If he will make a statement on the cost of police pensions. [98756]

Forces in England and Wales estimate that their police pension bill for 2002–03 will be around £1.2 billion. That has been matched by the £1.26 billion allocated for pensions in the total funding formula. However, the Government are aware that pension costs cause police authorities concern, and we are reviewing the way in which pensions are financed and whether the scheme could be modernised for future entrants.

I thank the Minister for that response. I acknowledge that Northamptonshire's settlement this year is less ungenerous than some recent settlements. Does he accept, therefore, that it is disturbing that the police authority has had to put up its precept by more than 25 per cent. for the second successive year? The chief constable has said that a major contributory factor has been the cost of police pensions. Will the Minister assure the House of some future relief from this treadmill for hard-pressed council tax payers?

We recognise that pension costs are a concern, but they represent the lifetime service of police officers in previous years, and we must honour that commitment. We should not reward forces—Northamptonshire is not one of them—that have been slack in their handling of early medical retirements in years past.

The Government's pensions Green Paper makes many constructive statements about funded pension schemes. Why should there not be a fully funded police pension fund over time?

If we were overnight to replace the existing pay-as-you-go pension scheme with a funded scheme, the Government would have to find about £25 billion to establish that. I suspect that Members would feel that there were more immediate policing priorities to which such money should be devoted.

Further to the question put by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), is it not correct that between 50 and 60 per cent. of any annual allocation to police authorities goes straight into pensions and salary increases that have been centrally agreed? Is not it time to review the whole position? There is a huge burden on council tax payers, and it is disingenuous of the Government to talk about percentage increases when most of the money goes overnight.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have put more money into the system through the funding formula for police pensions than the total cost that we estimate was paid out on police pensions or will be paid out this year. There are two problems. The first is how individual forces could be better protected from short-term fluctuations in pensions if, for example, a large number of officers were all to retire in the same financial year. The second is to ensure that forces continue to bear down on unwarranted early ill-health retirement, which adds significantly to pensions bills and to the costs on local people.

Obviously, my right hon. Friend will be aware that council tax payers in Lancashire and in many of the northern police forces are subsidising police forces in the south because of the ceilings and floors on increases. Money is trapped, that is the problem. Will he hold discussions with other Departments to ensure that we get the funding that we should be allocated, instead of having to subsidise the south.

In introducing the new funding formula, we have tried to be fair to all forces. That is why there is a ceiling on increases of 4.9 per cent. and a floor that ensures that no one gets less than 3 per cent., which is above inflation. We should not forget the background to this issue, which is that the police service received a 10 per cent. increase in funding in 2001–02 and a 7 per cent. increase for 2002–03, and had an overall rise of 6.2 per cent. in the coming year, and a 16 per cent. increase in the current spending review settlement. Whatever the detail of the formula, no one can claim that the Government are not putting significant extra resources into the police service. That is why we have record numbers of police officers, and those numbers will continue to rise.

What discussions he has had with his counterparts in other EU countries regarding the asylum system. [98757]

The UK continues to play a leading role in developing the asylum measures proposed by the treaty of Amsterdam. That represents an important step towards achieving a common European asylum system with our partners.

Can the Minister confirm that although the Sangatte asylum centre was closed and bulldozed in December, the French Red Cross is now building another camp in Sangatte for 1,000 asylum seekers? Does that not make a mockery of the agreement reached by the Secretary of State with his French counterparts? Does it not also highlight the need for asylum seekers to be detained in secure accommodation until their applications have been processed?

I know that a number of newspapers have spread that story about an alternative camp. I have been contacted by a journalist who has been at Sangatte, as well as by our own officials, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the story is absolutely untrue.

Will my hon. Friend draw attention to other inaccurate reports in the newspapers about the number of people coming into the country? We are constantly told that the United Kingdom takes more than its fair share of asylum seekers, but the figures show that we are about sixth or seventh in the European Union league per head of population.

My hon. Friend is right: the UK is in the middle of the EU range, per head of population. However, the picture has fluctuated over recent years in terms of the number of people we take relative to the number taken by other EU countries. That is why it is important for us to work towards a common European asylum system and to strengthen our borders with France, Belgium and Holland. It is also why we recently introduced robust legislative measures to deter people whose applications are unfounded.

