Yet in many areas where addicts wish to break the habit and go on a methadone withdrawal programme, they face a waiting list. They are told to go away and continue financing the habit, and return in a few months. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his rather complacent answer with this extraordinary situation?

The answer is not complacent. We have recognised the need to recruit more drug workers and we are doing so. The right hon. Gentleman should reflect on the experience of his time in office and compare it to what we are doing now. This Government have made available an extra £217 million to tackle the deficit in treatment, and that is money that would never have been provided had he been returned to office at the general election.

Has the Minister seen the comment made by a spokesman for RAPT—the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust—that while the number of people in prison who suffer from alcohol dependency or whose crimes involve alcohol misuse greatly outnumbers those dependent on illegal drugs, the amount spent on illegal drug misuse in prisons is some £70 million but virtually nothing is spent on alcohol offenders? Why is that?

It is certainly not true to say that nothing is spent. Not as much is spent on alcohol abuse as is spent on drug abuse, but we recognise that the two are increasingly linked. It is important that we have in place the treatment facilities that deal with both where appropriate, and that is what we seek to do.

(Surrey Heath): Does the Minister recognise that his policies of letting out more than 2,000 convicted drug dealers and more than 200 international drug traffickers are putting ever more strain on drug treatment facilities? Was not his and the Prime Minister's slogan "Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" just another bogus slogan?

No, because the figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers disguise the fact that the home detention curfew scheme has had a success rate of more than 90 per cent. He and his party supported the proposal on the Home Affairs Committee and his party did not vote against it when it had the opportunity to do so in the House. The scheme is working and it is about better protecting the public, which we intend to continue.

What recent discussions he has had with chief constables about increasing the amount of police officers' time spent on front-line operations against crime and disorder. [116792]

I most recently discussed those matters with chief constables at the Association of Chief Police Officers spring seminar on Thursday. The introduction of best value into the police service and the recycling of efficiency savings into front line policing should allow more police officer time to be spent on reducing crime. Information technology systems being delivered under the national strategy for police information systems and new radio technology being provided as part of the public safety radio communications project will also do much to free officers from administrative burdens.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he is aware that Staffordshire police authority spends 18.3 per cent. of its net expenditure on pensions, which is 50 per cent. above the national average. Since our meeting in March, has he had time to consider ways in which Staffordshire might be able to overcome that historic funding problem? Unlike the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), I welcome the early recruitment of extra police officers for Staffordshire.

I first pay tribute to the work being done by my hon. Friend in campaigning for proper resourcing for policing in Staffordshire and, in particular, addressing the problem with pensions to which she refers. The increasing size of the pensions component within the funding formula nationally went up from 13.2 per cent. in 1998–99 to 14.5 per cent. in 1999–2000. As she says, Staffordshire's 18.3 per cent. is among the highest of the proportions being taken out. As my hon. Friend knows from our meeting, we are actively considering the possibility of having a uniform system across all forces, so the same proportion would be taken out. That would involve serious managerial issues, as I know she understands, but we are actively considering the best way to achieve that. I hope that we will be able to advance proposals for consideration before too long.

Will the Minister give all necessary support to the Hertfordshire police force in its new responsibilities for policing boroughs such as Hertsmere, which were formerly part of the Metropolitan force's area? Is the Minister aware that up to 1 April, there was a perceived lack of any front line police operations—or any other form of visible policing—in Hertsmere, with a total increase in crime of 11 per cent., an increase in violent crime of 51 per cent. and a drop in the clear-up rate of 27 per cent? Is that not an unsatisfactory state of affairs that needs to be put right, and does it not make a mockery of loud claims from Ministers to be better protecting the public?

I certainly can agree to give all support to the forces concerned. I have discussed the matter with the Hertfordshire constabulary and with the Metropolitan police, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to bring about the changes that are being made, which were in response to representations from Members of Parliament with constituencies in the home counties.

What progress is being made with measures to combat domestic violence. [116793]

We are providing at least £4.5 million through the crime reduction programme for projects that aim to reduce domestic violence.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I am sure that it will hearten everyone involved in trying to reduce the scourge of domestic violence. In my borough of Merton, incidents of repeat domestic violence are 10 per cent. above the London average. In the light of that, will he welcome the borough's initiative to put in a joint bid, with Sutton, Kingston and Richmond, to the crime fighting fund for money for an outreach team to deal specifically with the victims of domestic violence? Will he look kindly on that bid when he receives it?

