What support his Department provides for court-based drug workers.[91422]

All police forces in England and Wales have arrest referral schemes, some of which include court-based schemes. We are providing up to £6 million in matched funding for the police towards the costs.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that Redbridge magistrates court was the first London court to appoint a court-based drug worker? He has engaged with 150 offenders in each of the last three years and has seen more than half of them move into detox, rehab or treatment. Funding for the scheme also comes from the Redbridge drug action team. Can my hon. Friend assure us that such initiatives will be continued to help break the link between drugs and crime?

We intend not only to continue but to enhance such schemes and improve their ability to get offenders into drug treatment. That approach is in marked contrast to that of the Conservatives, who would not go ahead with those enhancements but would instead spend the money on residential rehabilitation, whether or not it was appropriate.

Is the Minister aware of the strong link between drugs and the use of alcohol on the streets by under-age persons? Why, therefore, did the Government last year remove the power of the police to take unopened bottles and cans of alcohol away from young people on the streets? When will the Government perform a humiliating climbdown and reverse that change so that the police can once again have that power?

Order. That is far too wide of the question before us.

My hon. Friend the Minister made a positive statement, but where drug action teams are in place, could we remove frustration by ensuring that there will be more detox centres and that when people appear before the courts they go straight into such centres? There would thus be less crime on the streets.

Dealing with drug addiction is not straightforward. Different treatments are provided for different people in different circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that should continue. Detox is appropriate immediately for some people, but only after a period of time for others. One needs to establish contact with people and to settle them, if they are especially chaotic, before even moving towards detoxification. Getting people into treatment in the first place has a dramatic effect on the rates of crime committed by drug addicts.

But does the Minister not recognise that there is a huge difference between Ministers' rhetoric about this matter and the reality of what happens on the ground? As his hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and others, including the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) in his earlier question, have stressed, there needs to be not only contact between addicts and drug workers or treatment centres but intensive rehabilitation.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will challenge the fact that drug treatment has been growing at about 8 per cent. a year. It is not merely a case of throwing money at the problem; we have to train people and give them skills because they simply do not exist. Why not? I suggest that it is, to some extent, because the Conservatives wholly ignored the problem for so long. We had to bring in the first drug strategy—in 1998. Our enhancements will improve it. We are building on the work that has already been done in order to tackle a very real problem. There are no simplistic solutions, such as getting a few people into residential rehabilitation and abandoning the rest, as the Conservatives, in effect, suggest.

What proposals he has to increase police numbers in Sussex.[91423]

The Sussex police force was allocated 206 recruits from the crime fighting fund for the three years to March 2003.

Is the Minister aware that those figures are dwarfed by the £9.6 million loss that the Sussex police authority calculates will arise from the grant distribution changes? Is he also aware that the chief constable of Sussex has made it clear that even the modest of target of getting back to the number of police officers in Sussex in 1997 is being jeopardised by the Government's policies? Why are the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

I do not accept that that is the case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that the total force strength in Sussex is 4,400 officers and support staff, compared with 3,935 in 1992—the year in which the hon. Gentleman was first elected to the House. That is an increase of 12 per cent. This year, in line with all authorities, the force is getting a budget increase of 3 per cent. plus an additional £5.86 million from the crimefighting fund, £90,000 for new recruits, £550,000 for policing rural areas, £180,000 for community support officers and £735,000 to help with the cost of recruitment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That answer was so unsatisfactory that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

rose—

Order. Because of that point of order, I must go on to the next Question.

If he will make a statement on his plans to develop a refugee resettlement programme with the UNHCR. [91424]

From the spring, we will begin a new programme, organised with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which will screen applicants for asylum in regions of the world where people are experiencing the threat of death or torture. We will initially take 500 refugees, rising to a larger number as we develop the programme—thereby preventing people having to present through the use of smugglers, traffickers and organised criminals.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system allows those with some money in refugee camps to take advantage of smugglers and ignores the fact that people with no money are left in desperate situations? Does he further agree that it is wrong to cause disturbances in our communities and constituencies by linking terrorism with such programmes, attacking the Government and jumping on the bandwagon—which creates an enormous problem in all our communities?