My office in Bolton has now dealt with about 75 single male asylum seekers from northern Iraq. They are, of course, Kurds. Most have become destitute; they are now sleeping rough in Queen's park in Bolton or overcrowding existing national asylum support scheme accommodation. That cannot be allowed to continue. What pressure are we putting on the Turkish Government to stop the trafficking of such people through Turkey, on Turkish lorries, to Dover? They are paying between £7,000 and £8,000 for the transit.

We are working closely with France, which is interested in working with us on the Turkish issue—not only in relation to the trafficking of people through Turkey, but, in particular, the negotiation of an agreement on readmission to Iraq via that route. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the growing problem in some of our communities caused by people from northern Iraq who have been refused asylum, who are therefore not entitled to support, and whom we need to return as soon as we can. We shall do that as soon as the route is available.

We are pleased that the Minister is discussing asylum with her European colleagues, and we welcome her undertaking to consult local people who are concerned about residence accommodation centres. We look forward to those meetings, which have not been possible so far.

There will be proper consultation. On the point about the two accommodation centres that are in the planning inquiry process, I visited those areas, had a meeting arranged by the local councils there and talked directly to local people. If we go ahead with the proposal, both I and officials in the Home Office will take it on ourselves to repeat that process in exactly the same way.

The Minister will know the figures for the last three quarters show that the largest national group seeking asylum in this country is the Iraqis. Given the Prime Minister has now said that the case for war against Saddam Hussein is a moral one, do the Home Office and the Government accept that we also have a moral responsibility to grant asylum to those fleeing from Saddam Hussein? If that is the case, does the Minister accept that the best way of dealing with public concern is for Britain to lead the case for a genuine European integrated asylum system in which responsibility is shared but not shirked?

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. On Iraq, most of the people claiming from Iraq are from the autonomous northern zone. There is no reason why those people should not be returned. As I said earlier, if we can negotiate a route through with Turkey, that is what we propose to do.

If, as my hon. Friend rightly says, we are not taking more than our fair share of asylum seekers, why is it taking the immigration and nationality directorate so long to process applications for appeals and for indefinite leave to remain and also to issue status letters? The Home Secretary has said that he wishes to see a step change in the IND and has devoted additional resources, both financial and human, to that process, but I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that, certainly as far as my constituents are concerned, far from speeding up the steps they are becoming slower and slower and leaving many of my constituents in serious situations.

While I accept that there is a very long way to go until we make the IND into the effective and efficient public service that it should be, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that things are getting slower and slower and worse and worse. Although there is a long way to go, things are improving substantially. Well over our target of 65 per cent. of new applications—in fact, over 75 per cent.—are being decided within the two-month target deadline. The process of appeals, which is the responsibility not of the IND but of the appellate authority, is reducing too, and we are coming close to the six-month target overall. There is still a problem with backlog cases, although that backlog has been reduced from an all-time high of 120,000 to fewer than 40,000, so we are working through the backlog. She is right to say that some of those cases are of long standing, but we are getting through them.

In the course of discussions with their EU counterparts, did the Minister and the Home Secretary offer any views on the achievability of the Prime Minister's target of halving the number of asylum seekers by September? In particular, did they guarantee to their EU counterparts, and will they now guarantee to the House, that they will not seek to achieve this target by statistical manipulation, through the issuing of work permits to people who would otherwise claim asylum?

That represents our firm commitment to our approach to the need to reduce the intake in this country—it is not something that we have discussed with European partners. It represents what we want to achieve here, and it reflects the overriding priority of reducing the intake in order to achieve our other aspirations of increasing removals, reducing support costs and getting order into the system. That is our fundamental objective.

I am not entirely clear whether the answer to my question was yes or no, but perhaps we can get a clearer answer to this question. In talking to their EU counterparts, did the Home Secretary and the Minister discuss the Conservative proposal to scrap the current asylum system and replace it with a system of rational quotas for genuine refugees? Moreover, did they discuss the need to revise, or to withdraw from, the Dublin convention and the New York protocol in order to achieve that desirable result?

For the record, I did answer the right hon. Gentleman's previous question, and the answer was no. On his further question, I am pleased to note that he now supports the work that the Government have already done, and the discussions that we have already had, with the UNHCR and others on resettlement and safe havens. We have not discussed the right hon. Gentleman's fourth variant of Tory asylum policy on quotas—the fourth version that we have heard in as many weeks. A quota system is a fiction, in the sense of his suggestion that it will solve the current problem. First, it would do nothing to address the bigger problem of the total number of asylum seekers across Europe, which he talks of simply carving up in some way. Secondly, it would not of itself prevent or deter illegal immigration. There remains a need for all the measures that this Government are implementing to strengthen border controls, to deter illegal immigration, to negotiate readmission arrangements and to manage migration. So far, we have heard nothing from the Tories on those issues.

