What representations he has received on the impact of means testing on the take-up of benefits; and if he will make a statement. [141802]

The fact that almost three quarters of a million people have responded to the latest minimum income guarantee take-up campaign suggests that, until now, lack of awareness was probably a more significant influence.

Can the Secretary of State explain why he has cancelled the quinquennial review of the Benefits Agency? Is the Department of Social Security trying to hide something sinister, or is he trying to frustrate the House's scrutiny of the work of the Department and the agency—perhaps to prevent the discovery that the Government's means-testing policy of the past five years has resulted in lower benefits take-up rates? Is he concerned that his previously clean-shaven image is being severely tarnished?

I can see that the hon. Lady spent a weekend practising her question. In fact, she asked two questions. As it is Christmas, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to address both important issues that she raised.

First, the House will be aware that, on 15 March this year, I think, the Prime Minister announced that the Government intended to bring together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency that deal with people of working of age to create a new agency, which will be established next year. Consequently, as the Government have already decided to bring together the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service, the usual quinquennial review of the Benefits Agency—which, in simple terms, is conducted to establish whether the Benefits Agency should continue for another five years—was clearly rendered redundant. That is why there is no quinquennial review.

Additionally—for the sake of completeness—the hon. Lady will be aware that, at about the same time, I announced our intention to establish a separate organisation dealing with pensions and pensioners' interests. That deals with the first part of her question.

Secondly, one of the interesting facts to emerge from the take-up campaign is that three quarters of a million people have responded to that campaign. To me, that implies that stigma, or reluctance to claim, is not the big disadvantage that people thought it was. The fact that three quarters of a million people have responded to the take-up campaign implies that they are interested and would like to know more about the minimum income guarantee.

It is interesting also that, of those who did not receive the minimum income guarantee, just over half failed to do so because they had higher incomes than the current minimum income guarantee—which is why we are increasing the minimum income guarantee to £92 next year, and to £100 in 2003—and 41 per cent. failed because they had too much money in the bank. As the hon. Lady will be aware, we are the first Government to get rid of the completely arbitrary and unreasonable limits that stop people receiving help just because they have modest sums in the bank. That is why we propose to scrap the capital rules.

My right hon. Friend will know that many lone parents are working very hard just to keep their heads above water. As failure to claim the guarantee is, in many cases, just ignorance, and as the world is full of ad men trying to get money out of the Government, will my right hon. Friend find someone very imaginative to do a campaign to bring that very excellent support to the attention of those who most need it?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to get all those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee to claim it. That is why we ran the advertising campaign to which three quarters of a million people have responded. However, as I told the House a moment ago, until now, the problem has been that many people who would have qualified for help have failed to do so because there is such a low limit on the sum that they can have in the bank before help is excluded. That is why we are scrapping the capital limits, as many of us have advocated doing for years. Additionally, in two years, we are introducing the pension credit so that, for the first time, saving is rewarded. We will be able to say to people that it always pays to save. Interestingly, Conservative Members oppose both those measures.

May I raise the issue of a benefit that has one of the lowest take-up rates—council tax benefit? A couple of weeks ago, the Department of Social Security published figures showing that 1 million pensioners—about 1,500 people per constituency—are failing to claim an average of £300 each to which they are entitled. Given that the number of people is, if anything, increasing slightly, is the Minister concerned about it? What does he plan to do specifically about council tax benefit?

We are anxious that those who are entitled to benefit should receive it. Although we cannot make people claim money to which they may be entitled but which, for one reason or another, they do not want to claim, I think that two measures will help pensioners. First, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), we are establishing a new organisation specifically to ensure that we can do more to get to pensioners money to which they are entitled far more quickly and effectively.

Secondly, we are greatly simplifying the claims process and the claim form itself. As I have said before, I am confident that we can get rid of the current 40-page claim form and reduce it to fewer than 10 pages. I think that that will be a great help to all those who are entitled to benefits.

Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid adequate attention to the percentage of poorest people applying to take up benefits? I appreciate that many more people are filling in the forms, but many of us are not convinced that benefits are reaching those in greatest need. Will the Minister ensure that we focus on the poorest, many of whom retain the sense of stigma attached to claiming from the state?

I disagree with my hon. Friend about the reluctance to claim. The Department of Social Security wrote to 2.5 million people whom it thought might be entitled to the minimum income guarantee, and 750,000 responded. That is far more than ever before.

How many were successful?

Just under half were successful. People are prevented from getting the minimum income guarantee either because they have too high an income—we are addressing that by raising the minimum income guarantee to £100 from 2003—or because they have too much money in the bank; that is, they have more than the permissible amount.

The Conservatives argue that, because they are against the minimum income guarantee, they would give less to poorer pensioners. That is an absurd position, especially for the party that presided over a huge growth in the number of pensioners living in poverty. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more to ensure that those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee get it. We shall do more, but the evidence suggests that it is not stigma or fear of claiming that get in the way, but the current rules, nearly all of which we have pledged to get rid of over the next couple of years. That will mean that more people will get the help to which they are entitled.

In order to assure us that the ranks of those on means-tested benefit will not be added to by Equitable Life policyholders, will the Secretary of State tell us whether either he or his Department has been in touch with that company or with the Financial Services Authority? If so, what advice did he give or receive? If not, what were his reasons—as a champion of older people—for not doing so?

The answer to that question is that responsibility for the prudential supervision of insurance companies lies with the Financial Services Authority.

If he will make a statement on the payment of housing benefit to eligible students with loans. [141803]

Most full-time students are supported by the student support system, which is designed to meet their needs. Full-time students in vulnerable groups and all part-time students are entitled to claim housing benefit.

The Government's policy of taking into account student loans as full income for housing benefit purposes is affecting mature students in particular, including students at the universities at Lampeter and Aberystwyth. Why count loans as income at all? After all, they are usually paid back with interest at the end of a certain period. Why count loans as income in full, especially if an individual student has not taken out a loan or has taken out only a very small loan?

It is our policy to count all eligible income, and that includes student loans. At the moment, only part-time or vulnerable students can apply for housing benefit. Extra protections are in place to ensure that we do all that we can to enable people in those categories to take advantage of the right to study. Changes will be introduced to the treatment of student loans in income-related benefits, which will mean that lone-parent students will be likely to receive more help during July and August than they have previously.

The Department for Education and Employment will also introduce the child care grant, based on the cost of child care, which will help students who look after dependent children. I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and we are doing our best to tailor the system to enable those who wish to take advantage of education to do so in a practical way.

How many pensioners in Warrington, North are receiving the winter fuel allowance. [141804]

Our latest information is that around 11 million payments have already been issued for this winter, 16,300 of which have been made to those entitled in Warrington, North.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that pensioners in my constituency are very grateful for the ability to turn up their heating without worrying about the bills in winter? In the light of that, can he assure me that all eligible pensioners will receive their cheques before Christmas? Can he also tell the House what assessment he has made of the imp let on the health and well-being of pensioners if the Opposition were ever in a position to withdraw the winter fuel allowance?

Everyone who has received a winter fuel payment in previous years should now have received their winter fuel payment. People who need to claim will also get their money by Christmas if they claimed by the beginning of November. We are still looking at the claims of a small number of people who have claimed since that time, and they will be paid early in the new year.

As for the health of pensioners in the future, most Labour Members recognise the very real problem of fuel poverty, particularly among pensioners, that we inherited. When people judge the political parties, whenever the election comes, they will wonder at the Conservatives, who are making it clear that they will give less money to poor people and that there will be no Christmas bonus, no reward for saving, no free television licence and no winter fuel payment. That sounds like a remarkable manifesto—[Interruption.]

Order. May I make a request to the Secretary of State not to talk about Conservative policy? It is his policy that I am interested in hearing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman genuinely satisfied that all backdated winter fuel payments to people in the Warrington, North constituency have now been received? In reflecting on his answer, is he conscious that on 11 April he said that all backdated payments would be made as soon as possible; that on 20 July, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said that they would all be made by the end of September; and that on 13 November, the hon. Lady said that the target date for ensuring that those backdated payments would be made was the end of March 2001, although she could not be certain that that target would be met? In the light of that, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he will get his act together? Secondly, can he offer us some indication of which will arrive first: the backdated winter fuel payments that are due or Billy Bunter's postal order?

If the hon. Gentleman had his way, those payments would never arrive at all, because he wants to get rid of them. As I have just told my hon. Friend, all those who have received winter fuel payments in previous years should now have received them because they were sent out in good time for Christmas. The only people who needed to apply were men aged between 60 and 65, whose addresses the Department of Social Security does not necessarily have because there is no obligation on men of that age to tell the DSS where they live.

All those who made their claims before the beginning of November should now have received their payment. A small minority of people applied after that time; their claims have to be processed, and we want to make those payments as soon as possible. We are anxious to ensure that all those who are entitled to this year's winter fuel payment of £200 get it. The payment is having a big impact on pensioners—something upon which the hon. Gentleman might care to reflect.

What steps the Government are taking to reduce fuel poverty. [141805]

We are developing a comprehensive strategy to tackle fuel poverty. The winter fuel payment makes an important contribution. For this winter only, we have increased the amount to £200—double the amount paid last winter.

May I assure my hon. Friend that the pensioners in Denton and Reddish are delighted with the £200? However, will he address two particular problems? First, some pensioners are reluctant to spend that money on heating and still live in houses that are inadequately heated. Spending the money on heating will improve the quality of their life no end, so will he plead with them to do so? Secondly, is he aware that too many pensioners still live in houses that are heating the neighbourhood, and that he needs to work very hard to promote the Government's home energy saving scheme?

I thank my hon. Friend for those questions. Eliminating fuel poverty is important, and more needs to be done. The Government will soon publish their strategy on fuel poverty, which will address the issues raised by my hon. Friend. The reason why a one-off payment is made at the start of winter is precisely to encourage people to use it for the purpose of heating. It would be far less likely that the money would be spent on heating if the winter fuel allowance were abolished, or paid in weekly instalments.

The old home energy efficiency scheme provided grants of up to £315 per household; the new scheme, which we introduced in June, can make payments of up to £1,000 per household and £2,000 for households with people aged over 60. That is a substantial improvement. By 2004, the new HEES budget will be £600 million and the scheme will be helping 800,000 vulnerable households—more than half of which will be pensioner households.

What percentage of the social fund is spent on administration costs. [141806]

In 1998–99, social fund payments and recoveries amounting to £1,114 million were made at an administrative cost of £215 million. That cost represents 19.3 per cent. of both expenditure and recoveries.