I well understand the genuine worries and concerns that exist in many communities with regard to the terrorist threat, together with the concerns raised in the media about whether our screening process for persons entering his country— whether or not they are asylum seekers—is adequate. Screening people outside this country through the new UN programme and the moving of border controls from the Kent coast to France—and to Belgium and Holland in future—will secure our borders, protect our population and, I hope, assist in meeting genuine concerns while damping down the danger of the asylum issue being whipped up—which can do no good to race relations in this country.

Does the Home Secretary agree that as we honour our international obligations to accept and deal with asylum seekers, paradoxically it is easier to deal with any who might be concerned with terrorism because of our right to refuse people with that background entry into this country—and to send them out of the country if they are a threat to national security under the Geneva convention and the treaties? To make sure that we continue to generate more light than heat, as I know the Home Secretary wants to do, will he look again at the proposal that I and others have made for a European refugee agency, to take decisions independently of government but most importantly, to make sure that responsibility is shared across the European Union in a proportionately fair manner for the refugees that come to us?

I am concerned to have a system that works, and the establishment of a European agency may not be the right way of achieving one. However, I am totally committed to European co-operation, burden sharing and a system that makes like-for-like comparisons. I am particularly keen to develop, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, a system outside this country—such as the new UN programme and border and security controls on the French, Belgian and Dutch coasts—that prevents traffickers getting people into this country and precludes persons from claiming asylum once they have reached our shores. However, it behoves us all to remember the difficulty that both Houses encountered in getting through new measures that allow us to turn around and remove from the country persons with a clearly unfounded claim. I hope that anyone who raised objections in whatever form to sending people back to their country of origin will not in this House or in what they write and speak about publicly commit the sin of having said one thing when we were legislating and quite another on the back of media campaigns.

On refugees, will my right hon. Friend undertake a root and branch investigation into how the Coniston hotel in my constituency was selected by the National Asylum Support Service as a reception centre, not least given that it was only acquired today but is due to open next Monday?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration has made it clear today that the procedure and process by which this matter was handled was unsatisfactory and that she has undertaken immediately to put in place a review. She is examining the contractual arrangements and why the letter sent by the local authority chief executive on 3 October last was not replied to. All those matters display an incompetence about which our Administration are doing something, as I have explained in the House before, but, with the new director general of the immigration and nationality directorate, we require a step change in the way that that directorate relates to local communities, responds to local Members of Parliament and displays its competence in dealing with these sensitive issues.

As the Government are to admit refugees under the new United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees gateway system—I have absolutely no objection to that—will the Home Secretary ensure that no refugee should come from any of the 44 countries of the Council of Europe? I say that for the simple reason that those countries subscribe to the European Court of Human Rights and, if they transgress any human right, the Government ought to take that up, through the ECHR, with the country concerned.

We took the power in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to ensure that we could list the countries that we believe to be safe. Initially, for those seeking access to the European Union from next year, I am prepared to widen that list, and I hope that I will have the support of whole House in doing so. I am deeply mindful of those who have signed up to the European convention on human rights being committed to human rights and being prepared to display their own commitment to them. I want to make it clear, however, that no EU country has derogated or withdrawn from article 3, because none could, nor has any country denounced the ECHR by leaving it altogether, and those newspapers and those reporters and commentators who have suggested otherwise are simply wrong.

The whole House hears what the Home Secretary has to say about refugees and asylum seekers—many of us would share those sentiments—but what hope can he give to those asylum seekers in this country who will now find themselves destitute as a consequence of the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002?

My suggestion would be that people in those circumstances have completely failed in their claim, or failed to claim when they first entered the country. In both cases, they have a choice of leaving the country and going back home. If they had been refugees with an immediate and overriding asylum claim, if they had not got an income or other support or if they had not entered the country on an alternative visa or visitor pass, of course they would be dealt with entirely differently, but those who have sustained themselves in another fashion and treated the asylum process as a social security benefits system will get short shrift.