What estimate he has made of how many people will be seeking asylum in the UK in September 2003. [98759]

In the light of the proposals in the White Paper, which was published this time last year, and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which received Royal Assent in November, we are very confident indeed that we can achieve a dramatic reduction in the number of claims, compared with the number made before Royal Assent in November.

I am disappointed in the Home Secretary's reply. My question asked what his estimate was of the number of people who will be seeking asylum in September of this year. He said that he hoped for a dramatic fall, but in the light of demonstrations against his reception centre policy, and of the courts' taking against his approach to finance and asylum seekers, can he spell out in much clearer terms why anybody should have any confidence in the Prime Minister's target of a 50 per cent. reduction? Also, what does the Home Secretary mean by "dramatic"?

The answer to the last question—there were many questions in one—is that, as I said in my initial answer, we have a firm commitment to reducing the number of asylum claims to 50 per cent. of their level immediately before the 2002 Act received Royal Assent. Secondly, we believe that the measures that we have taken—including the closure of Sangatte, the new border controls moved to France, the new technological equipment at Calais, the securing of Frethun and Coquelles, and the way in which we now deal with those who, having come into this country, claim late—will assist us in dramatically reducing the numbers claiming asylum.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that not all his hon. Friends accept his statement last week in which he condemned the High Court judgment on section 55? Instead of appealing against that judgment, will he instruct immigration officials to interpret section 55 in terms of a reasonable period after entry into the United Kingdom, rather than on immediate entry?

Anybody who immediately claims asylum at a port or airport will be entitled, under the rules we laid down in the legislation, to receive the support—housing, equipment and financial—that they require. I do not accept that I should withdraw the appeal, but I accept entirely that it is right for judges to be able to use judicial review to facilitate challenges to Government when it is thought that they have acted in an administratively inadequate fashion. I do not accept, however, that judges have the right to override the will of this House, our democracy, or the role of Members of Parliament in deciding the rules.

Does the Home Secretary realise that a high proportion of asylum seekers enter the UK from EU countries that are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, signatories to the Dublin convention? Why should we accept, prima facie, such individuals? Why does not the Home Secretary take to the European Court the EU nations that flagrantly abuse the convention? Is it because he has no confidence in that body to safeguard British interests?

The European Court has nothing to do with the first, or second and recently approved, Dublin convention. In obtaining agreement with other countries, I must bear in mind the fact that it was his Government who abandoned the so-called gentlemen's agreement by saying that it would fall when Dublin 1 was introduced. If I am to obtain agreement across Europe, as I was being pressed to do a moment ago by the shadow Chancellor—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I nearly did a reshuffle for the Leader of the Opposition. No doubt that will happen shortly. The shadow Home Secretary suggested that we should be collaborating with our European partners, not taking them to court.

What representations his Department has received on the consultation on compulsory identity cards. [98760]

The consultation paper on entitlement cards and identity fraud was published on 31 July 2002 and the deadline for submitting responses was 31 January 2003. However, we are keen to see the debate continue.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but I would urge her to go further than the preferred option and consider introducing a compulsory identity card scheme, with a requirement to register and an expectation that cards should be carried. That would be necessary to unlock the full benefits of identity cards in fighting crime and, in these uncertain times, might help to give people a greater sense of security. Who knows, it might even be helpful to the Tory party, which seems to be going through another identity crisis.

My hon. Friend knows that the consultation paper ruled out introducing a card that it would be compulsory to carry at all times. I can reassure him that I do not believe that a compulsory scheme is necessary in order to reap the benefits. There is no point in having a card unless it is universal and, therefore, it will be compulsory to register and obtain a card if Parliament decides to introduce a scheme. I agree with my hon. Friend about the benefits of a scheme, because if we are really serious about tackling some of the problems that have been raised today, such as illegal immigration, illegal working and identity fraud, we need a very secure method of establishing identity.

Does the Minister think that there is any reliable way to stop a supposedly voluntary card being required for an increasing number of purposes? How do Ministers intend, if they pursue this idea, to prevent the system failing to deliver the correct identity card to an individual? Do they have the Child Support Agency or the Criminal Records Bureau in mind as models?