Although those figures show a massive improvement in the administrative costs of the social fund from those under the previous Conservative Government, does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Labour Government's priority is to help the poorest section of the community and as the social fund is aimed at that group, the fund and loans through it remain too expensive administratively? Is it not time that we introduced a better and fairer system to help the people who are most in need?

We keep the system under review. Clearly, we need to drive down administrative costs as much as possible, although any system that entails us making detailed inquiries into individual circumstances will, by its nature, cost more than a more automatic scheme, such as child benefit. The Conservatives have said that they would take £90 million from the social fund; that would make it increasingly harder to give money to the poorest and most vulnerable.

Will the Minister confirm that there was a 9 per cent. rise in a single year—last year—in applications to the social fund? What are the implications of that for the Government's progress in tackling poverty?

The rise, I suspect, has something to do with the changes to the budgeting loan system, which we introduced last year and which enabled more people to apply. There has been a 9 per cent. increase in the number of grants given; that is because extra people became eligible after the changes to the budgeting loan system.

That system and the social fund can only be the fund of last resort. We are trying to tackle child poverty and other forms of poverty at their source. That includes introducing programmes such as the working families tax credit and enabling tone parents to go out to work to support themselves and their children by setting up child care and by allowing them to have access to initiatives such as the new deal for lone parents—which the Conservatives would scrap. We believe in dealing with the causes of poverty as well as its symptoms.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the overall administration costs of the DSS may have increased because of its extra responsibilities of dealing with the miners compensation scheme? Is there a case either for scrapping that clawback altogether, or for increasing the number of administrators at the DSS to speed up the average of 28 days taken to deal with those claims?

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the miners compensation scheme does not feature at all in the administrative costs of the social fund. I know that my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry are doing all that they can to speed up payments and to ensure that the oldest and most ill people are the first to receive the payments that they deserve.

What is his most recent estimate of the take-up of the minimum income guarantee. [141808]

The latest estimate is that nearly 2 million pensioners are claiming the minimum income guarantee. That will mean that the poorest pensioner households are at least £15 a week better off in real terms as a result of the measures that we have introduced since 1997.

It is a wonderful achievement for the Government that both the minimum income guarantee and the pensioner credit will be increased by the top level of inflation—by the earnings rate—and that the increase in pensions next year will he the first for 25 years that has been higher than both measures of the inflation rate. However, should we not now consider combining all those measures into a simple scheme—a new national insurance fund, free-standing and run by independent managers paid by results? Such a scheme would give pensioners what they want, which is an assurance that their incomes will not be reduced by future inflation.

I assume that my hon. Friend's first remark was an acknowledgement of what the Government have done for pensioners, both through next April's increase in pensions and by ensuring that we do more to help the poorest pensioners.

However, I disagree with my hon. Friend's second point. The problem that we have to deal with is that the inequality between pensioner incomes now is as great as it was nearly 40 years ago, and an across-the-board pension increase would not deal with that inequality. We wanted to do more for the poorest pensioners. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which will rise to £100 in 2003. Crucially, we also wanted to do more for the millions of pensioners—more than half the pensioners in this country—who have a little money in the bank and some modest savings, and who should be rewarded for their thrift, whereas under the present system, which we inherited, they are penalised for having saved.

I also disagree with my hon. Friend in that I believe that there should be a partnership between state provision and people's own funded provision. What my hon. Friend suggested sounded suspiciously like moving everybody into totally funded provision. That is not the right thing to do, particularly for lower earners as everybody knows, they should not be in funded provision, because it would not suit them.

In answer to Question 2, the Secretary of State gave the House the welcome news that three quarters of a million people had responded to the minimum income guarantee campaign asking for further details. In the next sentence, he went on to say that half those people had made successful applications. I am sure that that is wrong. For the avoidance of doubt, will he tell us how many people made successful applications?

Secondly, the Department's own figures recently suggested that £2 billion to £4 billion in possible expenditure is left unclaimed. Those figures are almost the same as the sums talked about in connection with fraud within the Benefits Agency system. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that local offices can take initiatives on take-up campaigns themselves, in addition to the national strategic advertising campaign for the minimum income guarantee?

About 143,000 additional claims have been processed. I was referring to the fact that just under three quarters of a million people had responded to the campaign. My point was that the problem does not appear to be stigma, or a reluctance to claim, but the fact that, because of income levels, or because people can lose all entitlement to help unless they have £8,000 or less in the bank, too many people do not qualify. Those are not rich people; they are people who need assistance, and we are determined to ensure that they get it.

The hon. Gentleman made a further point about unclaimed benefits. Undoubtedly there are unclaimed benefits, but the fact that so many people responded to us suggests that, rather than there being a reluctance to claim, many people simply do not qualify because of the rules that we inherited. That is why we are scrapping the capital rules when the pension credit starts in two years' time, and why we have increased the minimum income guarantee to £92 next year, rising 10 £100 the year after. I want to ensure that all who need help get it. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the embryo of that policy was what the Liberals proposed at the general election.

I am not entirely sure that I can agree with all that, because six weeks ago the Minister told me that 500,000 elderly people who were entitled to the MIG did not apply for it. It is not that they applied and got knocked back; nine months after the start of the take-up campaign, 500,000 elderly people are still not applying. It seems to me that those people are likely to be very elderly and frail, with failing eyesight and hearing. If we mean what we say about reaching the poorest pensioners, might not the only way of doing that be to employ people to knock on doors, speak to those people and encourage them to take up their entitlement?

At the last Social Security questions, it was probably right that 500,000 had then responded. The figure is now nearly three quarters of a million, simply because more people have responded in the past five weeks. My hon. Friend makes a perfectly legitimate point—some pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee and other help have not yet applied for it, and we are constantly looking at what to do about that. I tell him and the others who complain about the minimum income guarantee that it is the most effective way to get far more money to some of the poorest people in this country. They are getting fives times more than they would have done if we had restored the earnings link. By all means let us consider what further steps need to be taken to reach some of those pensioners, but our proposal is the only way to ensure that we can get more help to those pensioners who live in poverty, which was never done when the Tories were in power. I am determined, and I am sure my hon. Friend is, to ensure that pensioner poverty is a thing of the past.

The Secretary of State is perhaps about to give the House some useful information—it is a bit like extracting teeth, but we can put together the answers that he has recently given. He says that 600,000 application forms have been returned and that 130,000 or 140,000 forms are being processed. He said earlier that half the applications were successful. So is he saying that there have been between 60,000 and 70,000 successful claims for the minimum income guarantee as a result of his take-up campaign, as against approximately 700,000 pensioners who are entitled to it but are not claiming it?

Let me explain the position so that even someone with two brains can understand it. Just under 750,000 people have responded to the latest take-up campaign. I make the point yet again that that implies that stigma, or the reluctance to claim, is not the problem in relation to the minimum income guarantee. In answer to a further question, I said that 143,000 additional new claims have been processed. A large number of people were told when they phoned that they would not qualify because they had too much money in the bank, or because their income was too high. That is why fewer claims are being processed, but more claims are still in the pipeline. Some 62,000 claims have been successful.

The hon. Gentleman may weep crocodile tears about the number of people who are successful, but he opposes the minimum income guarantee and would ensure that pensioners received even less money as a result. He did absolutely nothing about the growing levels of pensioner poverty when he was in office. If people were to vote for the Conservatives again, they would be faced with scrapping the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel payment, free television licences and the Christmas bonus. As a result, millions of pensioners would be worse off under his proposals.

It took questions from three different parts of the House, but we have got there: we now know that there have been 62,000 successful claims for the minimum income guarantee as a result of the massive take-up campaign, although the Government know that more than 600,000 pensioners are entitled to it but are not claiming it. Thus we are talking about a success rate of less than 10 per cent. Does not that show that the Government's take-up campaign has been a conspicuous failure and that it would be a jolly sight better to put the money into a straightforward increase in the basic pension?

The hon. Gentleman is not proposing to do that; he is against the minimum income guarantee and against giving more money to the poorest pensioners in this country. With respect, he is missing the point. The fact that 750,000 people responded to the campaign suggests to me that the real problem is not stigma, or a reluctance to claim, but the artificially low limits on the amount of money that people can save before being denied help—something that his Government did absolutely nothing about in the 18 years that they were in office. A further problem is that, until now, those pensioners who are the poorest in society have been getting too little, which is why we are increasing the minimum income guarantee. But make no bones about it, the Tories do not propose to give the poorest pensioners more money. More than 2 million pensioners do not even qualify for the full pension, so an across-the-board increase would do absolutely nothing to help them. The Tories presided over a record growth in the number of pensioners living in poverty, and if they got their chance, they would continue exactly the same policy again.

How many more pensioners will be means-tested in the next financial year under measures announced in the pre-Budget statement. [141809]

We estimate that a further 500,000 pensioners will benefit from the significant increase in minimum income guarantee rates and capital limits from next year. The poorest pensioners will gain £12.45 a week as a result of the measures that we announced last November alone.

If someone applies for asylum and does not succeed, the Government and others call him a bogus asylum seeker, but someone who applies for the minimum income guarantee and does not succeed—most applicants appear not to—is simply called someone who did not succeed. I hope that the Government will apply some consistency in their language.

I have a simple question. What increase in the basic pension would the Government have to make to ensure that the majority of applicants for the minimum income guarantee received it?

They would not get it. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to grapple with a problem. Many people have expressed an interest in the minimum income guarantee, but he and others have argued that people are reluctant to claim it because of the stigma that is attached to claiming. Those arguments do not stand up. We have identified the fact that people are unsuccessful either because they have too much money in the bank—we are getting rid of the capital limits to remove that artificial prohibition on receiving help—or because they have too much income, and we are dealing with that by raising the minimum income guarantee to £92 next year and up to £100 the year after that.

On the hon. Gentleman's specific question, when we increase the capital limits next year as a stepping stone to getting rid of them, nearly 500,000 people will gain as a result.

I remind the hon. Gentleman and other Liberal Democrats that their policy at the previous election was not based on a huge across-the-board pensions increase. They said:

We will create an additional top-up pension for pensioners with incomes below the income support level. This will be indexed to earnings and tapered as outside income increases.

In other words, they proposed the embryo of what we are enacting. As a result of what we have done, 2 million pensioners are £15 a week better off.

It has been claimed that many elderly people are simply too proud to claim the minimum income guarantee. I have yet to find any such person in my constituency. I find that, when people know about the guarantee, they want to claim the money. Some people still do not know about it, so will my right hon. Friend think of ways in which we could further increase awareness? For example, we could use local media outlets, local campaigns and local officials who could visit sheltered accommodation and places where many elderly people live to promote awareness.

Some claims have not succeeded because of the savings limit, so will my right hon. Friend write directly to all the people who have been affected and advise them of the doubling of the limits and of their eventual disappearance and replacement with the pensioner credit?