In the light of the Home Secretary's important and rational responses this afternoon, does he now accept what he seemed reluctant to accept a few days ago—that it is legitimate to raise the links between the terrorist threat and the deficiencies in our immigration and asylum system?

It is legitimate for people to raise the issue of the screening of those who come into this country and are resident in this country. Therefore, it is right to ensure that the warning index, which flags up the dangers in relation to particular individuals coming in, is strengthened. The other measures—the co-ordinator who started work last Monday on the range of border control services, the shifting of the border to France for immigration and security, and the introduction of technology both at those new borders and at our ports and airports to enable us to screen those coming in—are also right. What is not right is for people constantly to imply, sometimes behind their hands, that there is a major problem with asylum seekers as opposed to a major problem with those who threaten life and limb. Screening all those who pose a potential danger is therefore the issue with which we are dealing. Anyone who pretends that we can find a simple and easy answer, any more than other countries have done, not only deludes themselves and those around them but unnecessarily whips up scares that can do no good in terms of our security measures and every harm to our community and race relations, which are often fragile and could easily tip over into a situation that we could not control.

I think I take that as a modified yes. Does the Home Secretary therefore also accept that it may be time to consider in a calm and rational fashion whether the UK should build on his idea of a UNHCR resettlement programme, which we welcome, and adopt a radically different approach to the handling of the whole refugee question?

The purpose of the whole Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was fought through with considerable difficulty here and in another place, demonstrated that we wanted an end-to-end change in our approach. That is the reason for the change to the French, Belgian and Dutch borders, the setting up of induction and screening centres, the reporting facility, the new ID cards for asylum seekers, the change to the work permit visa system to allow people to come here to work legitimately and to be welcomed in doing so, and the increased screening to which I have referred for all those coming into the country. Until we have an entitlement or ID card for all those in our country we will not have a robust way of determining true identity or right to work. I hope that the House and my colleagues will be prepared to debate that in the months ahead.

My right hon. Friend is aware that refugees from Iraq form the largest proportion of asylum seekers in this country. As someone whose constituency has a large Iraqi population, I can tell him that security checks on a number of those applicants take at least a year and are extremely rigorous. Will he assure me that at the same time as cracking down on the minority who abuse the asylum system, he will send a strong message to the community that the vast majority of asylum seekers from Iraq are fleeing terror, not seeking to propagate it?

Yes, I will. I hope that it takes much less than a year to conduct screening, particularly of those who are on the warning index, which should he done immediately. I take the point in terms of thorough vetting, which is a prolonged and time-consuming process, and cannot just be dismissed by easy, glib headlines about what should and should not be done. I appeal to people—including those who write in our newspapers whose family arrived in this country fleeing persecution because of the open door that we had available at the time, and who have their well-being and freedom as a result—to pause before denying that right to others today.

How many representations he has received on the allocation of rural funding to police forces in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.[91425]

We received many responses to our consultation on the police funding formula last summer. As a result of that consultation, we decided to retain the rural policing fund, from which police authorities in sparsely populated areas will share £30 million. I have received three representations since we announced that decision.

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does not the standstill budget allocated to semi-rural police forces such as that in north Wales ignore the current inflation rate and the fact that there is likely to be a huge increase in fuel costs before long? Along with the hike in insurance premiums recently, that means a real cut in funding. Will he reconsider the budget as it is creating difficulties for semi-rural police forces?

There is not a standstill budget in north Wales or anywhere else. There was a 4.6 per cent. increase in funding in north Wales through the police grant, and that is well ahead of inflation and ahead of the average for England and Wales as a whole. The hon. Gentleman's constituency has 137 more police officers today than it did in 1997.

