What plans he has to increase the number of offenders with drug problems who enter treatment. [148323]

Research shows that treatment for problematic drug users works. The number in treatment has increased by 41 per cent. since 1998–99 and waiting times have reduced, but they need to reduce further. We are investing more than £400 million through the criminal justice interventions programme to make sure that offenders with drug problems have and take every opportunity to benefit from that treatment. We are on course to meet our target of 200,000 problematic drug users in treatment by 2008.

What hope can my hon. Friend give my constituent, whom I shall call A? He served a short prison sentence and came out on 31 December. He is 32 and has been taking heroin for 16 years. He has already lost his brother to heroin and has a supportive family. This weekend, he was desperate to give up heroin and unsuccessfully tried cold turkey. We tried to get him emergency treatment but the doctor would prescribe only dihydrocodeine, the hospital did not want him and there is a three-month waiting list for the community drugs team. What hope can my hon. Friend give such people? Surely we need emergency treatment when people want to give up heroin.

I agree with my hon. Friend. We need quick and effective treatment for people in that position. We are considering how we can improve matters, especially for those who serve short-term prison sentences. We have had several pilots for those serving short-term sentences and on remand, which is also crucial. The results will be available shortly and we shall consider how we can extend the pilots.

Given that more than 60 per cent. of all property crime is drug-related, would it not be cost-effective to invest even more in immediate treatment, to follow up the question of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)? May I stress to the Under-Secretary the need for early discussions with her colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales, because there are fewer than 15 treatment beds for drug addicts in the whole of Wales?

We are spending an additional £500 million, but we need to ensure that the money is well used. I hope to go to Wales and Scotland in the near future to speak to my colleagues about what they are doing. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to identifying drug use as a reason for committing crimes. The extension of our criminal justice interventions programme£arresting people on charge, and considering how we can further spread the net to cover early identification in the custody suite and follow that through into the courts, prison or community sentences£is one way of ensuring that health treatment runs alongside criminal justice interventions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that voluntary sector organisations have a big role to play in combating the drug problem as well as other social problems? Does she also agree that if a council such as mine in Leicester is determined to make cuts in the voluntary sector, it is likely to make the specific problem and other social problems worse?

I agree with my hon. Friend's first point that the voluntary sector provides a great deal of innovation and expertise. For a long time, especially under previous Governments, it managed without the help that the Government are providing today. Voluntary organisations can innovate, they have good practice and I encourage the expansion of their services.

The Department's statistics show that 149,000 drug users used some form of treatment centre last year, but British crime survey figures show that there were approximately 1 million hard drug users in the country That means that only 15 per cent. went into treatment. for 60 per cent. of whom the outcome was failure. Only 5 per cent. of the addict population were therefore successfully treated. What more can we do to improve that figure?

My information is that there are 250,000 problematic—class A—drug users, who cause the most crime. The hon. Gentleman's comments are interesting. We are increasing access to treatment and, as I said earlier, we are on target to reach 200,000 people in treatment. It costs money, which we are putting in. Would his party match our investment in, and dedication to, tackling the problem? I believe that the answer is no.

What action he is taking to protect children from paedophiles operating on the internet. [148324]

We have, in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, introduced a new grooming offence and risk of sexual harm orders to help to protect children from paedophiles who use the internet. Earlier this month, we launched the current round of our media campaign to raise awareness in children and their parents of how to use the internet safely. Through the Government's task force on child protection on the internet, we continue to work with law enforcement, industry and children's organisations on the issue. The police identify and target individuals and groups of offenders, both domestically and internationally. The National Crime Squad has implemented a database of seized images of child abuse, which is available to all forces to support investigations, and has developed a law enforcement website aimed at paedophiles looking for illegal images.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she look carefully at the case of Michael Wheeler, a Cambridge resident who was recently convicted of grooming two young girls over the internet but who did not sexually abuse either of them until they had passed their 13th birthday? Will she examine ways in which penalties can be increased for people such as Wheeler? Many parents will be looking carefully at what the Government have to say on that.

