What plans he has to give victims of crime more information about progress in (a) detection and (b) prosecution of the cases with which they have been involved. [38873]

I am currently reviewing the standards of service outlined in the victims charter. At present, the police have a charter commitment to keep victims informed about key developments in cases. That includes information about whether a suspect is charged and the outcome of the court case. By autumn this year, the Crown Prosecution Service will have fully implemented a system to convey its own key decisions to victims. That will include information about whether charges are dropped or altered.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and express my thanks for all the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team are doing to support victims, including the doubling of funding for Victim Support and the promised victims charter of rights, to which we look forward eagerly. Nevertheless, from my experience, having taken up cases for victims of crime in Blackpool and held consultations on the subject, there are still problems with co-ordination of information between the CPS and the police. In particular, can I press him to consider the lack of continuity that is sometimes evident between investigating officers, those who make arrests and those who attend the court? It seems to me and to many people to whom I have spoken in Blackpool that that often causes problems in terms of relaying information.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend recognises the additional support that we are currently giving to victims, including the doubling to £25 million of the grant to Victim Support and the changes that we have made in the courts to ensure that intimidated and vulnerable witnesses can give their evidence in safety, including through video links where that is appropriate. It is absolutely essential that we support victims end to end in the criminal justice system. Victims are also witnesses; they should be given information and support during the process of detection, when they need to appear in court, throughout the court process, when they are told about the offender's sentence—if he or she is found guilty—and when they are part of the sentencing process, if that is appropriate, where issues such as reparation and restorative justice may arise. Unless we support victims and witnesses throughout the process, we will not bring enough offenders to justice in a timely way.

If, as the Minister says, he cares about the rights and concerns of victims, will he explain why the Government have chosen to scrap a criminal justice Bill that would have furthered those rights and to replace it with a ban on foxhunting? Which is more important to him?

We have done absolutely nothing of the sort. We have been consulting on key elements of reform in the Halliday report on sentencing reform and the Auld report on court reform. I invited the Opposition spokesperson into the Department to be briefed on sentencing reform. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we decided at that stage to publish a White Paper in the spring with a view to introducing legislation on the criminal justice system in the autumn. Nothing has changed.

I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, but can I draw a problem to his attention and ask him to intervene? Chief constables such as mine in Essex—I understand the problem to be endemic—are operating victim support in reverse in terms of people whose cars have been stolen. Is he aware that when my chief constable says that he wants the car for forensic purposes, people get not progress on prosecution, but a bill from the car recovery outfit? That is intolerable. It is now time for him to tell chief constables that this has got to stop—from this evening.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. The situation has been going on for a long time, and I assure him that we are looking at it very urgently.

May I congratulate the Home Secretary through the Minister on the support that he expressed for Sir John Stevens in his article in the News of the World on the need for reform of criminal justice? That position is rather different from his previous imprecations about his sending in Whitehall hit squads. May I pick the Minister up on the criminal justice reform Bill? He says that there has been consultation, but I have to tell him that, apart from indicating the contents of Auld, providing us with that report and giving us a briefing, the Government have engaged in no formal consultation whatever with the Opposition parties. As the importance of the criminal justice Bill is acknowledged in all parts of the House, when will the Government respond to the formal proposals that were put to them by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), indicating that we would co-operate on moving such a Bill through the House as quickly as possible? No valid explanation whatever has been provided of why the Bill is not being introduced in this Session.

It is quite extraordinary that when we invited the official Opposition spokesperson to attend the briefing on the Halliday consultation, to which we received hundreds of responses, they had not at that point bothered to respond to the consultation document. If they want genuinely to participate and to ensure that we have cross-party support for introducing criminal justice reform, they should take the opportunity to respond to the consultation.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the success of victim support schemes around the country. That is especially true of two schemes—MU-Gwynedd and Conwy—in my constituency. In the context of providing more information to victims of crime, will he ensure that police authorities automatically refer cases involving victims of crime to local victim support schemes?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the victim support service in her area. Through the extra money that we have made available, Victim Support has developed highly effective witness services in our courts, and every court will be covered by April this year. We must ensure that there is proper communication with all the agencies involved in a case, whether it be the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or others that become involved with the victim at that point or later in the process. Within that communication process, technology must be enhanced to ensure that information is quickly relayed to the different agencies so that they can then communicate with the victim and/or witness. That is essential for the effective completion of more cases through the court process.