In the context of the Nottinghamshire police force, will my right hon. Friend take this first opportunity to associate himself with the views of Nottinghamshire Members of Parliament from all parties who have expressed their grief and, indeed, anger at the death on duty of a serving officer, PC Ged Walker, last week? It is a matter of great concern to members of the public and to people of all political persuasions in Nottinghamshire that this should be the last incident of this sort. I hope thatmy right hon. Friend will take this opportunity to put his views on the record.

I am very pleased to join my hon. Friend and all Nottinghamshire Members of Parliament in paying tribute to PC Ged Walker, who was killed as a result of the serious head injuries sustained while being dragged along by a stolen car. His death underlines yet again the difficult and dangerous job that we ask our police officers to do for us. Our thoughts go to his family and to his friends.

I associate the Opposition with the Minister's remarks.

The House will understand why officers are being attracted to the Metropolitan police. In the past year and for the first time in many years, the Metropolitan police has been a net importer of police officers. Traditionally, the Met has recruited and exported police officers. One of the major reasons why the expansion in numbers in the Metropolitan police has taken place is its recruitment of additional officers, not least to strengthen its counter-terrorism service, which in practice provides a service across the country as a whole.

What assessment he has made of the likely impact of custody plus and custody minus sentences upon the reoffending levels of heroin-misusing offenders.[91426]

The new sentences of custody plus and custody minus have been designed to enable courts to tailor sentencing decisions to the needs of the offender, including applying drugs treatment and rehabilitation requirements as appropriate.

Does the Minister agree that a more detailed evaluation of success is possible if carried out on a geographically stable population of drug misusers?

I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on this issue, which I know is greatly admired by Members on both sides of the House. I agree that if we are to assess the effectiveness of the vastly increased resources that we are going to put into drug treatment, about which we had a good debate a week ago today, it is important that we do so in all kinds of communities, including those such as my hon. Friend's, whose particular characteristics have given rise to his understandable concern.

Given the escalating number of heroin-using offenders, escalating demand for heroin treatment and the fact that the vast majority of heroin addicts started on cannabis, will the Home Secretary reconsider the relaxation of the law on cannabis?

No is what I would tell the hon. Lady, for the simple reason that that change has flowed from police practice over many years. Police officers say clearly in their advice to us that they wish to be able to concentrate on dealing with the most dangerous drugs, including heroin, to which she referred.

Does my hon. Friend concur with the proposition that effective probation services can help to reduce the reoffending rate of heroin users? Will he therefore undertake to investigate the proposed closure of the Lewis road probation service workshops in my constituency, as that service is valued locally?

I will gladly look into the details of the case that my hon. Friend has raised. On his general point, he is entirely right that the probation service has an important role to play, and is making a major contribution to the drug treatment and testing orders, which are proving to be successful.

The Minister will agree that many heroin users commit burglary to fund their addiction. In that context, the Home Secretary said in response to the further final clarification by the Lord Chief Justice on burglary sentences:

"I am pleased he has clarified that, not least that those who have committed a multiplicity of crimes, including other crimes than burglary, will not simply be let off, nor will they in terms of second or subsequent offences, expect to get, albeit a tough community sentence, but instead to get custody, I think that is the right signal, and I'm very glad to have clarified that."

The Home Secretary meant precisely what the hon. Gentleman has read out. If he is having difficulty understanding my right hon. Friend's words, the position is simply this—my right hon. Friend, the Lord Chief Justice in his clarification and others have said that repeat offenders who burgle for the first time should expect custody, because the public rightly will not understand or accept that repeat offenders who turn to burglary should expect to be treated in any other way.

What measures he will take to simplify the procedure for the removal of travellers from unauthorised sites.[91427]

We are introducing new powers of eviction to allow the police to take firm action against unauthorised encampments where local authorities have made adequate site provision without the preconditions in current legislation.

I thank the Minister for his reply. My question arose directly from my experiences of three visits by travellers to Allerton Bywater in my constituency, which caused great concern among local people. When the travellers finally departed, they left the place a tip. Will my hon. Friend make sure that the various organisations responsible for implementing the law are fully aware of their powers and use them effectively?