The 2003 Act introduces a new grooming offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years, and allows prosecution where a paedophile travels to meet a child with the intention to commit a sexual offence following prior communications. In addition, the new provisions in the Act include tougher sentences for people who commit a sexual act with a child aged over 13 but under the age of consent. When those new powers come into force, there will be a very powerful mechanism to deal with cases such as that which my hon. Friend described.

More than 18 months ago. the FBI gave the British police, under Operation Ore, the names of 5,000 individuals suspected of accessing and purchasing child porn. To date, 2,000 of those individuals have not been investigated and there have been only 200 convictions. Does the Minister share my concern that there has been a breakdown there, and will she confirm to the House today that the Government still intend those names to be investigated fully?

This is an operational matter, for which the police are responsible. There have been 277 convictions, and more than half the names passed on through Operation Ore have been investigated. The priority for investigation has been decided on the basis of risk assessment so that those who have access to children are investigated first. The Home Office has given extra resources to increase the number of forensic officers available to police officers, which is required if such cases are to be followed up.

Is the Minister aware of the comments made last week by her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who said that some local education authorities have misinterpreted his Department's guidelines on photographing children in schools? That has led my county council in Essex in effect to ban parents from photographing their children in nativity plays. Everyone wants there to be the maximum number of laws and rules possible to try to minimise paedophilic activity, but will the Minister have a word with her right hon. Friend because it seems unfair for parents to be deprived of the ability to photograph their children as a result of a misinterpretation of Department for Education and Skills guidelines?

I do not think that that is a problem, but I shall ensure that the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are clear. The problem might be naming children rather than photographing them, and I shall ensure that any advice that he gives is congruent with the advice that the Home Office offers through the police service.

What steps he is taking to reduce crime in Morley and Rothwell. [148325]

Leeds crime and disorder reduction partnership, which covers Morley and Rothwell, has benefited from more than £3 million of funding for local crime reduction initiatives in 2003–04. That includes £1.5 million from the building safer communities fund to tackle crimes such as antisocial behaviour, burglary, drugs, violence and vehicle crime, and almost £1.2 million from the basic command unit fund to tackle crime and to fund a dedicated monitoring officer with LeedsWatch CCTV scheme.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Following a meeting with my divisional police commander just before Christmas, I can say that the latest figures that he has are very positive, with most areas of crime falling. My concern is that we seem to be reaching a funding plateau after a 30 per cent. increase in Government funding for the police since 1997. The local precept may be set at a level that will not aid the recruitment of more police. Can we have a review of the wide variation among precepts across the country to get a better understanding of why some local people pay a lot more for police and get more policing than we do in West Yorkshire?

My hon. Friend is right that his local crime figures are extremely good: burglary down 26 per cent.; robbery down 37 per cent.; and vehicle crime down 33 per cent. Locally, the force is doing an excellent job, augmented by the community support officers who are now patrolling his streets. However, he raises the important issue of funding. We always recognised that this year's settlement would be difficult, but that is in the context of a 30 per cent. increase over the past three years, which has meant significant funding going into our police services right across the country. We have reviewed the formula to try to target our funds on the areas of greatest need. Although this year we have a flat-rate increase to cover inflation and pay settlements, we will be looking to see how we can target our funds on the areas of highest crime in future.

What plans he has to penalise parents who do not enforce antisocial behaviour contracts placed on their children. [1483261]

I was pleased to visit my hon. Friend in her constituency of Watford last Wednesday to see for myself the extent of the challenge and the way that the community is rising to it. The issue raised at that time is the one that we are addressing this afternoon: how do we ensure that the voluntary ABCs—acceptable behaviour contracts—are supported by parents? That is done, first, by giving support and advice and, secondly, by ensuring that there is proper enforcement. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which was passed at the end of last year, enables us to introduce parenting contracts alongside contracts for the youngsters. If parents refuse to adhere to them and to support the police and the community, the youth offending teams can apply to the court for a parenting order. That would include not only the imposition of fines where appropriate, but the potential for a residential requirement, which would teach the parents how to parent.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and say how grateful we are for his visit last week? On the issues that he has raised, it would be a good idea to link together the parenting orders and the acceptable behaviour contracts, but will he also consider an issue that was raised with him last week in my constituency about the need to make obtaining antisocial behaviour orders easier once an acceptable behaviour contract is in place and has not been adhered to? That would enable us to move on quickly to obtaining an ASBO, as well as having those parenting orders.