We will get in touch with the people who have just missed out. It is important that they realise that they may be eligible for help after next April.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not stigma or a reluctance to claim that is the problem. The problem is that artificially low limits have been imposed on the amount that pensioners can save. We want to make sure that those artificial limits are removed, which is why we are getting rid of the capital limits.

We also want to make sure that we can do far more than an across-the-board increase could ever do for the poorest pensioners, and that leads me on to another difference between us and the Conservatives. At present, if people do what successive Governments have told them to do and save for their retirement, they will lose out and be penalised. That is why the pension credit will ensure that, when people save for their retirement, they will receive a cash top-up to reward them for their thrift. That is a strategy to encourage more people to save for their retirement and will remove the problem that we inherited. In this, the fourth largest economy in the world, we were left by the Tories with 2 million pensioners who did not have enough to live on. That state of affairs has no place in a decent society.

Before the Government were elected, their spokesmen made moving speeches about abolishing means-testing for pensioners, but now that they are in office, 55 per cent. of all pensioners will be on means-tested benefits within three years. Has there been a change of policy or has something gone wrong?

More pensioners are getting more money under Labour. I hope the hon. Gentleman has got that. I hope that that situation continues because I would not want to leave pensioner poverty in the same state as the Conservative party left it. Pensioner poverty has no place in a decent society and we are going to make absolutely sure that it does not happen. There will be more pensioners with more money under Labour.

How many pensioners in Chorley will benefit from the winter fuel payment. [141810]

Some 17,600 winter fuel payments have been made to people in Chorley who are entitled to them.

I welcome that. The payment is warmly welcomed in Chorley and its residents look forward to it being paid in years to come. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that that will be the case for the lifetime of this Government and that, unlike the Conservatives, we are committed to providing that payment?

Yes, following the exchanges on Question 4, it is clear that we are committed to that payment. It is extremely popular and it gets money to people over the age of 60. I do not want to fall out with you, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that that is taken on board by my hon. Friend's Tory opponent at the general election.

What his estimate is of the annual cost of fraud in the social security system. [141811]

Social security fraud is estimated to cost the country at least £2 billion a year. We recently published figures that show a significant fall in fraudulent claims for jobseeker's allowance and income support. As a result, we are on target to reduce fraud by 10 per cent. by 2002 and to halve it by 2006.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether those figures include the cost of measures that have been introduced to detect fraud? Does he agree that prevention is better than cure and that designing out fraud is as important as rooting out fraud? Will he report on progress in simplifying the social security system so that more people can understand it and in reducing dependency on means-tested benefits and credits?

My hon. Friend asks several questions. The answer to the first is no. The figure that I gave of £2 billion of fraud is established as a loss. Other figures have been bandied about, but they are based on strong or mild suspicion. We have a programme protection system. It costs several hundred million pounds a year to run and it protects a budget of £100 billion. However, it is necessary.

We have made considerable savings in the cost of fraud in this Parliament. We have saved more than £1 billion by implementing checks on new income support claimants, which is an improvement on the situation that prevailed before we took office. We have introduced several measures, which I could read to the House, and new legislation was forecast in the Queen's Speech. It is important to ensure that the correct benefit is paid to the correct person at the start of the claim and to keep that right. That is the one way to prevent fraud from entering the system.

The Minister might recall that in a previous Question Time I referred to an article in The Economist, which suggested that the amount of disability fraud is now so large and prevalent that the Government have given up trying to calculate it. The Minister was unable to estimate the level of disability fraud, but as time has now passed will he share such information with the House?

No, not without being given notice of such a specific aspect of fraud. It is true—there is no question about it—that it is at a high level. We shall introduce legislation to fill gaps in our armoury against fraud, which I hope all hon. Members will support.

We have better-trained fraud investigators than ever before. The Department has recently taken on the former deputy director of MI5 and the former head of investigations at Customs and Excise. We are bringing into the Department people with better experience of rooting out fraud within the system. There is too much fraud, and we must do everything possible to cut it, whether it occurs in claims for disability benefits or other benefits.

Would the Minister care to consider for a moment that there is another form of fraud that his Department urgently needs to address? I refer to cases in which the administration and delivery of housing benefit is contracted out to various companies, which blatantly fail to perform that task. That results in thousands of people mistakenly being assigned rent arrears and, if they are local authority or housing association tenants, being threatened with the loss of their home, or, in the case of many private tenants, losing their home.

Is the Department prepared to look seriously at the appalling record of many of those companies—particularly IT Net, which administers the service in Islington and Hackney—with a view to terminating those contracts, ensuring that the job is done efficiently in-house and removing for many people the threat that they will lose their home?

My hon. Friend raises important issues. In the administration of housing benefit, there are incompetent local authorities, just as there are incompetent private companies. The contracts to which my hon. Friend refers are awarded by the local authority, and it is not within my Department's competence to terminate them. The benefit fraud inspectorate scrutinises housing benefit authorities and publishes reports. In some cases there is collusion between tenants and landlords, and we must take steps to root that out as well.

It is outrageous that someone's home should be put at risk because of the straightforward incompetence of the private company to which benefit administration has been contracted out or the public sector that has not supervised the contractor sufficiently.

Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the answer on benefit fraud that he gave me on 13 November at column 640, when he said that the guidelines on the protection of customer information were identical to those that had previously been issued? It is clear that the discretion given to staff under the new guidelines is much greater than before and that there are other material differences.

Does the Minister also regret the written answer that he gave on 30 November, promising to deposit the old guidelines in the Library so that Members could compare them with the new ones? A few minutes before Question Time began, those guidelines had still not been placed in the Library.

Unarguably, paragraph 519 of the guidelines makes it clear that the Department will withhold from the police the identity of burglars, muggers and thieves. It is also clear from paragraph 511 that assaults on the Department's staff warrant disclosure, but assaults on members of the public do not. Is the Minister aware that, despite the guidance given in paragraph 517, the police are still struggling to get co-operation on matters as serious as murder? Is it any surprise that police morale is at an all-time low? Will the right hon. Gentleman stop defending the indefensible and change the guidelines?

May I, first, apologise to the hon. Gentleman about the placing of the guidelines in the Library? Frankly, there has been a complete and utter breakdown. I answered a question and gave specific instructions. I rewrote the answer to the effect that, for comparison, I would put the previous guidelines in the Library until the last day of this year. They should be there, and I regret that they are not. I hope that they will be there by the end of Question Time. The delay is unforgivable and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

In a letter to the hon. Gentleman or in one of my answers I said that there were on-going discussions between my Department and the Home Office. They went on for a considerable time, and they have been concluded to my satisfaction and that of the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). A new concordat will be written and agreed by my Department, the Home Office and the police, so that there will be no complaints about the police not being able to get the information that they need from DSS officers in the pursuance of crime. There will be a change, as I forecast in one of my answers to the hon. Gentleman.

How many former far east prisoners of war have applied to the War Pensions Agency for payment. [141813]

I checked the numbers this morning and can confirm that, as of today's date, 12,200 forms have been issued and 11,300 completed claims received.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be welcome to those of my constituents who are eligible to apply. Does he agree that the speedy issuing of forms and the acceleration of claims will be good news for my constituent, John Darby, who was captured in 1942 and served on the infamous railway of death? Now in his 80s, he is not in the best of health and he hopes to receive his compensation before his health worsens further.

I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the matter and that she secured a debate in the House on compensation for far east prisoners of war two years ago. I can guarantee that the Government will move as quickly as they can to make the payments. We hope to be able to start making payments—indeed, to make the majority of them—in February next year.

The Minister will recall that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence was praised—rightly so—for the apparently comprehensive nature of the original settlement. Is he aware that it is now being said that those Gurkhas who became far east prisoners of war will, uniquely, be excluded from the scheme? I appreciate that the matter is not the direct responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, although it does arise from today's question, but if he cannot give me an assurance today, will he ensure that I am written to in the near future? Given the service that they have rendered this country, it would be i4uite unthinkable to leave Gurkhas out of the arrangement.

The policy is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence, who will read the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have enormous respect for the Gurkhas—indeed, last year, for the first time, Gurkhas served in the regiment based in my constituency, 2 Signals Regiment. However, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the position during the second world war was different, in that there were no Gurkha regiments in the British Army; s such regiments were all members of the Indian army. On India becoming independent in 1948, responsibility for all matters relating to Indian army regiments passed to the Indian Government and subsequently the Indian and Pakistani Governments.

There is a moral responsibility.

The reason the Canadian Government have a similar scheme to ours is that they take responsibility for the Canadian service men who were imprisoned in the far east during the war. Responsibility for each contingent of the allied forces lies with the Government under whom those forces served.

What representations he has received in respect of the proposed pension credit. [141817]

To date, we have received slightly more than 150 responses to the pension credit consultation exercise, which runs until 28 February next year.

Thousands of pensioners in my constituency who receive only modest occupational pensions have repeatedly told me that they feel that, having made provision for their old age, they receive no practical benefit for having done so and that, in many ways, they wish that they had not made that provision. The announcement of the pension credit is a major step toward satisfying such concerns. However, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in the scheme's introduction, consideration is given to ensuring that any application form is as simple and as straightforward as possible, and that his Department will examine imaginative ways of ensuring that all those who are eligible to apply for the pension credit do so?

The application form for pension credit will be unlike any other form ever issued by my Department. It will be short, simple, easily understood and an absolute joy to fill in for the millions of pensioners who will gain from the pension credit, for whom the Conservatives, who oppose the credit, do not have the time of day.

The Minister might not be a Member of Parliament when the form becomes available, but can he answer the following question? As the current take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee is being conducted on such a scale and is eliciting so many responses, why did his Department not include in that exercise questions that could have enabled it to identify those who would benefit from the pension credit?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the pension credit had not been introduced when we started the MIG take-up campaign, and it took several months to plan it. We have information from those who made unsuccessful MIG claims. As my right hon. Friend said, both the income and capital figures are changing next April. It should be easy to access the information provided by unsuccessful claimants. We have tried to make the process as simple as possible. Introducing other information—we could not do so, because the scheme was not announced—would have put people off. It would have added to the complications of the form that they had to complete.

Which groups of elderly carers will gain from his recently announced changes in benefits for carers. [141818]

We intend to remove the upper age limit for claims to invalid care allowance. Subject to parliamentary approval, this measure will allow carers aged 65 and older who meet the normal entitlement conditions to be awarded ICA. Carers whose rate of basic state pension is less than the rate of ICA will benefit, as will carers receiving the pensioner minimum income guarantee, who will receive the carer premium.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that those measures are widely welcomed in my constituency, especially those for older carers? On the day that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the uprating of benefits in November, I was addressing the annual meeting of Redbridge Carers Association. It particularly welcomed the extension of ICA for over 65-year-olds. How many people will benefit from this measure and from the eight-week run-on for the bereavement allowance for over 65s?