What representations he has received from police officers about his proposed reforms to pay, pensions and conditions. [38874]

What discussions he has had with the Police Federation since the results of its ballot on the proposed new terms and conditions for federated ranks. [38876]

What recent representations he has received about police conditions of service. [38877]

Other Ministers and I have made numerous visits to, and undertaken consultation meetings with, representatives of the police service and members of the public around the country. Discussions that have taken place since the Police Federation ballot, both through the negotiating board and directly with myself and other Ministers, have been extremely cordial and fruitful.

The fact is that rank and file police officers rejected the Home Secretary's reform proposals by a majority of 10 to one. In my local police force in Cheshire, 86 per cent. of officers voted against them. That is hardly surprising, given that Ministers go around treating the police as heroes one moment and wreckers the next. Instead of blaming the Police Federation for the outcome of the ballot, should not he work with police officers, listen to their genuine concerns, and produce some better proposals?

There is a history of Opposition parties taking advantage of the efforts of Governments of both persuasions to bring about radical reform. Previous Home Secretaries bear the scars—internally, if not externally—to verify that fact. Those who do not like what we are doing—whether the Police Federation, the leadership of the police service or Opposition parties—have an obligation to say what they would do.

Does the Home Secretary understand that police officers hearing what he has said today will be sorry that he has not expressed some sense of regret for the intemperate and derogatory nature of his remarks about the police, which contributed to the ballot result? Will he now express that regret, and say that he is willing to enter the current conciliation without preconditions on key issues such as overtime and priority payments?

How the Opposition have turned. What a reversal of roles. What an interesting backing of the trade unions against the people we are seeing this afternoon. Let me make my position absolutely clear. I have met representatives of the Police Federation since the ballot, and indicated to them and to the staff side that, of course, we are prepared to go into the conciliation with the intention of finding a solution, otherwise I would not have suggested going to conciliation in the first place. I also want to refute the hon. Gentleman's allegation that I have somehow used detrimental language against the police force. If he can find a single quote in my name, or an interview on radio or television, of course I will agree with him that I should withdraw. [Interruption.] Someone has just shouted out "Spanish practices". My cousin has lived in Spain for the last 35 years. I would never be able to visit her again if I had used the term "Spanish practices".

May I give the Home Secretary an opportunity to use some positive language? Will he give sympathetic consideration to the letter that he has received from the chief constable of Hertfordshire about the severe difficulties that that force is experiencing in recruiting and retaining officers? Will the Home Secretary take into account the fact that the Hertfordshire force is now under strength by 290 officers, and that, in many cases, it is competing for recruits with the Metropolitan force, which offers an extra £4,000 in allowances and free travel? Will he give the otherwise excellent Hertfordshire force the help that it needs to put the officers on the streets to fight crime, which is what my constituents want?

We might have some degree of agreement here, because there is a genuine problem in Hertfordshire and the other counties that find themselves just outside the ring, in terns of the substantial enhancement that all sides sought, to ensure that recruitment could be increased in the Metropolitan police force by 1,100-plus over the last 12 months. However, it is precisely to be able to target resources, and to be able to reward those at the sharp end on top of the normal pay round—which is not until September—that we have embarked on the reform agenda. I hope that all hon. Members will, therefore, back that agenda in putting money and incentive into the pay packet and the jobs of those police officers outside the Met area who do not receive the same level of additional payments.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this action is 18 years too late? It should have been taken in 1984, when all those police, acting according to Mrs. Thatcher—who was Prime Minister at the time—were sent to every coalfield to allow the scabs to get into the pits. The net result was that they did not care about their own pay then. I have a proposition to make: I have a gang of ex-miners who will sit on the national reference tribunal to settle this issue.