We are still considering the responses to the consultation. The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of how we can make sure that certain organisations do not start requiring a card. That would be a matter for the terms of the legislation. He is also right to imply that it is a long-term commitment; it would be a big enterprise—a big project. In determining our response—I mean the response of every Member, not just that of the Government—we need to think about how to address the issues and make the project a success, rather than using them as an argument for not entertaining its possibility. We need to think about where we need to be as a country, not now but in 10 years time, because it will take that long to set up the issuing equipment and to get every member of the population registered. We should not necessarily be thinking about whether we need the system now but about the future: where do we want to be in 10 years time?

Many responsible licensees and retailers with off-licences on their premises would welcome the speedy introduction of such an identity card. It would also assist communities that are plagued by young hoodlums on drink-related offences. I urge her to address the matter more seriously.

One potential use of such a card for young people would be as a proof of age. It is interesting that in many of the discussions that I held during the consultation process and in some of the qualitative research that we have carried out with different groups, including young people, many young people themselves have told us, "This would be really good and would enable us to prove how old we are". They would thus not get into difficult situations with retailers and others.

Any system of identity cards, whether voluntary or compulsory, would work only if the information source on which they were based was accurate and up to date. The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety recently conceded to me that, although there is a target of only three days from a court hearing for inputting data to the police national computer, in fact no police force achieves that in less than 11 days, more than four fifths of them take more than 20 days and some of them take more than a year. Given that for months the right hon. Gentleman denied that the statistics even existed, can the hon. Lady tell the House whether and when she will publish, in full, the Carter report into the Criminal Records Bureau so that we can then all judge—

Order. That is not about identity cards.

Is it not the position that there has been a marked lack of enthusiasm for any form of identity card on the part of other Departments—namely, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury? Why does not my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary understand that there is little evidence that any such card would deal with the abuses that have been mentioned or with terrorism? The idea is wrong and it should be dropped.

We have had an extensive consultation exercise in order to get the views of ordinary people and of organisations which, rightly, want to express a view about the way forward. Among the 2,000 responses from individuals and organisations to which I referred, there is—on a cursory glance—support in favour in the ratio of about 2:1. As I said, we shall look at all the responses in great detail and the decision on whether to bring forward proposals will be a Government decision— not simply a Home Office one—and will be endorsed by the Cabinet.

What security measures will be in place in any Government ID card scheme to prevent unauthorised access to the vast array of personal and confidential information that will be stored on such cards?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has actually read the consultation paper. If he has done so, he will realise that he has just mistakenly implied that the card itself will contain a whole range of data. The card itself would simply contain identifying data, possibly including a biometric. Those data would be a gateway offering access to other databases, thus enabling the card to be used to access other information. The card itself would not hold a great deal of information about any individual.

When he expects to bring into force section 4 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and if he will make a statement. [98761]

We hope to commence section 4 within a matter of weeks. Revised appeal procedures have to be put in place first. The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently consulting on a revised set of Special Immigration Appeals Commission procedure rules, which will be subject to Parliamentary approval.

May I remind my hon. Friend that section 4 empowers the Home Secretary to deprive a person of citizenship if he has done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom? Abu Hamza continues to spread his message of hate against Jews, Hindus, the United States and Britain. He has seditiously abused the sanctity of Finsbury Park mosque to incite violence and race hatred. He has actively recruited among British Muslims for terrorism abroad and has fundraised for terrorist groups. He is wanted overseas for serious terrorism offences. Is there any reason why section 4 should not be used to deprive Abu Hamza of his citizenship of our country, which he so obviously despises? That should be followed swiftly by the deportation that the British people think is long overdue and richly deserved.

A month ago, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that this matter was under close investigation. The activities of the person referred to, and of other people, are being closely monitored. The Government will initiate deprivation action if we consider that the facts of an individual case meet the tests that are set out in section 4. My hon. Friend will understand that the previous legislation—the British Nationality Act 1981—was weak. It is right that we should wait for the implementation of the new legislation to ensure that we have effective measures to deal with this issue properly.

Is it not now clear that we have to go much further than the implementation of section 4 of the new Act? Is it not time to restore to the Home Secretary the ability to deport people who may threaten this country? Case law under article 3 of the European convention on human rights makes it impossible to do that, so is it not time that the Government saw sense, opted out of the ECHR, went back in with reservations, and gave the Home Secretary the power to protect this country from people who threaten it?