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done, in both her constituency and the House, on behalf of carers. Our announcement to extend eligibility to apply for ICA to people over 65 has been warmly welcomed. For instance, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation wrote:

We are particularly pleased that older carers will now have their work recognised by the extension of "carers allowance" to people over 65.

We believe that 40,000 pensioners will gain as a result of the changes that we intend to make. Some 15,000 will gain eligibility to ICA, and some 25,000 will gain entitlement to the carer premium.

What assessment he has made of the effect of disability benefit withdrawal from people seeking jobs. [141819]

It is important not to penalise anyone who is seeking work. Disability living allowance is based on a person's care and mobility needs, and is paid irrespective of whether they are working, not working or seeking work.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that many disabled people face, in effect, a precipice of benefit withdrawal as they enter work and come off benefit? That applies not only to the independent living fund but to many other forms of benefit. What action will the Minister and the Department take to ensure that disabled people who are rightly seeking to enter the job market—many thousands of them are—can do so with confidence of future security?

We are putting in train a number of changes to the benefit system to remove disincentives to work for those people who are disabled, who want to work and who are able to secure a job. For instance, we extended the linking rule in incapacity benefit from eight weeks, when we took office, to 52 weeks. For those who benefit from the disabled person's tax credit, we stretched the linking rule further from eight weeks to two years. We have made changes to the rules of the independent living fund, so that ILF customers who are able to work can keep a greater proportion of their income.

Through the new deal for disabled people, we continue to make it possible for more disabled people who want to work to do so. According to the Government's labour force survey, more than 1 million disabled people are on incapacity benefits and they say that they would like to work. Our policies—the changes to the benefit system and the new deal—are making it possible for more disabled people to achieve their ambition to get a job.

As the Minister mentioned disincentives, does he accept that they are a factor in the considerations of disabled people who want to return to the labour force? Will he continue to press the matter, with particular reference to the independent living fund? The package that he announced, on its own and unsupported, is by no means adequate to get people back to work at a reasonable level of income, and the perverse disincentive has not been eliminated. What other action does he plan to reduce the elements of disincentive that remain in a system in which the Government pile on further means tests and, by implication, further disincentives to honest employment, when all that those people want is honest employment?

I know that the hon. Gentleman means well, but the very tight means test on the independent living fund was introduced by his party. We relaxed it to enable those ILF customers who work to keep a larger proportion of their earnings. We made that change to provide the sort of incentive to work that the hon. Gentleman suggests ought to be provided. I agree that it ought to be provided. It is just a shame that it was not provided by his party when it was in government.

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

As the House knows, vehicle crime is a serious problem, and one of the crimes that most concerns the public. Nearly 400,000 cars are stolen each year and 120,000 of those are never recovered. Vehicle crime accounts for nearly a fifth of all recorded crime and costs, at a conservative estimate, about £3 billion a year. It causes great distress and inconvenience to victims, as all of us know who have suffered from vehicle crime—in my case, before 1997, although I accept that it has gone on since 1997—[Laughter.] Thank you. Vehicle crime also ties up the resources of the criminal justice system.

Two years ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set a national target of reducing vehicle crime by 30 per cent. by 2004. As the Minister with responsibility for delivering the target, I thought that that was, in the current parlance, challenging, but I accepted it none the less. There is a good possibility that we will reach that target. The Bill forms an integral part of our strategy for reducing vehicle crime.

Although it is some time since I suffered from vehicle crime—there were special reasons for that—it is still a serious problem. None the less, vehicle crime has already fallen by 17 per cent. according to recorded crime figures. In a different context, I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that, after about two months of denying its veracity, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition prayed in aid the British crime survey, which is the most thorough and authoritative survey of the total levels of recorded and unrecorded crime. The survey shows a similar trend for vehicle crime, and shows that it fell by 15.1 per cent. in the period—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Of course, in one second.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Just let me finish the sentence. That period covered the calendar year 1997 and the calendar year 1999. The reduction in vehicle crime is the result of effective targeting by the police, working in partnership with manufacturers and the community. However, we have to do more. I shall give way, first to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and then to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

The Home Secretary referred to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Will he take the opportunity to make it clear that he does not believe that my right hon. Friend is a racist or was guilty of racism? If people have taken the Home Secretary's remarks in that way and believe that, will he apologise for their effect?

The answer is no. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman's question is in order, as we are discussing the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to say parenthetically in the House, as I have done outside, that I believe that the Leader of the Opposition played the race card in his speech, I am happy to do so. In case the hon. Gentleman has not caught up with the news, I note that the apologies on the record have been forthcoming from the shadow Home Secretary, who said that she was extremely sorry if the Taylor family was distressed about the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. That is my understanding of what has been said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Yes, of course.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is his position that, any time that we decide to raise the issue of stop and search or the aftermath of the Macpherson report, that is playing the race card? Will he note that I did not apologise for comments made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? The only thing for which I expressed any regret at all was any distress that might have been felt. However, I did not believe that that was caused by my right hon. Friend's remarks, but rather by the press coverage and the interpretation of those remarks by the Home Secretary.

Order. Now that the right hon. Lady has finished, we will get on to the Second Reading of the Bill.

I shall return to the Bill. The hon. Member for Buckingham wished to ask a question.

Given the Home Secretary's enthusiasm for the British crime survey, will he confirm that he accepts its finding that vehicle crime is approximately twice the level of that which is recorded in the official statistics?

Yes, I will. The British crime survey tells us what we already knew—that the number of recorded vehicle thefts is pretty near 100 per cent. of the figure shown by the survey. When people's vehicles are stolen, most of them report that for insurance purposes. However, the recording of thefts from vehicles is much lower than that for vehicle theft, not least because the items stolen are sometimes below the excess on the insurance. Speaking personally, during the ancien regime, my stereo was stolen twice when my vehicle was parked at Preston station. On both occasions, I did not report the theft, because it was not really worth it. The vehicle was then stolen from outside my house in Blackburn.

Why did the right hon. Gentleman not use a crook lock?

I did use a crook lock but, unfortunately, a crook lock has not yet been designed that can anchor the stereo to a vehicle. That may, however, be dealt with in the next Conservative manifesto, which might tell us that the Conservatives have solved that geometric problem.

I was about to point out—this comment is both in order and timely—that when my vehicle was stolen, I reported its theft not only to the police, but to the world's most important newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph. I offered as a reward two tickets for the next game to be played at Ewood Park by Blackburn Rovers. I am pleased to say that the temptation of the tickets was such that, within half an hour of the newspaper's appearance on the streets, someone had telephoned the local criminal investigation department to tell it who had stolen the vehicle. Someone else who happened to spot the vehicle also phoned the local CID to tell it where it was. As a result, I got my vehicle back and the offenders were arrested, charged and subsequently convicted.

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can tell the House whether the Bill extends to dodging bandwagons, but will he comment on whether it extends to abandoned vehicles? Such vehicles are currently dealt with by the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. Does the Bill have scope to criminalise the abandonment of vehicles? Kent county council has given me statistics showing that 1,472 vehicles were abandoned between 1997 and 1998. It is estimated that that figure will increase to 11,600, which will cost the council and the council tax payer in Kent some £650,000. The increase is set to continue, as the price of scrap and of cars is falling. Is there scope in the Bill to deal with the problem?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Bill does not cover abandoned vehicles, although it applies where they are subsequently put into the salvage system.

What about flat-backed lorries?

I dare may that bandwagons and flat-backed lorries are also covered.

We are open to arguments on whether the Bill should include other arrangements for abandoned vehicles and on whether the problem with abandoned vehicles is an inadequacy in criminal law or in its enforcement.

Did the right hon. Gentleman plead guilty to contributory negligence for failing to fit a crook lock when he lost his vehicle? Furthermore, does he accept that the Bill does not go far enough on the investigation and seeking out by the police of stolen vehicles? Will he consider contributing proper resources to that investigation, which is more important than the issue of an incident number for insurance purposes?

The hon. Lady's first point gives me the opportunity to return to the traumatic moment when I lost my vehicle. I thank her for that opportunity, as it was thanks to the great affection in which Blackburn Rovers is held that I got the vehicle back—a fact that enables me to put on record in Parliament my affection and support for the team and my congratulations to it on its magnificent victory against Burnley yesterday. [Interruption.] There is no point in Opposition Front Benchers chuntering. There have been few more important occasions in Blackburn and Burnley than yesterday's victory.

The hon. Lady's second and more serious point related to investigation. The police are doing a great deal of work on investigating the criminal rings that are often responsible for vehicle theft and are trying not to treat each such theft as a single crime committed by an individual crook without any other criminal record. That is why we are investing a lot of resources in intelligence analysis. I accept that a good deal more can be done, but the decrease of recorded and unrecorded vehicle crime, including thefts of and from vehicle is a testament to the partnership between manufacturers and the community that I mentioned earlier.

rose—

rose—

If I may, I shall make progress, but I shall take more interventions later.

We believe that the Bill will make a significant impact in achieving our target. In drawing up the Bill, we were advised by the vehicle crime reduction action team, which included representatives from even sector of the vehicle industry as well as the police, motorists and insurers. I helped to launch its report at about this time last year in Leicester.

A number of problems that are not covered by existing legislation were identified by the action team. There is no control over motor salvage dealers, who may receive stolen vehicles, nor, astonishingly, has there been any control over the supply of number plates to unscrupulous motorists. Indeed, plenty of motorists who get a number plate, as I did not long ago for a trailer, are surprised that they can walk into the premises of any supplier of plates and tell the supplier what numbers they want. A plate can be supplied without any record being held.

rose—

rose—

I shall give way in a moment.

Written off cars may be repaired I and returned to the road without any check being made on their identity. As we know, some are stolen vehicles in disguise.

On registration plates, is the Home Secretary aware that some 7 million plates are produced every year, and that 2 million go on new cars and 2 million on trade-ins? Where do the others go?

Well, as I also know, occasionally—[Interruption.] No. A lot of plates will replace those of existing vehicles—for example, when someone has backed into another vehicle or been backed into.

What estimate has the Home Secretary made of the number of extra police officers who will be required to enforce the new legislation? Has he had a chance to read this week's edition of The House Magazine, which carries an article by the chairman of the Police Federation entitled "Policing in Crisis"? He says:

There's a huge suspicion and a powerful sense of unease in the police service …

There is a drive to reduce costs whatever the consequences.

Morale is the worst I have ever seen it.