I am almost inclined to take up my hon. Friend's generous offer. On a slightly more serious note, I live in Sheffield, half a mile away from Orgreave, and I am well aware of the situation. That is why I scratched my head when I saw a BBC film—which was shown as the introduction to "On the Record" yesterday, and produced by somebody called Grossman, I think—which tried to suggest that the police reform agenda was tantamount to using the police in the way in which they had been used at Orgreave in 1984–85. I have to say that when those in short trousers make these films, they can have no clue whatsoever about the history they are dealing with, and it would be better if they got themselves another job.

May I reassure my right hon. Friend that I am not wearing short trousers? Does he agree that the key to reform lies not in books of theory, but in what is happening on the ground? He will know that in Northumbria the detection rate has risen by about one third in the past seven years, and that each and every one of the 60 extra police officers who are being assigned to south Tyneside will be community beat managers working on the street, tackling local problems. Will my right hon. Friend consider convening a seminar of chief constables from around the country so that they can learn from the Northumbria experience?

I am deeply relieved by my hon. Friend's reassurance at the beginning of his question. I will not carry out an examination in person. His force is one of the best in Britain. It is at command unit level and it is well led. I have every intention of calling together those both at chief constable and at command unit level to share experience and to spread that experience, so that the kind of improvements that my hon. Friend outlined can be the experience of everyone, everywhere in the country.

Is it not the case that the Police Federation's figures show that almost two thirds of the officers who rejected the proposals did so on the basis of overtime, not because of the wider issues that have been raised by the Opposition? Are not the real issues the need to get more police officers on the beat, deal with the variation in performance and improve standards, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband)? The performance in my operation command unit is very good, but were it to come up to the best in the country, the constituents in Dudley, North would be extremely pleased.

I entirely agree. That is what the reform agenda is about. I welcome the advertisement placed today by the Police Federation, as it indicates that the Police Federation is prepared to support and give backing to the vast majority of the reform agenda. If we can find a way forward, not simply by capitulating on the level of overtime, thereby bringing about a substantial mismanagement of resources, but by managing overtime down without putting fear and apprehension into officers who have been misled about our proposals, we will seek to do so.

Contrary to the Home Secretary's earlier assertions, the Opposition stand four-square behind the need for a more modern and flexible system of pay and conditions for the police service, whatever he might like to think. However, we do not stand four-square behind a hectoring and bullying style which has caused so much demoralisation and led to the spectacular defeat of the Home Secretary in the ballot. Will he confirm to us—or, indeed, deny—the reports over the weekend that he will at last accept the view of all levels of the police service, plus the Opposition, plus the majority of the other place, and drop his proposals for centralised powers of control over the police in clauses 5 and 7 of the Police Reform Bill?

First, I am not seeking centralised control. I am not seeking operational control at any level, and it is a simple lie by those who have said the opposite. Secondly, I do not expect—I say this to the shadow Home Secretary—any member of his party to ask the Home Secretary to take responsibility for the level and quality of policing in this country, unless the Home Secretary has the power as well as the responsibility to do something about it. In the words of The Daily Telegraph leader a week last Saturday, I should simply eulogise or appeal to people to change. I am afraid that the electorate expects something better than that. It expects us to work with the police service, retaining its operational responsibility but ensuring that if we are to answer to Parliament and to the electorate, we have some means—some levers—to deal with the variation and improve the delivery of police services everywhere in the country.

What plans he has to tackle youth crime in London. [38875]

We are determined to tackle youth crime in London. We support the Metropolitan police service's safer streets campaign, which has already had an impact on street robbery, and we are working with 11 London boroughs to target those young people most at risk of offending. The new taskforce of the police, local authorities and criminal justice agencies will bring together the efforts of every part of the criminal justice system to work together to tackle youth crime.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one particular crime in London of which young people have generally, but not exclusively, been the victims is mobile phone crime? Can he tell the House what further action he intends to take in that regard, and can he assure the House that he has the co-operation of all the big mobile phone companies in his efforts to crack down on such crime?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of mobile phone crime, as it is probably the largest single factor in the rise in robbery rates. As he will know, for many months Ministers have been putting pressure on the industry to act on this problem. I am pleased that over the past few weeks all the mobile phone operators have announced measures to cut off mobile phones once they are stolen and to share the identifying numbers among the companies so that the phones cannot be switched from one part of the system to another. I believe that that, together with other action that we are taking, such as education campaigns in schools about where to use mobile phones and so on, will make a difference.