The Conservative party is perpetuating a myth about the mechanics of the ECHR. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would require the country to withdraw from the ECHR. We would then have to legislate in a way that was incompatible with article 3 and ask the Council of Europe if it would allow us to re-enter with a reservation. That would be a tortuous and difficult process. We have not ruled it out but it is fraught with uncertainty. No other country has done it. There is no certainty that the Council of Europe would allow us to re-enter with a reservation. Reservations have to be very specific and that has not been tested. We are not going down that route at the moment. However, the Prime Minister has made it clear that, if our measures to tackle such problems are not as effective as we want them to be, we will consider whether we need to revise our obligations under various treaties.

If he will make a statement on the work of his Department's active community unit. [98762]

We appointed a new director of the active community unit—Helen Edwards—at the beginning of last year. With Ministers, she has now undertaken a full review of our relationship with the voluntary and community sector and has identified four key principles—capacity and development at local level; community involvement; partnerships between Government and the voluntary and community sector; and a modern legal framework for the sector. Those matters are now being put in place.

I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his commitment to building and enhancing the capacity of communities—especially deprived or ethnic minority communities. However, notions such as "active community" can seem a bit highfalutin' unless they mean something on the ground. What will this particular programme mean to people in, for example, my constituency?

First, the programme will mean an extra £93 million over the next three years, investing directly in those organisations that are engaged in volunteering. In my hon. Friend's constituency, that currently involves a Sikh project, gaining support in the community for work with young people to the tune of just under £50,000, and £133,000 from a major youth project in the west midlands is going into his constituency. That is the answer to the sedentary comment made by a Liberal Democrat who shouted, "And that is just in his constituency."

With regard to the compact and codes of practice relating to bringing together the voluntary and community sectors, has the Home Secretary implemented the recommendation of the Treasury report last year that a senior official should be appointed in each Department to encourage their effective implementation?

Yes, as part of a cross-cutting review agreed between the Treasury and ourselves and as part of the spending review, it was agreed, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that such individuals would be designated. That has now been achieved, and we are intent on ensuring that that collaborative venture across Departments, including funding identified by Departments, should work effectively.

What target he has set for the removal of failed asylum seekers. [98763]

Within weeks of taking over as Home Secretary, I made it clear to the House that the original intention, the technical commitment that had been made in relation to the number of people who could be removed from the country was not feasible. I indicated then that it would be more sensible to have commitment related to a proportion of the intake and that we should switch our energies into preventing entry by strengthening our borders. That is precisely what I have done in the past 20 months.

Is the Home Secretary aware that that answer is both evasive and pathetic? Will he please tell us why the much-trumpeted target of 30,000 removals a year was, in his own words, not feasible? Was it simply because his Department failed? Was it because he did not resource the immigration service properly? Or was it because the figure was never realistic, but a sham and grab for a headline? The Select Committee on Home Affairs was distinctly told that there never has been, and there is no immediate prospect of there being, sufficient detention space to support such a target. Was it not nonsense from the start?

The answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the rest of the question is that I cannot match the right hon. Lady's breathtaking audacity. I cannot match the idea that someone who was in the Home Office who saw the number of staff cut and a failure to put in place the removal centre facilities, who had no programme for accommodation centres, who did not have induction centres, who failed to reach an accommodation with France in terms of moving border controls and who achieved less than half the number of removals that we are now achieving can actually stand up in the Chamber and suggest that we are failing compared with her pathetic efforts.

I endorse everything that the Home Secretary said in relation to that previous answer, but may I caution him to avoid becoming impaled on any more unrealistic targets in relation to asylum and put it to him that, bearing in mind all the complexities that surround the subject, what is needed is clear and consistent progress, not a big bang, which will inevitably end in tears?

I know that I am in favour of tougher sentences, but I have never been in favour of impaling, so I am okay on the first part of the question. [Interruption.] But I have one or two people in my sights, in a manner of speaking. I take my hon. Friend's advice to heart and believe that his is a very wise counsel.

Does the Home Secretary accept that if the process of deportation is put off until people have put down roots in this country, had children and become part of the community, deportation becomes inhumane? Should we not therefore resile from an agreement that gives every inhabitant of the globe who can find ways to this shore the right to claim asylum, appeal against being refused that claim, take out a judicial review and subsequently claim under human rights legislation—securing benefits all that time—until they have been here so many years that it is inhumane to deport them? Should we not resile from that agreement, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) suggests, if we cannot renegotiate it?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have every sympathy. The longer that people are here, the more difficult it is to remove and uproot them. We should therefore seek to avoid that at all costs. On the second part of the question, a large number of the layers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have been or will shortly be removed under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I am seeking, week by week, to implement an Act that we had to struggle to get through both this House and the other place because Conservative Members opposed us at every end and turn.