Has the Home Secretary read that article? How can the legislation be enforced with police numbers lower than those recorded in 1997?

As it happens, I have not read the Christmas edition of The House Magazine, but look forward to doing so. I am familiar, however, with the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I do not accept that the police service is in crisis. I happen to note that the chairman of the Police Federation, for whom I have a lot of regard, tends to make such remarks about every six months and has been doing so for the past 10 years—they are just a hardy annual. On other occasions, he has claimed that the single most damaging policy—pursued not only by this Government, but by the previous one—was the abolition of the housing allowance in 1994 in the wake of the Sheehy report. A direct consequence of that was that it became more difficult to recruit additional police officers, which is why, perhaps, the reduction in the Metropolitan police service under the previous Administration was significantly greater than that recorded since we have been in office. Those numbers are, at last, turning round.

We want costs to be reduced in the police service, as we do in every other public authority, and that is happening. We are now all agreed that the British crime survey is the best measure of crime and I am therefore delighted to note that, not least as a result of the good work of the police service, overall crime has gone down under this Administration by 10 per cent.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

No, no. The rates of vehicle crime, domestic burglary and crimes of violence are also down.

I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). There are matters that the Bill does not necessarily cover that my constituents would want it to include, such as the frustrating issue of dumped vehicles. I have the dishonour to represent the car crime capital of Britain—there are more thefts from motor vehicles in Slough than in any other constituency. Obviously, that has nothing to do with how the local force polices, and although vehicle crime in my constituency has increased over the past year, it has reduced by a third in Milton Keynes, which is in the same police force area. Will the Home Secretary consider extending the scope of the Bill to include measures to reduce theft from motor vehicles and to deal with the problem of dumped cars?

I hope that I have already given an answer about the problem of dumped cars. It is already a serious criminal offence to abandon a vehicle. However, we have undertaken to re-examine the offence, and we shall do so.

Manufacturers themselves have undertaken a great deal of work to ensure that thefts from vehicles are less likely. The figures we have published show both an inverse relationship between the value of a vehicle and the likelihood of its being stolen or broken into, and a direct relationship between a vehicle's age and the propensity for crimes against it. Although more modern vehicles are much more valuable, they are also much less likely to be broken into because breaking into them is more difficult.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

No; I want to say more about this.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the frenzy of the debate, the Home Secretary—who is normally assiduous in answering questions—may have forgotten about one of my questions. I asked how many extra police officers would be required to enforce the legislation.

That is not a point of order. The Home Secretary is responsible for replying to the hon. Gentleman's question.

I was about to reply. The answer is none, because no more officers are needed.

We have got vehicle crime down, and we aim to get it down further. The idea that every change in the law that is designed to drive crime down will lead to an increase in demands on the police is utter nonsense. Indeed, because we have driven crime down, there are fewer demands on the police in respect of crime, not more—although I fully recognise that that has been compensated for by additional calls in respect of disorder and other matters.

There was a long period during which the Conservative Government understood that, intellectually and financially. It is no good Conservative Members going on about police numbers now, insinuating that they would increase those numbers, because the one thing that the shadow Chancellor has absolutely refused to do is even promise to match our spending on the police, still less increase it.

rose—

We are going to hear a promise, are we?

Will the right hon. Gentleman just tell the House this? Three years ago, we were funding 3,000 more police officers on a lower budget. What on earth has the right hon. Gentleman done with the money, given that he cannot afford them now?

What happened was this. It explains why, in January 1997, the right hon. Lady told the House that the budget she was presenting for 1997–98 would provide for 5,000 more officers, when in fact it provided for fewer officers. The budgets that were set did not properly take account of cost pressures on the police service. It is not a question of any kind of magic. In particular, those budgets did not take account of the increased pressures of pension payments.

I should add that, under a Bill for which the right hon. Lady's party was responsible, the police service was relieved of requirements to follow any direction from the Home Secretary involving overall police numbers, which then became a matte for individual chief constables. Some chief constables decided to use the limited resources available to them to maintain police numbers, but many decided to spend their resources for other purposes, such as civilianization—those numbers have remained stable—and information technology.

But the Government have reduced the number of civilians as well.

No; the number of civilians has increased marginally since 1997.

The right hon. Lady may be interested to learn that I have had various analyses carried out to find out whether there is any correlation between forces whose total budgets have been increased or reduced, forces whose total officer and civilian numbers have been increased or reduced, and forces that have experienced an increase or a decrease in crime. The answer is that there is no correlation between those three variables, which is very interesting. The right hon. Lady must understand. She asks what I have done with the money. I have done absolutely nothing with it because it is spent not by me, but by the police authorities.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No.

If the right hon. Lady bothered to ask the police authorities, they would tell her that the money had been spent. If she wants to increase police numbers even further than we are proposing, she will have to increase the money even further. There is not a voter in the country who does not understand that.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

No. I am sorry, but I wish to make some progress.

In addition to the other problems that I have specified, the police have no general right of access to the motor insurers' database, which would allow them to identify uninsured drivers as they drive past. The Bill will tackle those problems.

The Bill will make vehicle crime less attractive by reducing opportunities for professional car thieves to profit. The estimate is that it could prevent up to 39,000 car thefts and 6,000 fraudulent insurance theft claims each year.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make some progress first.

The Bill will extend the time limit for prosecuting car thieves or those who take a car without the consent of the owner. It will make it easier for the police to detect uninsured driving. It will enable magistrates courts' receipts from fixed penalties for speeding and for jumping red lights to be directly applied to the funding of more safety cameras.

Does the Home Secretary agree with the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association of Great Britain, which deals with salvage, which has said that, to meet his target of preventing 39,000 thefts, there must be effective enforcement of the laws? If so, how will he do that with no extra police officers? If he is to achieve that with the same police officers, what jobs will they not be able to do?

What the hon. Gentleman has to grasp is that, to enforce such a measure, additional police officers are not necessarily required. When they were in government, we heard Conservative Members talk time and again about the need to make all public services more effective. I do not exclude the police service from that, even though there is a tiny minority of police officers who do not like the fact that we are trying to make the system more effective.

We are trying to deal, for example, with unnecessary sickness absence. We have already cut the paperwork, but there are a few police officers who do not mind paperwork because it keeps them out of action on the street—not very many, but a few. That needs to be borne in mind, too.

The police service is no different from other organisations. The quality of what that service delivers depends on the quality of the individuals employed by it, which can vary, and the quality of the management and the leadership.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

No.

We know clearly that even within London the level of crime recorded—robbery, burglary, vehicle theft and many other offences—in different boroughs varies a lot. It is dependent not on the number of officers in those areas, but on the quality of the leadership and of the officers on the streets. It is one of the matters about which I have asked the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to raise performance—he has fully embraced that. We need to identify the boroughs that are not performing well and to raise their performance to the level of the best. It is in that way, as well as through our huge additional investment in the police service, that we will be able to make this country safer, after the appalling 18 years when crime doubled.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at what we do in Plymouth to cut down on car crime and, in particular, the joint approach that is taken through environmental health, taxation and the police? The law is difficult to enforce at the moment. The Bill should make things much easier. The detection of vehicle crime will take up not only less police time, but that of other departments' staff.

I am indeed aware of what is going on in Plymouth because I was told about it by Sir John Evans, who was the chief constable. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. There are many examples—Plymouth is one, Milton Keynes is another—where police using similar resources per head are able to do significant things. There are lessons there for other boroughs, whether they are represented by Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat Members, that are not doing as well. They can make progress with more imagination. Often, greater imagination by the police service and better partnerships with local authorities and others can ensure that fewer resources are used more effectively.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No; I shall take the House through the Bill.

Part I introduces regulation of motor salvage dealers. Most salvage dealers already operate to high standards and fully within the law; however, as all hon. Members know, some do not. Almost one third of stolen cars are never recovered, and the motor salvage industry offers opportunities for the identities of stolen cars to be disguised and for stolen cars to be broken up and resold as parts.

There is also a link between salvage dealers and insurance fraud. Some cars that are reported stolen are sold to motor salvage dealers and broken up for their parts, or they are given the identity of written-off cars and resold. Therefore, clauses 1 to 6 establish a registration system, and clauses 7 to 11 will allow us to ensure that registered dealers keep appropriate records, including a note of the destruction of vehicles.

Part II regulates the supply and issue of number plates. I cannot believe that there will be any argument at all in the House about that scheme, except perhaps about whether it goes far enough.

Will the Minister give way?

No; I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

As all hon. Members know, the effects of the number plate problem go beyond vehicle crime. Burglars may use false number plates to cover their traces when making a getaway, and terrorists also may use them. Many other people may use false plates simply to avoid penalties from safety cameras.

Clauses 16 to 22 require number plate suppliers to register with the Secretary of State—which, in this case, in practice, means with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Number plate suppliers will have to allow police to enter and inspect their premises without a warrant. It will also be an offence for a wholesaler to supply an unregistered supplier and to sell fake plates. The prospect that details of the transaction will be recorded should deter prospective purchasers of number plates who require them for criminal purposes. Record keeping will provide police with the means of tracing the source of plates used in criminal activities.

There will be a power in clause 33 to make regulations prescribing additional information to be held on number plates and the way in which it should be contained or displayed. Therefore, it will not be easy to forge plates. The information on the number plate will link it to the vehicle for which it is intended, making it difficult to swap vehicle identities.

I offer a general welcome to the provision that the Home Secretary of State has just outlined, but may I ask him to address himself to a problem that has arisen in Wales—the display of the Welsh flag on number plates? I have received a note from the Library saying that, currently, such display is illegal. I should also tell the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that some of the number plates in Wales have been created simply to show off the Welsh flag.

Will the Home Secretary clarify whether such display is illegal? Will it remain illegal to display a Welsh flag or an English flag? Will it be necessary to display an EU flag? Does clause 33 give the Home Secretary the power to vary the restriction, to make it legal to display the Welsh flag? Will he consider doing that?

It says in my brief—I knew it anyway because I am a swot—that use of the Euro symbol will be permitted as a means of aiding the circulation of vehicles in Europe, and also of increasing the blood pressure of Conservative Members of Parliament. No other emblems will be permitted as they could cause confusion. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive were consulted on that and—the brief says—raised no objection.

I am happy for the issue to be raised in Committee. There are other places on the back of vehicles where those who are proud of their national heritage can display a sticker identifying their nationality, and long may that continue. In the legislation, we are addressing only the issue of identification on the vehicle plate.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I thought that that might wind up the right hon. Gentleman. I shall give way.

Will the Secretary of State clarify whether it will be permitted, if not mandatory, to show the European Union symbol on British car registration plates, but illegal to show the Union flag on British car registration plates? Is that what he is telling the House?