I am aware of the problems that my hon. Friend has had in his constituency, which are shared by many Members on both sides of the House and are precisely why we are introducing those new powers. We will make sure that they are widely publicised and used, because that sort of behaviour is intolerable and it will not be tolerated.

I thank the Minister for his Department's willingness to meet the town clerk of Totton and Eling town council in my constituency who has been co-ordinating efforts to improve procedures for dealing with travellers in our part of Hampshire. As I understand it, the new powers that will be granted to make removal easier are contingent on the provision of sites for travellers by town councils. Will the Minister issue planning guidelines to adjust current restrictions on planning that make it difficult for town and parish councils to supply those sites, given normal restrictions on planning procedures; otherwise, with the best will in the world, councils may want to supply the sites, but be prevented from doing so by the restrictions on planning?

We will look at all those aspects, including the planning guidelines, in the light of experience. There are existing powers to deal with such encampments; the problem is that it is difficult to deal with them quickly enough. That is what the new powers will do. We need to provide somewhere for the unauthorised encampments to go; otherwise they will simply take the problem somewhere else. That is why there is the link with local sites. We are providing extra funding. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minster is trying to find—

Planning guidance?

I am coming to that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman should be a little patient. We need to provide extra funding. The ODPM, which has responsibility for the matter, is doing that. We are determined to make the problem go away, and we will not rest until it does. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of street wardens.[91428]

As my hon. Friend is aware, there are three centrally funded warden schemes. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister retains overall responsibility for them, although many of the issues surrounding them fall to the Home Office as the lead Department. All the schemes are relatively new, so robust evaluations are not yet available. However, the preliminary work that has been done suggests that such schemes can contribute significantly to bringing down levels of crime, reducing antisocial behaviour and reducing fear of crime.

Is the Minister aware that a Government-funded street warden scheme has already had a dramatic effect on reducing crime in Clapham junction—reducing crime overall by 13 per cent., compared with 4 per cent. borough-wide; reducing street crime by 32 per cent., compared with 20 per cent. borough-wide; reducing car crime by 40 per cent., compared with 7 per cent. borough-wide; and reducing the fear of crime by 60 per cent., according to a Wandsworth council survey, compared with the target given to the scheme of reducing fear of crime by 10 per cent? Given the success of these initial schemes, will the Minister do all he can to increase the number of community support schemes in areas like the London borough of Wandsworth?

Yes, I am well aware of the success of the scheme in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am also aware of how hard he has campaigned and lobbied to make sure not only that the scheme is implemented, but that it is adequately funded. As a result, even Wandsworth borough council, which is no political friend of the Government, as the House is aware, recognises how successful the scheme has been. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything we can to make sure that those successes are replicated throughout the country.

Can the Minister make sure that such schemes are extended much more widely in the outer London boroughs, which have a serious problem with vandalism and unruly behaviour on the part of young people? Has he received any report yet from the Metropolitan Commissioner about the success of police community support officers in the central zone?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be replicating the schemes. Their success is evident and we will make sure that both they and the community support officers to whom he refers do the job that they are intended to do—to reduce crime, to reduce fear of crime and to reduce antisocial behaviour.

What measures he is taking to tackle persistent youth offending.[91429]

We have introduced a range of measures, which have cut reconviction rates for young offenders by 14.6 per cent. compared with those for 1997.

The Minister will know of the success of Neath and Port Talbot crime and disorder partnership in achieving the first interim antisocial behaviour orders in the whole of Wales. Will he join me in congratulating the partnership on its proactive approach, particularly the local police and the local authority? Will he also consider providing additional funding for youth offending teams, and explore ways in which magistrates can be given all the information that they require as to why antisocial behaviour orders are being applied for, by considering evidence over a 12-month period, rather than over six months, as at present?