Will the Minister confirm that, in the last nine months for which figures are available, street crime in London has risen by a shocking 39 per cent.? Will he further confirm that most of that crime has been committed by young people? Although we welcome the Metropolitan police's short-term strategy for dealing with problems on our streets, what long-term strategy have the Government got to tackle this serious matter?

The hon. Gentleman's question is a very good one. We need to ensure that we catch the young people who are offending and take measures to protect the public from them. It is also important to minimise the numbers of young people in the rising generation who are likely to become involved in offending. The work that we are doing with the Metropolitan police, 11 London boroughs and the Government regional office is designed to bring together schools, social services, the police, the probation service and other agencies to identify the young people who are at risk of getting involved in offending and to divert them into other activities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that good community relations are not an alternative to, but a prerequisite for, effective policing? Furthermore, does he agree that although stop and search is an essential tool in the battle against street crime, the issue is not merely the level of stop and search, but how effective it is in terms of the number of arrests that it leads to? Will he continue to support police officers who are working with a focused and intelligence-led approach to stop and search in partnership with the local community?

A fundamental principle of policing in this country is that it is by consent. The police must be able to take the effective measures that are needed to tackle crime, and to do so with the support of the communities that are being policed. My right hon. Friend has today set out how we will do that. We need to ensure that stop and search can be used, but as my hon. Friend said it must be intelligence-led and targeted. It must also enjoy the growing confidence and support of communities which are the victims of crime and need effective action taken against it.

Is not it a fact that a great deal of crime including that perpetrated by young people, has a drug-related element? Can the Minister reassure Londoners that the drug problem in the capital will be vigorously tackled? Does he share the permissive attitude of the Liberal Democrats, or does he think that that is a thoroughly retrograde step?

I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that, unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party will not propose the legalisation of heroin. [Interruption.] A serious issue lies behind the hon. Gentleman's question. We must ensure that the efforts of the police in London are focused. [Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats do not like what they did at the weekend, which is why there is a certain amount of background noise.

What recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Police Federation on violent crime. [38878]

What initiatives he will introduce to combat violent crime. [38879]

Despite the overall fall in violent crime under this Government, we remain determined to make the fight against violent crime a priority, and in particular to tackle the rise in street crime that has taken place in some of our major cities. We regularly meet the Police Federation to discuss policing matters, and will support the police in their action against violent crime. The action that we have taken includes measures announced today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the police can make effective use of stop-and-search powers.

Can the Minister explain to the Police Federation how it reduces the amount of violent crime to ask those who are stopped, but not searched, for their names, addresses and self-defined ethnicity? Some who were asked those questions in pilot projects have declared themselves to be "Martian" or "Jedi knight".

As I said earlier, it is important for the police to be able to make effective use of stop-and-search powers, but in implementing the recommendations of the Lawrence inquiry we are taking measures to ensure that that is done with the confidence of all communities. The approach has been piloted and we can pilot it further to make sure that it works effectively, but the police must be equipped with the tools that they need to do their job properly.

Although the latest figures show that violent crime is rising—particularly in Essex, where there has been a 33 per cent. increase since 1998—the number of police constables has fallen. Will the Minister stop picking a fight with the police and learn from Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, that the best way of reducing all categories of crime is substantially to increase the number of police on the streets, and work with them rather than against them?

The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House for long. If he had been here longer, he would know that the cut in the number of Metropolitan police was started by the last Government—his party—in 1990, and that the cuts in other forces followed the same pattern under that Government. What makes our party and our Government different is that we have reversed the decline, and are on track for record police numbers. We will have 130,000 by next year. If any party in Parliament is meeting the need for more police officers, it is this party. The hon. Gentleman's party failed.