It is permitted to show the European Union symbol, and country identification letters are also shown on the vehicle number plate. I have no briefing on the Union flag, but I would be happy for that question to be dealt with in the winding-up speech. There is nothing to stop motorists from proudly displaying a representation of the Union flag on the rear of their vehicles—many do—but not necessarily on the vehicle plate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? It is a matter of great importance.

If it were, I would, but it is not, so I shall not.

Part III of the Bill deals with vehicle licensing and registration, and other measures to combat vehicle crime. The present law allows written-off vehicles to return to the road without being checked. That means that the unscrupulous can get away with illegal tampering. The Bill will change that by insisting on an identity check before a new registration document can be issued.

Part III also contains our proposals for tackling uninsured driving. That offence too often goes undetected, yet uninsured drivers are often dangerous and, like those who speed, may well have broken other laws. To combat the problem, the motor insurance industry has proposed that the police should have bulk access to its new database, which will be available from 2003. The Bill will enable that to happen.

Clause 36 extends the time limit for prosecuting unauthorised vehicle taking. Those who take vehicles without the consent of their owners, as well those who thieve from them, cause great distress to their victims and are often also involved in accidents. At the moment, such people can escape justice because of the six-month time limit on the prosecution of offences that are summary only. Advances in DNA and fingerprinting mean that evidence may come to light after the six months have expired.

Clause 37 represents a real improvement in joined-up government. It will allow money received by magistrates courts from fixed penalties for speeding or from jumping red lights to be used to fund the roll-out of safety cameras.

I am sure that the whole House welcomes the decision by the Law Lords a fortnight ago to overturn the rather silly decision in Scotland about the use of speed cameras. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the evidence in the pilot areas now clearly shows that increased use of speed cameras saves lives, and that they are a worthwhile investment? Will he join me in encouraging the House to campaign vigorously against the right-wing libertarian view, as expressed in the Daily Mail, that these measures would be controversial and used as an incentive to trap more motorists? They are a means of saving lives, and that is the justification for them.

I share my hon. Friend's view about this improvement. What those at the Daily Mail have to say about it is a matter for them. I dare say that that newspaper opposed the introduction of the breathalyser and the use of seat belts on a similar basis, yet those changes have helped to create a much safer environment for road users. When I was a young man, people used to drink and drive, friends of mine lost their lives, and terrible damage and injury were caused to others. The number of road deaths and injuries is still far too high, but we should be proud that this country's record is far better than that of any other European country that I can think of. We must continue to make progress to improve that record still further.

To give a direct answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), since the pilot schemes came into or operation in eight police force areas, there has been a 20 per cent. improvement in road safety in those areas.

I am not sure why the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) used the description "right-wing libertarian" as though it were a term of abuse. I am more than happy to have that description conferred on me.

Although we have no objection to the use of speed cameras in principle—or, very often, in practice—will the Home Secretary accept that our concern is with the avoidance of regulation for the sake of regulation? We are also concerned to avoid yet another stealth tax from the Government.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. This road safety measure has broad support across the country, and if the Conservatives want to oppose it, that is a matter for them. However, I am in no doubt that speed cameras moderate drivers' behaviour. After I was apprehended because of a speed camera in 1993—after I had paid my fine and got three points on my licence—my driving behaviour improved, and I think that that is true of other people. I say that from personal experience—incidentally, I have not had any points since then.

I have put on record the need for the Bill and hope that it will have the endorsement of the whole House. I do not doubt that it could be improved in Committee—indeed, I have not introduced a single Bill in the House that has not been improved as a result of the parliamentary process.

We want to build on the Government's strong record in fighting vehicle crime. We should be able to unite against the criminal on the issue of vehicle security. There is a comprehensive set of proposals in the Bill which, I hope the House will agree, deserves a Second Reading. It is a measured response to a number of serious problems, and I commend it to the House.

I should say at the outset that the official Opposition does not intend to divide the House on Second Reading. The principle of the Bill is unobjectionable and its purpose is valid, although we are at this stage uncertain about its probable effects. The jury is out on that, and we shall have to wait and see.

I greatly enjoyed the Home Secretary's speech—there is nothing unusual in that. I cannot promise that my contribution will be exciting or racy on this important subject, but I will endeavour to address the facts.

I was intrigued by what the right hon. Gentleman said about car crime. He started off by giving the clear impression that he regarded it as a matter of great seriousness, and that although he was pleased that some progress had been made, he was fully conscious of the seriousness of the incidence of offences that still plague the country. However, as he continued, he seemed to display a certain insouciance towards those of us who criticised the Government's record, suggested that an improvement would require an additional resource and were not convinced that the Government's bona fides on the subject were satisfactory.

For the avoidance of doubt, let the facts be placed on the record. I think it very likely that Labour Members will have the precise figures for the number of offences committed over the past couple of years. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), for example, is a veritable walking—or, in this case, sedentary—encyclopaedia on the Labour Benches. She always knows the facts. However, there may be some who require clarification.

Between March 1998 and March 1999, 1,482,889 car crimes were committed. The following year, there was, interestingly, a reduction in the incidence of car crimes of exactly 7,000, taking the figure down to 1,475,000.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

In a moment, if my hon. Friend will just contain himself. That figure represented a cut in the incidence of car crime of 0.5 per cent., of which more anon.

My hon. Friend is, as ever, more than generous to me. Does he agree that some of the reduction in car crime is due to the introduction of closed circuit television cameras? In that respect, will he pay tribute to the previous Government who were responsible for the widespread introduction of closed circuit television cameras throughout the United Kingdom?

I am delighted to pay tribute to the previous Government. I do not always do so on every subject, but in that respect their record was very good. We got the CCTV programme under way and it secured real benefits. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that point.

As the hon. Gentleman gives credit to the previous Government for the introduction of CCTV, does he agree that, because many police officers are scrutinising those videotapes, they may not be on the streets—the point he has been going on about over the past few months?

The hon. Gentleman makes a slightly ungracious point. I hope that he does not deny the significance of CCTV in combating crime; it has an important role to play. I am well aware that, in general, the hon. Gentleman identifies with what might be described as the new Labour philosophy and programme, so he will want to be fully on-message. He will appreciate that Members on the Treasury Bench are accustomed to drawing attention to the plans for the expansion of CCTV schemes in the following year; I hope that he will not cavil at that.

Obviously, the study of the videotapes takes time and requires the commitment of certain officers. Despite Labour Members' unrealistic expectations of the police, it goes without saying that the police cannot be expected to do two things at once. Manifestly, if an officer is studying the video, he or she cannot also be out detecting crime and apprehending criminals.

I am rather surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman describe CCTV as a libertarian measure. I should have thought that his libertarianism would mean that he thought of CCTV as non-libertarian. However, as he accepts CCTV, does he agree that there is no difference between the use of CCTV and of speed cameras?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analogy. While we are engaged in a philosophical discussion about what constitutes libertarianism, I emphasise that nothing incumbent on someone who takes a broadly liberal-minded view of the world obliges him to oppose measures that are likely to be successful in reducing the incidence of crime.

The point that I am making about speed cameras is that there is no justification for a massive, universal roll-out of such cameras across the country. The resource required to facilitate such a roll-out is enormous. One can only assume that Ministers are anxious to extract rich pickings from unsuspecting motorists in the form of heavy fines. In so far as that policy is by way of being a stealth tax, it does not commend itself to Her Majesty's Opposition.

I hope that the reduction in deaths that would occur as a result of such a policy commends itself to Her Majesty's Opposition.

I am in favour of reducing both car crime and the incidence of death on the roads. The idea that in order to reduce death on the roads a universal system of CCTV or video speed cameras is required across the country is not sound. If the hon. Gentleman wants to persuade the House of the merits of his argument, I hope that he will be successful in catching your eye in due course, Mr. Speaker.

I shall not be distracted by Labour Members from emphasising that there had been a reduction of 0.5 per cent.—[Interruption] It is no good the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) chuntering at me from a sedentary position. He wants to cover his blushes; he is embarrassed about the record, which shows clearly that in the period to which I referred

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have already given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to intervene and he made a mess of it—I do not see why I should cause him to suffer embarrassment a second time.

Between March 1998–99 and March 1999–2000, there was a reduction of 0.5 per cent. in the incidence of vehicle crime. The significance of that reduction should surely not be lost on even the most obsequious and sycophantic Labour Member. As the Home Secretary helpfully explained, the Government have committed themselves over a five-year period to a 30 per cent. reduction in car crime. The point that I am making—a point that is so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it—is that, at present, the Government are a long way from meeting their target. If in the first year, they have secured a cut of only 0.5 per cent. that does not augur well for the prospects of achieving by 2004 the 30 per cent. reduction that the Home Secretary himself described as challenging, but to which the Prime Minister has nevertheless committed the Government. There would need to be an improvement of about 900 per cent. in the Government's performance over the next four years if they were to meet the target for the reduction of vehicle crime with which the Prime Minister has lumbered the Home Secretary.

The Home Secretary is, of course, justified in pointing out the progress that has been made. He is normally a generous man, not only in providing people with match tickets but in conferring praise on those who deserve it. I therefore hope that he will join me in congratulating the previous Government on securing a 26.6 per cent. fall in vehicle crime between 1993 and 1997. That was a real and creditable achievement. I wish the Government well in reducing car crime. It was, shall we say, bold to set the target of a 30 per cent. cut over five years, but at present it does not look as if the Government are likely to achieve it.

It is important to clarify the categories of car crime about which we are speaking. The figure that I mentioned, of slightly fewer than 1.5 million offences between March 1999 and March 2000, included 374,686 offences of the theft of a vehicle, but also 669,232 offences of theft from a vehicle. A clear and large majority of the offences committed are thefts from, rather than of, vehicles.

I was sorry to hear about the Home Secretary's personal misfortune, in respect both of the theft of his car and of the extraction of his stereo. I wanted to intervene to congratulate him on his generosity in offering match tickets, but I could hardly have congratulated him on the measures that he took—or failed to take—to protect his property. He gave the distinct impression that he had failed to secrete his stereo or cassette player in one of the obvious places. He could have put it in the glove compartment or the boot, or he could have wandered off to his next meeting with it on his person.

indicated dissent.

It is perfectly possible to extract the frontage to prevent a stereo from being stolen.

Is that general advice from those on the Opposition Front Bench—that if some me has a fixed stereo unit they should dismantle it and secrete it in the glove compartment?

I grant that if the unit is fixed that makes it more difficult. I have a different arrangement myself, and I would be happy to communicate the obvious benefits to the Home Secretary. If he wishes to accompany me to the car park I will show him my system, which has a real advantage over his, and I could advise him on what steps to take so as greatly to reduce the chances of his suffering such a crime again.