Will my right hon. Friend consider what can be done to improve the coordination between the various parts of the Home Office? Does he accept that it is very unsatisfactory when a decision is made and apparently nothing happens on enforcement? In fact, what happens is that the National Asylum Support Service will tell a provider to cut off someone's support. The provider therefore has the problem of dealing with that individual rather than the Home Office, which took the decision that the asylum claim should be rejected.

Bearing in mind that there is a 28-day period in which support continues, I accept the thrust of my hon. Friend's question entirely. There must be a more efficient, more effective and seamless removals policy in which, when support is removed, advice, support and, when appropriate, removal takes place immediately. That is fair for the individuals and fair for the country.

Question 8.

I am not sure that the question was that good anyway. We might have done better without it. Does the Home Secretary believe—I would be grateful for a frank answer—that the Government will ever remove those 250,000 or more failed asylum seekers, who, since Labour came to power five years ago, should have been removed but have not been?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thought of a question, as we might have been waiting all afternoon otherwise. The truth, as he knows well, is that the figures that are plucked out of the air are hypothetical, and we know perfectly well, as per the earlier question, that there are real difficulties when people have remained in the country for a lengthy period. That is why preventing people from clandestinely entering our shores is the top priority. Ensuring that we turn them round and remove them when they are clandestine is the key. That is the answer to the question of how long is a piece of string—as long as the hon. Gentleman wishes to cut it.

If he will make a statement on the powers of the police to move on people who illegally occupy land and open spaces. [98764]

Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives the police, subject to certain conditions, the power to remove people who are trespassing with intent to take up residence, and who have been asked to leave by a landowner. We intend to legislate to strengthen further these powers. We will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I thank the Minister for that answer and assure him that my constituents living in the Cranham road and Little Waltham part of Chelmsford will warmly welcome that. Will he accept that there are individuals who are prepared to defy court injunctions, abuse the appeal procedures, string out defiance of planning law, and build on and occupy greenfield sites against the law? The quicker that something is done to empower local residents to be able to reclaim their land and their communities from those people, the better.

I completely agree that unauthorised camping, and the antisocial and criminal behaviour that is often linked with it, is a problem, and we intend to tackle it. The police need effective eviction powers to take prompt action against unauthorised sites, particularly those that create a nuisance such as the hon. Gentleman describes, and we intend to introduce such powers.

My hon. Friend is correct in suggesting that new legislation will strengthen the powers of the police, but there is another side to the equation. My constituents complain about the rubbish and mess left on sites after travellers have occupied them for a few days, but there are no powers of redress, so any cost falls on the local authority and becomes, in turn, a charge on council tax payers. Has my hon. Friend any suggestions or ideas as to how people can be held responsible for the expense of clearing sites once they have left?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there are members of the travelling community who behave reasonably and appropriately, but nuisances such as those that he mentions are a great problem. We should expect the same standards from the travelling community that we expect from other people. As well as the power to evict, we need the ability to tackle antisocial behaviour by the travelling community, and we are considering that. It is possible to impose antisocial behaviour orders on travellers as well as other members of the community.

We welcome the Minister's announcement that he proposes to toughen up the powers still further. He is aware that when we were in government, we sought, in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to toughen the law. Does he accept, however, that unscrupulous travellers and gypsies have found loopholes in the legislation introduced by Governments of both parties, and that if they are to be closed it is necessary for Ministers such as himself to agree to meet Members from both sides of the House, leaders of local authorities and leading local authority officers to ensure that the new law, which we hope to help draft, will be effective? Does he recognise that in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and my own some travellers are trying to get round the law by buying land and then breaching planning laws?

The hon. Gentleman is right, and we must consider planning issues as well as police powers of eviction. He will know that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is looking at planning law. He is as entitled as anybody else to have an input into that process. I have always been prepared to consider his proposals on this matter as on any other, and if he has suggestions that relate to Home Office responsibilities in these matters, I will be happy to listen to him. I am sure that he is capable of making his own representations on the planning side of this question.