I certainly congratulate the Neath and Port Talbot crime reduction partnership on making such early use of the new measures that were introduced last summer in the Police Reform Act 2002. There is already clear evidence to show that interim antisocial behaviour orders are enabling people to respond very quickly to problems in local communities.

Does the Minister agree that one persistent nuisance from persistent young offenders is graffiti? Why do the courts appear to be making so little use of the powers that Parliament has given them to require offenders to clear up graffiti? Does that reflect the low priority that they and perhaps the Government accord to the problem?

That certainly does not take anything away from the priority that the Government accord the problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will publish a White Paper on antisocial behaviour in the very near future, with a view to introducing legislation in this Session.

If he will make a statement on measures he proposes to improve the administration of Lunar House in Croydon.[91430]

Substantial progress has been made in some areas, and as the Home Secretary said earlier, we expect to see a radical transformation this year in the operation and efficiency of the immigration and nationality directorate. We are pursuing a range of measures including the provision of additional resources and implementation of new processes to tackle backlogs and improve the handling of immigration and asylum applications, as well as correspondence.

We are agreed about one thing: it can only get better. Why has it taken so long to address this problem? I have been in the House for 10 years and I know that the experience of all Members of Parliament is that documents are lost, letters are not replied to and decisions are sent to the wrong people. I give the Minister notice that, in six months' time, I shall try to raise the same question again—and there had better be improvements or there will be one hell of a bloody row.

I can tell my hon. Friend that there has been progress. I share his frustration about the time that it is taking to sort out a situation that was in almost catastrophic meltdown when we took over in 1997. I should like to give him some examples, as I am not being complacent about the issue. The time taken to make an initial decision in asylum cases in 1997 was nearly two years. In 75 per cent. of cases, that time is now down to two months. Some 4,800 people were removed having failed in their applications in 1997. The number will be 13,000 this year. There is progress and it is steady. We would like it to be faster, but we clearly have a much more orderly and effective system that we ever had in 1997. I assure him that further measures are in place to improve on that situation and bring about the well managed, routinely organised and administratively efficient system that we undoubtedly need, and I will welcome the opportunity to report to him in future.

I apologise for using the vernacular, Mr. Speaker.

Order.

The Minister has just told us that 13,000 people were removed last year because they had made unfounded asylum claims. How many asylum applicants had their applications refused last year and were therefore liable to be removed?

I have not got that figure in my head, but many thousands were refused last year. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the figure that I cited earlier: fewer than 5,000 people were removed in 1997. We have put in place the resources to tackle the undoubted difficulty of removing people. As someone who has been involved with the Home Office and now serves on the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Gentleman should know the difficulties. We are dealing with them robustly; we have increased the number of removals year by year, and we will continue to do that.

I am sure that the Minister knows that all too frequently people receive letters from the Home Office that state that they will receive permission to stay in the United Kingdom, or win an asylum appeal, but they are still waiting for the official status letter six months later. In the meantime, they have to survive on no income and are unable to get a job. Why is it impossible to send the official status letter as soon as the decision is made, instead of a letter that states, "You will be getting the official letter"?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a matter not simply of the official letter but of ensuring that, at the point of final refusal, people are encouraged and helped to leave; and that if they do not leave, they are forced to do so. We are pursuing all the means that we can to maximise the potential for voluntary removals. When people will not go voluntarily, we must enforce their removal.

If he will make a statement on the financial settlement to Gloucestershire constabulary for the forthcoming financial year.[91432]

My right hon. Friend the Police Minister announced the provisional police funding settlement for English police authorities on 5 December 2002. Gloucestershire police authority is provisionally set to receive a general grant of £57 million—an increase of 3 per cent. Gloucestershire is also provisionally set to receive up to £2.33 million through the crimefighting fund, £780,000 in rural grant, and £190,000 towards the cost of the airwave communications system. Gloucestershire is therefore provisionally set to receive an increase of 3.5 per cent. We expect to announce the final funding settlement on 5 February.