A Nottingham magistrate whom I visited at home yesterday told me that recent statements by the Lord Chief Justice had left him unsure about what policy to follow in imprisoning offenders. Does the Minister agree that, while we are keen to explore alternatives to prison in the case of a range of offences, we should ask magistrates to take a firm line in the case of violent offenders who pose a danger to the public?

I do not think it is for me to comment directly on Lord Justice Woolf and sentencing policy. If I did so, I might risk committing some terrible constitutional crime. I think the message is pretty clear, however: those who pose a real threat to the public through violent crimes such as street robbery must face severe penalties. Other sentences may be more appropriate for those who do not pose such a threat, but we hope and expect that the courts will protect the public when violent offenders are brought before them.

During his discussion with the Police Federation, will my right hon. Friend mention the misuse of air weapons? Each year some 1,500 people are injured, sometimes seriously, and some 10,000 animals are killed or maimed by such weapons. Although they are pretty lethal, children as young as 14 are allowed to use them unsupervised. Is it not time we seriously considered the misuse of these weapons and raised the age at which they can be used to 17, in line with the age for other gun usage?

There is a real problem with the misuse of weapons. It is one of the symptoms of antisocial behaviour among young people that we need to tackle. A few weeks ago we received the report of the firearms consultative committee, which considered air weapons, firearm use and age limits, among other issues. We are currently examining its recommendations.

Given recent welcome and high-profile contributions to the debate on the future of the criminal justice system by senior judges, senior police officers and Ministers, can the Minister confirm that the interests of victims and witnesses will motivate the reforms that the Government have in train? Although we have reservations about the associated bureaucracy, we support the new initiatives announced by the Home Secretary. However, if we are to deal with violent crime effectively, including through the effective use of stop and search, we must remember that it is not the court system that is failing—three out of four people brought to court are found guilty—but deterrence and detection of crime on the street. Only one in four of those who commit crime is arrested, and in London only one in eight is likely to be caught. Will he confirm that catching people and deterring crime are the priorities on which we should concentrate, rather than worrying too much about people getting off at the end of the process, given that—by and large—they do not?

The most unproductive way to approach this issue is to debate which part of the system is to blame. The reality is that reforms are needed in the police, in sentencing and in the courts. It is wrong to argue that the entire problem lies in a particular place. In discussing the criminal justice system last week, Sir John Stevens of the Metropolitan police did not say that the police are not in need of reform; he said that they, too, are in need of it.

If stop and search is to be one police weapon against criminality, do the police not have a responsibility to carry out their operations in such a way that claims of discrimination will simply not be justified? Previously, stop and search was largely discredited, and one hopes that it will be conducted differently in future.

My hon. Friend is right, but we should recognise that, although not everything is yet perfect, in recent years the police service across England and Wales has made huge efforts and great strides—especially since the Lawrence report—in tackling the problems that have been identified, and in improving the policing of minority communities in particular. That is one reason why members of those communities are calling for police action in a way that they would not have done five or six years ago, and we should acknowledge that.

I agree with what the Minister has just said, and like others on both sides of the House we support the Home Secretary's backing for stop and search—a power that the police need to fight crime on our streets. However, having listened to the Minister, I confess that I am still at a loss to understand how the new code's bureaucratic requirements will help police officers to use that power. He implied that the code will increase the level of consent to stop and search, but can he explain why receiving a report will make someone happier to be stopped by the police?

The point is that, over time, it will be possible to establish clearly who the police are stopping in order to make inquiries and to ask them to account for themselves. That is the best way to settle arguments about whether people are being picked up because there is reason to believe that they are committing—or planning to commit—an offence, or simply because of the colour of their skin. Showing that they are being picked up for the former reason, and not the latter, is critical to maintaining public confidence in the use of those policing powers.

Although the Minister has an argument, an opposing one exists that is of greater force. The bureaucratic requirements do not match the realities of everyday policing—a point made abundantly clear by the police. The Home Secretary said in the police debate, on 5 December 2001 at column 347, "We will cut bureaucracy". He rightly recognised that bureaucracy imposes severe constraints on policing, but how is the new code consistent with that theme?