The significance of car crime is well understood, but so too, should be the significance of Government policy in relation to it. I acknowledge that the Government have taken some steps to counteract the threat of car criminals, but they have also taken other steps that give altogether the opposite impression of their intentions.

I hope that I shall enjoy the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that it is pitiful that since the inception of the home detention curfew scheme in January 1999—I remind the House that that has resulted in the early release of 27,000 serious offenders—no fewer than 300 car thieves have been let out of jail early. Typically, as the figures demonstrate, they are released before they have served half their sentence.

That sends the wrong signal. The undesirable message is: "Don't worry. You will be caught, sentenced and locked up, but you will only be incarcerated for a short time. Then you will be released and have the opportunity to resume your life of crime." That is an extraordinary state of affairs. It is peculiar that the Government should, on one hand, introduce the Bill—which has at least the appearance of robustness—and, on the other, pursue a policy that genuinely merits my recent description of the Home Secretary as a lily-livered liberal.

Is it any wonder that this country's criminal classes are praying for a Labour election victory? [Interruption.] I am surprised that that causes such surprise among Government Members; they must know that if they pursue soft penal policies and release people from jail before they have typically served half their sentence, people will be encouraged in the belief that crime is not taken all that seriously and that they can come out of prison and, either immediately, or after a reasonable, decent interval, embark on a continuing life of crime. I must emphasise the fact that that is so obvious that it is surprising that anyone chooses to dispute it.

I was grateful to the Home Secretary for his confirmation of the position as shown by the British crime survey. I know that he is greatly attached to that survey; he clutches sheaves of statistics to his breast every time he comes to the Chamber, but I was pleased that he confirmed the British crime survey's finding that the level of car crime is roughly twice what is officially recorded. Interestingly, as the Home Secretary will know and as my right hon. and hon. Friends should be aware, 61 per cent. of thefts are from vehicles and only 11 per cent. are thefts of vehicles. That confirms the overall trend, and it is relevant to the Bill, for as I will say later, and I have support from outside organisations in doing so, the Bill overwhelmingly deals with the theft of vehicles rather than with the statistically more significant phenomenon of theft from vehicles—[Interruption]—as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) concurs from a sedentary position. So we are talking about 28 per cent. of all recorded crime in 1999–2000—crime that costs about £3.5 billion a year.

The Home Secretary was right to emphasise the effect of such crime, but unless I misheard him he did not emphasise its full effects. He rightly said that financial loss, inconvenience and personal distress are involved, but more than that is at stake. Vehicle crime is not only distressing to its victims, but represents a gateway to the commission of other serious offences, such as drug trafficking and terrorism. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that we need to view such crime in that context.

The target for the reduction is good, challenging and bold; it might even be describedw—this will terrify the Home Secretary—as a brave target. Despite the announcement of the target, we know two facts about the Bill. First, almost certainly, it will not reach the statute book before the Prime Minister tames the day for a general election, so it should be considered in context. I do not doubt that on the basis of pager messages and Millbank tower briefings, there will be no shortage of supportive speeches from Labour Members; they will rush to shower confetti on the Home Secretary, tell him what a good chap he is and embolden him to pursue the measures contained in the Bill; but the reality is that the Bill, introduced at the fag end—if that is not a politically incorrect term—of this Parliament will not reach the statute book before a general election takes place.

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will deal with this matter later in his speech, but in the context of what he has just said, does he agree that, lest anyone should imagine that the Bill is uncontroversial, clause 9 contains our old friend, the right to enter and inspect premises? I pick that clause at random to emphasise the fact that if the Government are under any illusion that they can introduce the Bill now, declare it uncontroversial and try to blackmail both Houses of Parliament into slipping it through without very thorough scrutiny, they will be very much mistaken.

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's observation. It is no secret that he and I have what in political terms might be described as a symbiotic relationship; periodically, I can anticipate my right hon. Friend, but he is invariably able to anticipate me. Lest he should worry, I assure him that I intend to say something about that provision. What is more, I had fully intended to do so even without his characteristically helpful observation. The Bill will not become law before the election in any case.

The second fact that we know about the Bill is that there will be 3,000 fewer police officers to enforce it. I was as shocked as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary by the Home Secretary's alarming display of complacency. Of course, we do not have to increase the size of the police force every time a new Bill is introduced, but people outside the House will now start to get the clear message that there is a chronic mismatch—a gaping chasm—between Ministers' rhetoric and the reality of the policies that they pursue. Again and again, Ministers promise more, but deliver less. It is not reasonable of them to push through legislation, to make highfalutin promises and to commit themselves to great policy objectives while expecting others who are reduced in number, increased in terms of pressure and diminished in terms of political support from those on the Treasury Bench still to achieve those objectives.

The leaders of our police forces do not lightly speak out in public. I hope that, when they do so, the Home Secretary will listen. I was concerned when, in a response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the Home Secretary airily dismissed the observations of a senior policeman by saying that he says something every six months or so, that he has been doing so for about 10 years and, therefore, that no special significance should be attached to his remarks. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, just as he is an important, highly influential and greatly respected man with a full diary, the same goes for the chairman of the Police Federation. When the chairman of the Police Federation speaks out, the Home Secretary should listen, especially because the chairman has castigated the right hon. Gentleman for the inadequacy of the support that he has made available to the police while increasing their responsibilities all the while.

Let us consider the detailed proposals for cutting car crime. The Home Secretary rightly referred to the vehicle crime reduction action team. As he well knows, its strategy focuses on several objectives. The first is better vehicle security and several measures offer the prospect of improving the detection of car crime and deterring its incidence. Electronic immobilisers on new cars are compulsory under the European Union law of 1998 and the anti-theft directive of 1995–96.

It is now proposed that it should be compulsory for cars that are seven to 10 years old to have electronic immobilisers. Instead of applying the idea simply to new cars, it is possible that the owners of old cars will be requested—or more likely, obliged—to install immobilisers. I have not yet observed my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) quivering at that suggestion, but it is only a matter of time before he becomes alarmed. It is a cost issue, and we have to strike a balance. Although we want to improve vehicle security, we do not want to impose burdens that people cannot realistically be expected shoulder. I do not know what the cost of developing the policy would be, but it is incumbent on the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), to share that information with us when he winds up.

The Government have not yet pursued the idea of making the installation of electronic immobilisers compulsory on cars of seven to 10 years old. I do not know whether they intend to do so, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary can enlighten me. I hope that he will. The vehicle crime reduction action team has estimated that such a development could result in the commission of 60,000 fewer offences by 2004.

That raises an interesting question. Do the Government intend to make installation compulsory for seven to 10-year-old cars? The answer is important. If they do not intend to do that, there will be a saving—a burden for consumers forgone—but the prospect of reducing offences by 60,000 by 2004, after which the Under-Secretary no doubt hankers, will be removed. If they intend to go ahead with the compulsory policy for older vehicles, they might have a slightly greater chance of achieving their car crime reduction target, but only at the personal expense of a large number of car buyers of—I must emphasise—more modest means.

Has it escaped my hon. Friend's notice that drivers of more modest means drive more modest and older vehicles and are much less likely to have their vehicles stolen, precisely as a consequence of the modest and elderly nature of the vehicle?

I am not sure that that is true. Some car criminals are fairly undiscriminating. We know that they steal to feed a habit. It is uncertain that they take a sophisticated view as part of the car cognoscenti. For once, I am sorry to say, I fear that my hon. Friend might be wrong.

Perhaps I can help. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) might be wrong. Work by Sallybanks and Thomas shows that the highest number of vehicles stolen are owned by people on the lowest incomes, who live in the most disrupted areas and whose cars are of a lower value and older.

That is a helpful observation. It might be churlish to suggest this, but I wonder whether that important information was given to the hon. Member for Eastleigh by my very good friend, the excellent prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Eastleigh, Mr. Conor Burns. I know not—but it is likely.

We have talked about better vehicle security, but we should also mention better enforcement. I must emphasise that enforcement is a great task for the police, but they have suffered a huge cut in numbers, which will not change immediately. It is also a challenge for the crime and disorder partners. Although there is no strict statistical relationship between areas in which police numbers have been reduced and those in which car crime is alarmingly high, it must logically follow that if fewer officers are available, it is more difficult to investigate thefts. The trend, therefore, is not likely to improve, but over a period it will be exacerbated.

The Government have emphasised the importance of a safer environment. They are right to do so, because 22 per cent. of vehicle crime occurs in car parks. Ministers are justified in highlighting the need for CCTV. The secured car parks scheme is also significant, but has not been mentioned. It is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and some evidence suggests that it is achieving worthwhile results. Ministers tell us that £153 million is available until March 2002 for CCTV. We anticipate that they will not get around to spending that money because we hope to have crossed to the other side of the House by then, but we are strongly committed to continuing the programme.

There is also a role for the modernisation of information systems. The motor industry anti-fraud and theft computerised database holds information about insured vehicles that are stolen or subject to insurance write-offs. The register will be linked to DVLA from next year, which augurs well for the prospects of a reduction in car crime. The motor insurance database will hold details of all insurance policies on individually insured vehicles and will, I think, be operational in 2001. It will link directly to the police national computer and should enable uninsured drivers to be more easily identified. I think that I am also correct in saying that the MOT record is to be computerised and fully operational from 2002–03. That bodes well, although I am getting no signal from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on that point.

Part I deals with the regulation of motor salvage operators, on which the Home Secretary dwelt for a few minutes. Let us be clear about our definitions. Salvage or recycling companies are defined as

any person, persons, company or organisation taking possession of or dealing in stolen and recovered, damaged or redundant motor vehicles for the purpose or repair, salvage or recycling.

The Bill defines motor salvage as:

the recovery for re-use or sale of salvageable parts from motor vehicles,

followed by the

sale or other disposal for scrap of the remainder of the vehicles concerned.

It goes on to define it as:

the purchase of written-off vehicles and their subsequent repair and re-sale.

It should be emphasised that most decent, reputable motor salvage operators provide an excellent service, which consists of disposing of about 1.5 million vehicles each year. In 1998, about 430,000 vehicles were written off by insurance companies; it is those vehicles that currently provide the cover to disguise the true identity of some of the 120,000 vehicles stolen and not recovered in 1997–98. The police estimate that about 65 per cent., or 78,000, of the stolen and unrecovered vehicles are either rung—of which more anon—or broken for spare parts: it is thought that approximately 25 per cent. are rung and 40 per cent. broken for spare parts. In addition, insurance fraud is thought to account for a further 20 per cent., or 24,000 vehicles, some of which will end up in the salvage industry and be reported stolen by the owner.