I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed response. However, I had a one-and-a-half hour meeting with the chief constable on Friday and he said that the money for Gloucestershire is sufficient to cover only the increase in pay that has been awarded and the increase in national insurance that the Government have forced on the authority. The chief constable asked me to ask the Minister how on earth he can be expected to finance the extra work in the national policing plan.

"to provide sufficient resources to support Gloucestershire … in maintaining stable levels of service", [Official Report, 30 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 845W.]

The hon. Gentleman has missed out a statistic in his full and detailed question. Gloucestershire police are at record numbers. I remind him that in the last five years of Conservative Government, the number of police officers in Gloucestershire declined by 41. Under this Government, there are 50 more police officers than in 1997. The extra money is being spent on more police officers to fight and reduce the fear of crime. The Conservative Government signally failed to do that.

May I reassure my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) omitted more than one statistic? On 23 December, £180,000 was announced for providing video interview and rape examination suites in Gloucestershire. Our current police force comprises 1,183 officers, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. That is far more police than we ever had in Gloucestershire previously. When the Conservative party was in power—

Order. It is not for the Minister to reply to such matters.

How much (a) crack cocaine and (b) heroin have been seized by the police each year since 1997.[91433]

The most recent data available show that the amount of heroin seized increased threefold and that that of cocaine increased nearly fivefold between 1997 and 2000. In the same period, the amount of crack cocaine seized fell. The updated drug strategy contains specific measures for high crime areas where crack is often a significant part of the problem.

I know that my hon. Friend will be aware of the terrible scourge that heroin represents in constituencies such as my own, in which 28 deaths have been caused by heroin overdoses in the last 18 months. I know that he will also want to congratulate all the officers involved in Operation Tarian, which has been particularly successful in seizing heroin and crack cocaine in the south Wales valleys over the last six months. Is he aware, however, of the concern being expressed by many local police officers that there is not strong co-operation between the different police forces in south Wales or with the Avon and Somerset police force? Does he agree that co-operation is essential if we are to ensure that drugs do not sweep through from Bristol into the south Wales valleys?

My hon. Friend is right to flag up that difficulty. Operation Tarian was funded partly by the Home Office to the tune of £500,000 a year, to provide exactly the cross-border co-operation that is needed between the three police forces in question. When providing that money, we said that it would be essential that those forces should not only co-operate with one another to deal with the very real problem that exists in south and mid-Wales but work closely with police in Avon and Somerset and the west midlands. The middle market, as we call it, into south Wales is often routed through Birmingham or Bristol, and the problem cannot be dealt with in isolation.

As a matter of interest, has the Minister considered how much money the Treasury would have made out of charging VAT on the heroin and crack cocaine that has been seized, and what value that money could have provided in terms of the treatment of addicts and the reduction of crime?

That is not a calculation that I have immediately in my head. The hon. Lady should consider, also as a matter of interest, the size of the public health problem that we might have if we went down the road that she is suggesting. The prevalence of the use of class A drugs is nothing like what it could be if we implemented the policies that she is, in effect, expounding.

Does my hon. Friend agree that concentrating on cutting off the demand for illicit drugs is far more important than concentrating on their seizure, and that concentrating too much on seizure might have the perverse effect of raising street prices and, consequently, of increasing crime?

Both are important. I think that my hon. Friend would recognise that we have tried, in the updated drugs strategy, to rebalance our spending towards harm minimisation and treatment and, therefore, towards demand reduction. We cannot, however, abandon the attack on availability or the attempts to dismantle the groups that bring these substances into the country. Lower prices and more ready availability would surely only lead to a bigger problem. The two issues must go hand in hand: we must attack both availability and demand. The most effective way to do that, as I think my hon. Friend knows, is to get addicts into good treatment, which is why we are emphasising that provision at the moment.