Yes, I am very happy to look at that and to use the interim orders that are now available as a fast track to ensure that those who breach the voluntary contract know that there will be a rapid move to greater enforcement. A combination of diversionary activity and prevention with clear, enforceable rules will, I believe, help us to turn round the situation that so often bedevils communities where just a handful of young people are providing the wrong leadership and parents—some of whom are bewildered, some disinterested—are allowing that to happen. The combination of measures in the 2003 Act will enable us to take the steps necessary to ensure that we get this right.

Although the Home Secretary is clearly right in saying that parents should be made responsible for the behaviour of their children, does he think that acceptable behaviour contracts are working well? Can he tell us how many have been breached since they were issued?

I cannot give an answer on the number that have been breached, but we have research, which we will publish in the next few days, from the early stages of the acceptable behaviour contracts that were run in north London. I think that it will show not only how they work, but how important it is to spread best practice so that we can learn the lessons very quickly. I hope that as part of the Together campaign and the new website, which we will be launching shortly, we can show people how things have worked in other areas, rather than having to reinvent the wheel.

As my right hon. Friend has just acknowledged, if an antisocial behaviour contract does not work we need to progress to an antisocial behaviour order. Obviously, we need the police properly to enforce those orders. What guidance has he given to our police forces on the importance of enforcing ASBOs when members of the community report breaches of ASBOs to them? What support can be offered to the young people on those ASBOs once they go beyond the age up to which the youth offending service is responsible for them? I understand that the probation service cannot offer that support.

There are two separate issues. The first is that we ensure—as we shall in the next few days—that every police force and every police officer is familiar with the law as it stands at the moment, following the passage of the Act; and that, above all, magistrates are familiar with, and use, the powers available to them in respect of breach. Often, the police bring forward evidence but magistrates are reluctant to take decisive action.

Does not the Home Secretary recognise that the police and local authorities in crime and disorder partnerships say that they still find antisocial behaviour orders very bureaucratic and time-consuming, and that even when someone is taken back to the courts for breach of an ASBO the police often find that all their hard work is wasted because the sentence is not sufficient for the breach? Local communities need better protection, not the bureaucratic system on which the Government continue to rely.

We were perfectly honest about that. Two years ago, we indicated that the operation of ASBOs was too bureaucratic and time-consuming, so we changed the system in the Police Reform Act 2002 and last autumn, in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, we streamlined it both for interim orders and for streamlined fast track, including the use of the county court as well as the magistrates court. But, yes, the hon. Gentleman's second point is entirely right; indeed, it was the point I was making a moment ago. The hard work of the police and the community will come to nothing if breaches are allowed to go unpunished, which is why we need the co-operation of magistrates and district judges.

If he will make a statement on the role of local communities in tackling antisocial behaviour. [148327]

That follows on neatly. I could have chosen the questions myself; although just to make it clear, we do not choose the questions ourselves— otherwise the headline tomorrow morning will be, "Government take over Question Time".

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Since 1997, the Government have put a huge amount of legislation in the statute book to allow the police and local authorities to tackle antisocial behaviour. There have been several successful ASBOs in my constituency, and I should like to see more. I have a specific question about off-licence sales to young people, which seem to be the root cause of a huge amount of antisocial behaviour: what will the Government do to try to tackle that problem?

I think that we all accept that there is a very real challenge—arising both from sales to under-age consumers and from the binge drinking that often goes alongside it. In the antisocial behaviour strategy, which we shall publish by the spring, we shall seek the co-operation not simply of local communities, off-licences and supermarkets—where there is a growing trade—but of the industry itself. In the end, the golden goose will be cooked and, if we do not get a grip on this increasing problem, we shall obviously face increasing demands for draconian action on the sale and availability of alcohol. If we are not to go down that road, we must expect all those involved to play the game by being part of the solution.