Advocates of statutory regulation contend that the lack of it provides a green light for the disposal of stolen vehicles. Existing regulation is controlled by the insurance industry and the trade associations. The British Vehicle Salvage Federation represents 75 larger salvage dealers which together represent about 75 per cent. of the insurance industry salvage business. The Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association of Great Britain represents smaller dealers whose primary function is dismantling; it represents only about 10 per cent. of the 2,000 to 2,500 dismantlers in Great Britain, which is significant in the context of the Bill's regulatory provisions. So that we are aware of the terms and the context in which we are debating the Bill, the sector as a whole consists of about 2,500 to 3,000 companies, which together employ between 20,000 and 30,000 people.

The trade associations operate a code of practice that is based on co-operation with the DVLA and, through it, with the police, but that approach is thought to suffer from several weaknesses. First, the ability of those organisations to police their own members is limited. Secondly, the code of practice has not been adopted by hire companies or by the Crown, which operates large fleets of vehicles that carry their own insurance against total loss. Thirdly, and most significantly, up to 25 per cent. of the salvage business and up to 90 per cent. of the dismantling business are not covered by the code. That is the rationale behind the issuing by the Home Office of its consultation document on the proposed regulation of the motor salvage industry. I feel sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware that that document flagged up several possibilities, of which statutory regulation was one. If memory serves correctly, of the 26 organisations that responded to the exercise, 22 favoured the option of statutory regulation.

I have been listening with great interest to my hon. Friend's comments on the failure to some extent of self-regulation within the industry. Does that not imply that, for the legislation to be successful, there must be a degree of supervision by the regulatory authorities, in this case the police? Does that not provide prima facie evidence either that there will have to be extra police officers to do the work, or that other aspects of law and order will suffer as a consequence?

My hon. Friend is invariably perceptive, and his observation was no exception to the general rule. He is right. It upsets and perturbs me that the Home Secretary, who much of the time is a sensible fellow, persists in ignoring or denying this obvious point.

I can see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) is becoming itchy, so I shall give way.

I want to clarify a simple point that arises from the intervention of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). Does not clause 13 give the local authority powers to prosecute and supervise in relation to that part of the Bill?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation. He is partly right, but he should be aware—I do not dispute his textual reference—that there will be a responsibility on police constables as well. I am sure that he will not dispute that. If there are fewer of them, if there is more crime to detect and if the political pressure on them to be successful in doing so is greater, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to recognise that somewhere along the line the equation breaks down. That is not fair on the police.

I find it curious—I am sure that this has not escaped the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends—that whereas in respect of many of the great public services, Labour Members rush to the defence of those employed in delivering them and are always anxious to improve their conditions in recognising what a difficult job they do, when it comes to the police they are happy to increase the burdens but not ready to pay tribute to the enormous work against the odds, often under severe physical threat, that the officers undertake. I am not applying that point to the Home Secretary, but many Back-Bench Labour Members are guilty of that approach.

Under part I, motor salvage operators will need to be registered with the local authority in which they are based. The local authority will have powers to refuse renewal of registrations, having originally granted them. Operators will have to keep records of the vehicles entering the industry and of disposals. The Government believe that their policy could avoid about 39,000 vehicle thefts and 6,000 fraudulent insurance claims each year, with an economic benefit of £183 million.

Allan Greenouff on behalf of the British Vehicle Salvage Federation, John Hesketh on behalf of the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association, Richard Allen on behalf of the Association of British Insurers, Sandy Dalgano on behalf of the National Salvage Group, the AA, and Ken Williams, the chief constable of Norfolk and the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers on VCRAT, have all welcomed the Bill. Nevertheless, several issues require the close attention of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst characteristically identified one of them at an early stage in the debate.

I have in mind, of course, clause 9, which will give police constables the power to enter and inspect registered motor salvage premises and their records without warrant. It makes provision for searches with warrants to take place at premises that are unregistered or where a police constable has previously been refused entry.

Is that necessary? It is not clear to me that it is.

Will there be enough officers?

It is not even clear to me, as indicated by the sedentary intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, that there will be sufficient police officers effectively to discharge the statutory obligation.

There appears to be a slightly curious differential between the treatment of premises that are registered and that of those that are not. Why are registered operators apparently subject to harsher treatment than that meted out to their unregistered counterparts? I shall be grateful for the comments of the Under-Secretary of State when he replies.

Secondly, clause 8 will require all motor salvage dealers to provide notifications of the destruction of a vehicle. At present, under the code of conduct, those who belong to the BVSF and the MVDA comply with that process. They already send certificates, which are V860s, to the DVLA. The idea behind the code of conduct was that when the DVLA has received a V860 for a vehicle, it will refuse to issue a V5 in response to any future request as it would know that the car in question was permanently broken and that the request must therefore be fraudulent.

I consider myself no great authority on the matter, but I am told that the arrangement worked well for a while, before someone spotted a loophole in the law. Apparently—I should be grateful for comeback on this point from the Under-Secretary, who is looking earnestly in the direction of those who advise—the DVLA is technically not allowed to refuse a V5 request. All that it can do is to issue the V5 and ask the police to investigate. I feel sure that I am carrying my right hon. and hon. Friends with me on this important theme.

Now the DVLA must issue V5s for cars that it knows no longer exist, and it can only notify the police—the underfunded, overburdened, insufficiently supported police. In practice, of course, the police investigate different proportions of such referrals in different police areas. Some routinely investigate all, but some investigate only a few.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he concede that it is his experience, as it is mine and that of many other people, that the police, rightly but regrettably, give greater priority to crimes involving violence, violence against the person, housebreaking and so on, and that vehicle offences come, rightly, pretty low down on the priority list of most, if not all, police forces? If my hon. Friend agrees with that general contention, what does he think will be the effectiveness of the role of the police in discharging the responsibilities given to them by the Bill?

My right hon. Friend's judgment of the significance of car crime in the overall scale of police priorities is almost certainly right. They are more likely to focus on violent crime and they are especially justified in doing so in light of the figures for increasing violent crime over the past 12 months or so. In other words, the position on violent crime is being made substantially worse. In London, for example, another 36,000, I think, violent offences were committed over the past 12 months. That requires a police resource.

The police will have to focus first and foremost on that, yet they are faced with the introduction of the Bill. I would like to think that Ministers will be modest, but I suspect that they will trumpet the provisions of the Bill, claim to be robust and insist that they are involved in a ferocious crackdown on vehicle crime.

All that the Home Secretary will have done, which is not an insignificant accomplishment, but it is an exiguous one, is to pilot through the Bill. Police officers will have to do the dirty work—police officers of whom there are not enough, who face greater regulatory burdens and who are confronted with a large increase in violent crime, not least as a result of the lily-livered feebleness that the right hon. Gentleman has displayed over the past three and a half years.

A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman correctly made the link between motor vehicle crime and drug crime. He will acknowledge, I think, that there is also a link between drug crime and violent crime. Will he therefore give a little more credit to our police to assign priority to such matters?

I am sorry to be so misinterpreted by the hon. Lady, who usually has a keen ear and attends closely to what is said. I was not in any way criticising or casting aspersions on the police. For the avoidance of doubt, I. was criticising and casting aspersions on the Government's record, from which both the innocent public and the police suffer.

I am not cavilling at the achievement of the police, nor am I saying—I emphasise this to the hon. Lady—that they should not give priority to the pursuit of violent criminals. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Lady chuntering from a sedentary position in an entirely unintelligible manner, when I am seeking to respond effectively to the half-point that she made.

Of course, the police are right to focus on violent crime. However, they are being charged with additional responsibilities under the Bill, but are not being promised increased resources to discharge those responsibilities. I made that point earlier, but I am repeating it, as it is so obvious that it is extraordinary that even a new Labour apparatchik can choose to ignore or deny it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way for the third, or even fourth, time. Is he surprised to learn that the office of the chief constable of Staffordshire has informed me that the latest Government initiative—the crackdown on yob culture—will be difficult to achieve on a Friday or Saturday night in Lichfield, where there are only three or four police officers, backed up by, perhaps, five or six special constables? How will those police officers meet the provisions of clause 9? The clause states that, in addition to cracking down on yob culture,

A constable may at am reasonable time

enter and inspect premises for the purposes of the Bill.

Police officers will be able to do that only with great difficulty, if at all. The experience in the centre of Lichfield to which my hon. Friend referred is by no means atypical. He will find that it is replicated throughout the country in constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends and importantly, those of Government Members. I hope that Government Members will have something to say about the mismatch between the responsibility that will be imposed and the resources that will be provided. How ever, I am not to be distracted from the important point.

The hon. Gentleman may wish to take advice from the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), in whose constituency violent crime has gone down in the first eight months of this year. Violent crime has gone down by 23 per cent. in Plymstock Radford in that constituency; by 13 per cent. in my constituency; by 38 per cent. in Efford; by 21 per cent. in Plymstock Dunstone; by 4 per cent. in Plympton St. Mary; and by 18 per cent. in Plympton Erle. Therefore, there are examples to which the hon. Gentleman can look to see what works.

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's observation, but I am not sure that she has advanced her cause greatly. Of course, there are examples of the reduction of crime. I join the hon. Lady in celebrating the reduction in violent crime. However, I hope that she will acknowledge that, statistically, it is clear that, overall, violent crime is increasing substantially. We know that in London, the Thames valley area, and throughout the country.

I remind hon. Members that this is a debate about vehicles. It is not a debate about statistics and the levels of crime.

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for steering me back on to the path of virtue, along which, as you know, I ordinarily tread. I am not going to be diverted again by observations about violent crime, and shall focus on vehicle crime.

As I said a few moments ago, I want to emphasise the fact that the DVLA must issue V5s for cars which, it knows, no longer exist, and of which it can only notify the police. In practice, the police investigate differently in different areas. Some police investigate routinely, but others investigate only a few offences. It is notable that an experienced observer advised Her Majesty's Opposition that, nationally, the chance of being investigated is about 7 per cent. I must tell the Home Secretary that I can see nothing in the Bill that will change the law and allow the DVLA to refuse V5 applications for vehicles for which it has received V860s. Is that not a loophole, and do the Government intend to close it? If not, Ministers must provide more police to allow for routine investigation of such cases, which the fight against crime and the protection of the public patently require.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy in giving way. To help him, does not clause 32 enable the Secretary of State to make new regulations to permit the DVLA to refuse to issue the new certificate?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in supposing that the Bill will prevent the automatic issue of V5s. I have looked at the Bill closely and consulted on it. However, I am a generous and gracious chap, so I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a keen observer of all our proceedings, that I shall happily concede to him if he is right and I am wrong. I hope that he is right, but I am not optimistic.