The key reason why we want to cut the bureaucracy that ties police officers to police stations is to free them up to be out in the community fighting crime and using their powers where they have the chance to protect the public and reduce the level of crime. We will drive that agenda forward. The present proposals were produced in outline after careful consideration in the Lawrence inquiry. The group that has been advising my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and me on the implementation of those recommendations includes senior members of the police service from the Association of Chief Police Officers. They have signed up to the proposals and they have worked with us on the details.

If he proposes to develop the regionalisation of the National Asylum Support Service. [38880]

The internal review into the operation of dispersal recommended that the National Asylum Support Service should establish a greater regional presence. While plans are at an early stage, we are considering how NASS can have the capacity to answer more inquiries and solve problems at local levels. We are also considering outreach so that people who have been dispersed in regional clusters can be visited by NASS employees.

My hon. Friend will know of the serious concerns about administrative inefficiencies in NASS that have led, in far too many cases, to people being left without support for weeks on end. I welcome what she has said about setting up a regional structure, but I would like her assurance that it will not be only administrative. We need local access points where asylum seekers or their representatives can contact NASS directly, with telephone numbers that—unlike at present—do not continually change. Problems that should be straightforward could then be sorted out at local level by direct contact, which does not happen at the moment.

I agree that we need to ensure that NASS works more efficiently in the service that it gives to people once they have been dispersed, but we are not considering establishing counter services in the regions at this stage. Such innovations as the voucher inquiries line have improved service from what was an unacceptable level. The line turns inquiries round within 48 hours of the call being made, so that aspect of the national service is improving, but we do recognise the need for more outreach in the regions.

The success of NASS depends crucially on the degree of confidence that asylum seekers have in the Home Office. Is the Minister aware that that confidence is severely under pressure because of reports that the Home Office is still unable to give details of which asylum seekers were being held at the Yarl's Wood centre on 14 February, the night of the disturbances, and that the immigration service had refused an offer from Bedfordshire police to check the backgrounds of those likely to be moved to Yarl's Wood? Can she comment on that allegation and will she publish immediately a list of those detainees and asylum seekers who were at Yarl's Wood in order to dispel local rumours that, contrary to assurances, low-risk asylum seekers were held with those with criminal convictions, those who might be prone to violence and—possibly—those who might have terrorist connections?

The immigration service holds the definitive list of those who were in Yarl's Wood, although it is not my intention to publish it. The difficulties in providing a definitive list of those present at the time of the incident were the result of the destruction of the records that were held there and the fact that detainees had been transferred in and out of the centre after the last roll call at 6 pm but before the disturbance. We had to reconcile the figures that the immigration service holds because of that transfer. Group 4's records were destroyed in the fire, but I assure him that we have the immigration service figures.

My hon. Friend has seen the nasty, despicable little racist leaflet circulating in my constituency that has been promoted by a right-wing party in an attempt to raise fear within the community. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will condemn that activity. Will my hon. Friend seek to focus the discussions about the Government's proposals so that people in the community know that they have been told downright lies by that right-wing racist bunch?

I agree with my hon. Friend that attempts to exploit racial tension of the sort to which he refers and the despicable leaflets that he has shown me are unacceptable. Clearly, the sooner we are in a position to make choices about sites for accommodation, the sooner we will be able to dispel people's worries about this.

Given that the National Asylum Support Service currently houses over 40,000 asylum seekers, does the Minister accept that the recent fire and break-out from Yarl's Wood removal centre has severely damaged the Government's ability to manage the asylum system efficiently? How many of those who absconded are still on the run? How many persons have been charged with criminal offences arising out of this incident, and how many people whose asylum appeals are still current have been moved from Yarl's Wood into prison? Finally, when will the official inquiry into these events be available and ready for debate in the House?

I do not accept that the events at Yarl's Wood have made it harder or impossible for us to control the asylum system. Off the top of my head, 41 people were moved back into prison following the events at Yarl's Wood. The hon. Gentleman will know that a search is ongoing in the debris of the part of Yarl's Wood that was destroyed by fire to check the forensics. The last count that I saw—again this may not be the most up-to-date figure—showed that 22 people were missing, presumed on the run. I will check the list of the hon. Gentleman's other questions and write to him, but he has to realise that we are in the middle of an inquiry about this. There are also ongoing police inquiries. We are simply not in a position at this stage to give the hon. Gentleman detailed answers to his questions. However, I assure him that, when the answers come out of the inquiries, they will be made public.