I very much appreciate the initiative that I know that my hon. Friend has taken in Mitcham and Morden regarding domestic violence. I am glad that neighbouring boroughs are putting partnership arrangements in place. I feel sure that the quality of the bid that is likely to emerge from such partnership arrangements is likely to commend itself to officials. However, I cannot anticipate the outcome of the bid.

If he will estimate how many asylum seekers are residing in Eastbourne. [116794]

No asylum seekers have been dispersed to Eastbourne under the interim voluntary dispersal scheme operated by the Local Government Association, the Association of London Government and the London asylum seekers consortium, although 1,797 households have been dispersed elsewhere since 6 December 1999.

Why cannot the Minister answer a relatively simple question? Why have the Government postponed dispersal arrangements in the south-east, even though London boroughs are still abusing the hospitality of places such as Eastbourne by dumping asylum seekers there without telling the local authority? Will she and her colleagues stop using patronising and insensitive words and phrases such as "ill judged" and "unacceptable" to describe the legitimate concerns of ordinary people, such as my constituents, as articulated by the Opposition?

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has been elsewhere this afternoon as he cannot have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's announcement about in-country applicants in Kent. He must also have been elsewhere when the announcement was made about asylum support arrangements for people at ports. He must have been somewhere else entirely in 1996, when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) introduced the arrangements.

When asylum seekers are dispersed around the country to be accommodated in towns such as Eastbourne, which have no history of asylum seekers living in them, is it not all the more important for politicians to take care about the language that they use? Will not the sort of rant that we heard earlier this afternoon and the hysteria in the tabloids lead to serious trouble sooner or later? Asylum seekers will be attacked and harassed, and people will be hurt. In the longer term, will not that cause enormous damage to race relations in this country?

My hon. Friend speaks with authority and expertise on the subject: not only is he a London Member of Parliament, but he chairs the all-party group which considers refugee issues. He is absolutely correct. We have said with regard to dispersal that we will look into areas where there are multicultural communities and support arrangements. That is why we are also grant-funding the Refugee Council to do just that.

In the context of Councillor Caplan's remarks quoted earlier, were the Government prudent to arouse so much hope in so many beleaguered authorities by their overall 1 April start date, when they have patently been unable to deliver it?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we were very grateful for the remarks made by the leader of Westminster council, which were rather more prudent than those of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other Conservative Members. We have looked at the lessons that have been learned, particularly when the Conservative party was in office, with regard to rolling out the scheme. [Interruption.]The right hon. Lady may laugh, but she was clearly shocked at my right hon. Friend's announcement today about Kent. I should have thought that as a Kent Member of Parliament, she would be rejoicing.

What assistance he proposes for schools and local authorities to combat truancy. [116795]

Truancy is a major contributor to youth offending and can have a devastating impact on a child's prospects for later life. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has allocated extra resources through the social inclusion pupil support grant programme, worth some £500 million over three years, to help reduce levels of unauthorised absence and exclusion.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Will he tell me how much of the £500 million pupil support grant will be spent in Coventry and the west midlands, and what schemes he has in mind?

I cannot tell my hon. Friend the detailed breakdown, local education authority by local education authority. However, I can say that a wide range of different types of scheme is being introduced. The most important is to provide proper education places so that children who are otherwise being excluded or truanting can receive a proper education, sometimes in school, sometimes out of school. There have been some successful examples of that in the west midlands, I believe.

(North Shropshire): Who gains if parents of truants are sent to jail for three months?

The main thing is to ensure that parents take their responsibilities—[Interruption.] I will answer the question, but in my own way rather than in the way required by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).

What was the average time taken during 1999 to decide applications for refugee status for asylum seekers admitted into the United Kingdom. [116796]

In 1999, the average time taken to decide asylum applications inherited from before July 1993 was 91 months. For those applications lodged after July 1993, the average time taken was 16 months. By December 1999, the time taken had reduced to 13 months, compared with 20 months in April 1997.

While the speeding up of the processing is welcome, is it not the case that the number of applicants has doubled since this Labour Government came to power? Is it not also the case that if there are 100,000 applicants waiting now, which I believe is true, some 87 per cent. of those will, at the conclusion of processing, be found to be bogus? Would it not be much better to conclude the processing within, let us say, one month, reducing the burden on the taxpayer and eliminating the unrealistic expectations that are fed upon by those who encourage this despicable trade in asylum seekers?

It sounded as if the hon. Gentleman were supporting the Government's policy of a civil penalty, which aims to deal with these issues. For 1999, the figures were as follows: recognised as asylum seekers, 36 per cent.; given exceptional leave to remain, 11 per cent.; not recognised, 54 per cent. That helps put the matter in perspective.