May I take the Minister back to his initial reply? He said that the police can evict travellers at the request of a landowner. Part of the problem is that sometimes the landowner will not make such a request because he wants planning permission, and he spitefully hopes that local authorities will give up and grant it in exasperation. Will my hon. Friend consider, as part of the review, introducing a power for local authorities to ask the police to evict people, in appropriate circumstances and in the absence of a reasonable request by the landowner?

I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that, in the first instance, we need adequate sites for the travelling public. I hope that that is not controversial. However, unauthorised camping is a problem and we need to ensure that the new powers bring not only swift relief, but effective relief. We are aware that people will find various ways around them. Trying to plug all the loopholes will not be easy, but the new proposed powers will seek to deal with that problem.

How many Polish citizens are due to be deported prior to the planned date for Poland's accession to membership of the European Union. [98765]

The number of Polish citizens we remove will be determined principally by the number who are refused entry or are found to be here in breach of our immigration laws.

From that answer, I suggest that the number will be very small. With Poland about to join the European Union, may I point out that it is a waste of time and money to uproot people who could legally return to this country in a year or two's time? In particular, why pick on a 63-year-old Polish-born widow, Mrs. Maria Puchrowicz, who lives in my constituency? Have we really got to the stage of deporting 63-year-old widows?

I am not aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman raises, although I will gladly look into it. The answer to his substantive point is that we need to maintain the integrity of the asylum system. He is not correct to assume that the number removed has been very small. Since April 2002, 848 failed Polish asylum seekers have been removed on scheduled flights. On 14 January, 34 were removed using a charter flight. About the same number again of non-asylum removals have occurred as a result of enforcement action. In addition, 8,700 Polish nationals were refused entry to the country in 2001 and subsequently removed.

The Minister will know that our Government's position is much more honourable than that of the German Government as far as Polish citizenship is concerned once Poland joins the European Union. Given the pressure on the immigration and nationality directorate, which is obvious from questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House, surely it would be sensible, in view of the fact that Poland will join on 1 May next year, to hold back on the removals until it is a full member. Is that not the most sensible and cost-effective means of dealing with the problem?

I disagree with my hon. Friend for the simple reason that maintaining the integrity of the asylum system is the right approach for the reasons that I outlined, notwithstanding the fact that Poland will join the European Union on 1 May 2004.

What steps he is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour. [98766]

We will shortly be publishing a White Paper on antisocial behaviour which will be followed by an antisocial behaviour Bill. That will build on existing measures to ensure that we have legislation in place to tackle antisocial behaviour We have also established an antisocial behaviour unit in the Home Office to take the lead in ensuring that new and existing legislation is used to good effect.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware of the success achieved by Blackpool police in reducing the antisocial behaviour of young people by working closely with other agencies. When the individual support orders that are proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill are introduced, will he ensure that they lead to genuine collaborative work between the police and social services so that those young people do not reoffend?

I congratulate the police in Blackpool for their use of the interim antisocial behaviour orders. They have obtained seven since the new powers came into effect at the beginning of December. It is certainly true that we have not always had the support that we would have liked from social services departments up and down the country for antisocial behaviour orders. The new individual support order is designed to address the causes of a young person's offending behaviour and, for that reason, social services departments should become more active and more supportive of the measure.

Why did the Government take away from police the power to remove unopened cans and bottles of alcohol from young people and children in public places? When will they reverse that decision?

It is important that the police have the power to remove such alcohol from young people. The Licensing Bill, which is before Parliament, will give them that right.

If he will make a statement on police procedure for investigating unsolved murders in cases where the original conviction has been overturned. [98768]

The police will review the evidence available and any comments or findings made by the court in cases where convictions are overturned. As with other unsolved crimes, it is for the police to decide in individual cases whether the evidence justifies reopening the investigation.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He will be aware of the case of one of my constituents, Robert Brown, who spent more than 25 years in jail for a murder he did not commit. He was finally released in November. He will also be aware of the case of Stefan Kiszko, who was released from prison in 1992 on the basis of an unsafe conviction. He had served 16 years in prison. It has recently been announced that in that case the original murder is being reinvestigated due to new DNA evidence.

We must take every miscarriage of justice extremely seriously. I think that in every instance that my hon. Friend has mentioned, the cases were brought to court originally before the protections that now exist in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Those protections have been important. If there is a case, however old, where a conviction is overturned and it becomes possible for the police to reinvestigate, and the evidence is there to enable a reinvestigation, I would hope that the police would take that course. That must he a matter for the police to decide in the light of the evidence that is available to them.