What recent discussions he has had about the reform of the police service. [38882]

We have been in discussion with key stakeholders since October 2000 and that will continue as the reform programme is taken forward. The Police Reform Bill makes provision for some of the measures in the White Paper, but the reform agenda is much wider than that. The steering group is due to meet on Thursday, and will include representatives of all the key stakeholders. Reform of police pay and conditions of service is an important part of our agenda. We are in conciliation with the main organisations on the Police Negotiating Board.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he recognise that for the reform programme to be a success it is essential for him and his colleagues to regain the confidence of community beat officers, whether urban or rurally based, and their sergeants? In that connection, will he pay particular regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) about the propensity of the Metropolitan police force to recruit from county forces because of its more attractive pay and conditions and also to the growth and proliferation within county forces of specialist police units, often with more attractive terms and conditions, which are tending to suck officers away from the beat?

The hon. Gentleman heard the answer that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave earlier. Some of the issues raised are exactly those that we wish to address in our reform agenda with regard to pay. We want to get money to people when it is appropriate, when they are doing a job at the front line in the police service and when they are doing a particularly onerous duty. People in those situations should be recognised and rewarded. We accept that there are problems, which we are addressing as part of our proposals on the table. It is unfortunate that we must go to conciliation in order to get those proposals across and to get them agreed.

The vast majority of hon. Members and of people in the country support my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's reform programme for the police. In connection to earlier questions, one important part of that reform programme will be to ensure that there is a proper career structure for the ordinary policeman on the beat—the beat manager, the bobby or whatever—so that they can gain promotion and obtain better pay and conditions. A constable could therefore be rewarded simply for being a good policeman on the beat, dealing with antisocial behaviour, street crime and so on, without having to be rewarded by being promoted to a desk job or to a role other than that in which he has proved his worth.

My hon. Friend has hit on an important point, which applies in other professions as it does in the police. One of the most important jobs in the police service is that of constable, and one of the most important parts of the police reform programme is to give that job due recognition.

Does the Minister recognise that, although the Police Reform Bill contains many good proposals, genuine concern exists in all quarters about the proposals to give the Home Secretary of the day more power to intervene in operational police matters? Does he recognise that that challenges the traditional tripartite structure between the Home Secretary, police authorities and chief constables. As a consequence, the axis is being moved very much in the Home Secretary's direction. Will consideration be given to changing those proposals, particularly with regard to the draconian authority that such operational proposals might give to a right-wing Tory Home Secretary in the future?

The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. There are no proposals in the Police Reform Bill to take over operational issues. The hon. Gentleman ought to accept that the Home Secretary and Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and, through Parliament, to the nation. On the subject of right-wing Home Secretaries, surely he would not want to return to the days when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was in office—the days of the "Not me Guy" Government. We are responsible for policy in the broadest terms, and we therefore need to have the powers that go with that accountability.

Given wider police powers and the wider police community, does my hon. Friend believe that the police will have better facilities to deal with disturbances and violent crimes such as those which took place in Burnley in June last year? In particular, will police be enabled to get to know those who are stirring up that type of trouble and to take action before problems of that type arise on the street?

During meetings up and down the country to discuss police reform, we have tried to say simply that it is the police, not the Government, who need that reform. They are stretched in every direction by the expectations placed on them by the public, who expect them to be everywhere, to meet response times, and to be able to tackle the kind of serious problems that occurred last year in my hon. Friend's constituency. The police reform package is about enabling the police to deal with all those issues as effectively as possible.

If he will make a statement on the level of street crime in London. [38883]

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and I agree that the increase in street robbery that has occurred over the past year is unacceptable. Post 11 September, there was a diversion of resources in the Metropolitan police area away from police on the streets, but that has now been reversed by the safer streets programme, which I welcome very strongly and which has seen a halving of the increase in street robbery over the past five weeks. Equally, the measures that the mobile phone industry has at last agreed to take will make a difference.