What plans he has to introduce targets to reduce gun crime.[91434]

If he will make a statement on gun crime.[91439]

The immediate target has to be to reduce the year-on-year increase in gun crime associated with organised gang criminality. That is why we have already made changes to the law on minimum penalties for those illegally carrying guns, banned the import of guns that can be converted, changed the law relating to replica guns and the carrying of guns in a public place, and introduced measures relating to the age limit for the purchase and ownership of air weapons. All those measures form part of a jigsaw to tackle the unacceptably high level of organised gun crime in this country.

What the Home Secretary did not say, of course, is that gun crime is already up 90 per cent. under this Government. Does he really think that his jigsaw, which includes yet another departmental taskforce, yet another amnesty and more headline-grabbing attacks on the rap music industry, will seriously trouble hardened criminal gangs that use guns and feed off the crack cocaine trade? If he thinks that his strategy will work, why does he not set a specific target, as he has done in many areas of Home Office policy, on reducing gun crime?

I have just indicated that the task ahead of us is to reduce the exponential rise, and we have made no bones about the danger and the difficulty that that poses, but the measures that the hon. Gentleman has just attacked were all put forward either by the police or by those deeply associated with the job of reducing gun crime. We have responded, as any sensible Government would, to the suggestions made, including at the round table meeting that I held on 10 January, which was extremely productive and engaged a range of agencies, enterprises and community groups, all of which have a part to play.

Most people will be very dissatisfied with the Home Secretary's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when the Government came to power there were about 12,000 firearms offences, that the number is about 22,000 today and that in the past five years the number of offences involving handguns has more than doubled? When is he going to take the problem seriously and stop offering the House of Commons no more than a reduction in the increase in gun offences? We need a decrease for the people of this country.

Reducing does mean decreasing—at least it does in my dictionary—and I have every intention of ensuring that we do that together, but action on air weapons, conversions and the import of Brocock and similar weapons are all a critical part of the process. The Metropolitan police revealed at the round table meeting that 75 per cent. of the guns that they picked up were conversions, so the measures that we are taking are directly related to the problem, linked as they are to changing the culture in the communities most affected. Sometimes we get the blame for what others do; sometimes others get the blame for what I do. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Tatton is wrong in his presumption that I have blamed rap—although gangs using rap are an entirely different matter.

I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has taken to toughen some gun laws. All of us want guns off our streets, and one way to do that is to enforce those laws and ensure that people who use guns face the full weight of the law. Does he recognise that to prosecute people in the courts we need witnesses to come forward? Will he consider ways to encourage community members to come forward with information and to protect witnesses from the intimidation that they feel, which prevents many from giving the police information that would lead to prosecution?

That is a critical point, and it was raised at the round table meeting. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will take the necessary steps suggested by community groups, in terms of a substantial strengthening of the protection of victims, the availability of that protection, and encouraging the communities from which people are giving such evidence to be part of the process. That should include the ability to provide information confidentially, providing a hotline that is trusted and understood by those who can give such information, and getting the message across—this has been done in individual instances—that in extremis we can give people a new identity until the issue has been properly dealt with.

If he will make a statement on the funding of police community support officers.[91435]

In the current financial year, we have allocated £19 million to the development—the pump priming—of community support officers. In the coming year, that will more than double to about £40 million, £3.6 million of which will be allocated to the Greater Manchester police area.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary, but he knows that his Department will meet only 50 per cent. of the cost of community support officers in Greater Manchester from 2004. From 2006, none of the cost will be met. Does he expect Greater Manchester police to cut the number of community support officers or the number of regular police officers?

Just for a moment, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to welcome the fact that the first community support officer started work in his constituency this morning. Along with the 160 who will be available next year, that officer will be doing a damn good job in protecting the people of the area. I can announce today that there will be 100 per cent. funding through to April 2004. There will be 75 per cent. funding for 2004–05, and 50 per cent. from 2005–06 for that final year of the spending review. We have made it clear all along—the Opposition have asked us to do so—that we will not have constant and permanent ring-fenced funds, but that we will give kick-start initial funding and then freedom and power to the chief constable and the police authority to do the job at local level. So going local has to involve local decision making.