I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. He referred to what happened in New York, but is he aware that, according to last year's figures, a Londoner is now twice as likely to be mugged as a New Yorker? What material action is the Home Office, under his leadership, planning to take to reduce the soaring level of street crime in our capital? Clearly, what Ministers are attempting to do at the moment is not working.

I mentioned mobile phones, and it is estimated that 51 per cent. of the street crime in London involves that form of robbery. We now have a programme with the industry to deal with that problem. We are also targeting advice at young people, and that campaign has been helpfully backed up by the London Evening Standard. We have 1,100-plus additional officers on the streets of London since last March, and we have a budget that is only marginally less than that for New York, but with 12,000 fewer officers. That, of course, begs the question about the use of resources and prioritisation, and that is why the Metropolitan police authority, the Commissioner and Ministers are all determined to make sure that we use those resources to get a visible police presence when it is needed and that it is backed up by the technology that the police deserve to be able to do the job of reducing the unacceptable level of street crime and robbery to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Will my right hon. Friend provide us with any more details about the success of the safer streets campaign in reducing crime in some of the nine boroughs in which it was originally introduced? Does he appreciate that there will be a warm welcome in Wandsworth for the extension of the operation to other London boroughs, including Wandsworth? Can he give us any assurances about the extension of the scheme beyond 31 March, which is when it is currently due to end?

I shall be having discussions this week with the commissioner about the potential for retaining the diversion of resources from traffic duties into the safer streets campaign—which I believe has contributed considerably to the reduction in street crime—about the potential for carrying forward the additional resources for anti-terrorism work that we provided just before Christmas and about the ability to continue the programme for the urgent recruitment of additional police officers in a way that has not occurred for many years.

I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise that one of the factors that leads to an increase in street crime is the lack of respect that sections of society, particularly young people, have for the police force. What measures is he putting forward to address that problem?

We have drawn together a youth taskforce of all the agencies, including those in education, that have a role to play. I have worked with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to ensure that schools welcome the police service and work with the police not only to build respect but to develop an understanding of their common cause. We are working with black and Asian community leaders to ensure that people understand that much violent crime and street robbery is black on black and that it often involves young black people being attacked by other young black people. That is why I strongly welcome the brave stand taken by Mike Best, the editor of The Voice, who simply told the truth and has focused attention on the issue, as we have been doing today by revising the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code A on stop and search to ensure that we protect those members of the community who are most vulnerable from those who are most violent.

What assessment he has made of the role of air support to police forces in combating crime and terrorism. [38885]

Guidance on the use of air support on good practice is provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers air operations committee, which includes the Home Office. The role is kept under constant review. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary also carries out inspections of air support units. Operational support—whether in the fight against crime or terrorism, or in other areas such as searching for missing persons—is a matter for individual police constables, but aircraft can provide a unique additional resource in such circumstances.

The Minister will be aware that, in response to budgetary pressures, the Metropolitan police have had to cut their flying hours by nearly a third. They have now announced that they will try to sell one of their three helicopters, leaving just two. That compares with the seven that are available to the New York police, and 10 to the Berlin, Tokyo and Los Angeles police forces. Having only two aircraft will mean that no more than one will be operational at any one time. In the face of rising crime and the constant threat from terrorism, that represents a real threat to the security of London and the safety of police officers and the public alike. What is the Minister going to do to rectify this appalling state of affairs and ensure a proper level of protection to London and Londoners?

The hon. Gentleman should tie up more closely with his hon. Friends. Last year saw a 30 per cent. increase in capital allocation—in revenue terms, a 6 per cent. increase overall. We are a Government who put money into the police service to increase police numbers, following the pause under the Conservatives. Most Conservative Members say that they do not believe in operational control, yet the hon. Gentleman says that we should tell the police exactly how they should spend their money and how many helicopters they should buy. The Conservative party cannot have its cake and eat it. Either it believes in operational independence, or it does not. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not, but some of his hon. Friends do. There is something strange going on.