What advice will the Home Secretary give to my constituents who are threatening this week to set up vigilante groups, to go out on the streets to deal with exploding youth antisocial behaviour, and who need to deal with very low levels of policing locally? What advice will he give to the local police who refuse to attend a public meeting that I am calling to seek solutions with the public and the police to those very problems?

I have had a funny day, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for reflecting for a moment on exploding youths—something that we have not yet legislated against.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great problem of policing antisocial behaviour in town centres, in particular in Northampton, as a result of late-night drinking? How might he get the local business communities, particularly the entertainment industry, to take some responsibility—possibly including bearing some of the costs—for policing that type of activity?

This links neatly with the previous question because, if we are to have a system where people do not take the law into their own hands, those who are part of the problem ought to be part of the solution. The best practice that we have across the country—whether in Manchester or York—is where licensees and those providing entertainment and alcohol are prepared to contribute, with the police, to the cost and the enforcement itself. Of course, street wardens and community support officers, paid for jointly by the local authority, and the police service funded from the Home Office, can ensure that we have our own vigilantes, rather than communities having to set them up themselves. I challenge, and will do so in the months ahead, industry, licensees and those involved who are making a lot of money from entertainment to take on that challenge and to be part of the solution.

The tendency to take the law into one's own hands—or for communities to take it into their own hands, to which the Secretary of State rightly refers—is born of immense frustration, as I am sure he will accept. Communities feel let down that neither the police nor the criminal justice system seems to be able to commit the resources necessary to deal with antisocial behaviour. But does he understand that, after a case where a community has finally given vent to its frustration, patience has snapped and people have taken the law into their own hands, that frustration turns to deep anger when they find that the police and the criminal justice system bend over backwards to track down and prosecute those members of the public whose patience has snapped, and far more effort is put into that prosecution than into prosecuting the antisocial behaviour that caused the original problems and the frustration? Is the Secretary of State concerned that political correctness is taking too big a role?

Political correctness and political opportunism seem to go hand in hand, in equal measure—I should know because I have been probably the least politically correct member of the Government Front-Bench team—and I am absolutely clear that the police and the criminal justice system's job is to pursue criminals, not those who are trying to defend themselves. That is why, in the Criminal Justice Act 2003—apparently unbeknown to the BBC and others—we amended the law unanimously. We all agreed that it was sensible to ensure that people protecting their own homes could not be sued and did not face people getting legal aid to make their lives a misery. I should like the BBC, just occasionally, to tell what has been done, not just what they do not know about.

What the cost will be during (a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05 of establishing the national offender management service at (i) national and (ii) regional levels. [148328]

The costs of establishing the national offender management service have yet to be finalised, but the costs of setting up the implementation team will be met from existing budgets.

What mechanism will be put in place to overview the implementation of the new service so that the burdens and costs do not fall on front-line staff and detract from front-line service delivery? Given that there have been budgetary problems at the London probation service over the past three years, will my hon. Friend meet me and London colleagues to discuss the implementation of the new service within the London region?

Martin Narey has been appointed as the chief executive of the national offender management service and I will chair the service's board to oversee the implementation of the new approach. Far from drawing resources away from the front line, the whole purpose of the service is to make more resources available to the front line. The organisation will begin with a budget of £3.2 billion, which is £900 million more in real terms than was spent on prisons and probation in 1997. My hon. Friend requested a meeting, and I will, of course, be delighted to meet him.

Is it not the case that the biggest financial effect of the creation of the national offender management service is that it will act as a smokescreen for a massive U-turn by the Home Office on prison and sentencing policy? How much money will the strategy of replacing 13,000 prison sentences and 60,000 supervision orders with fines save the Home Office in the coming year? Does the Minister really think that a policy that leaves thousands of criminals at large on the streets represents a sensible way of saving money?

Let me make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no U-turn in relation to sentencing policy. Indeed, we will make available about 80,000 prison places, which is certainly far more than his Government left in place in 1997 and 3,700 more than is the case now. There is no question of a U-turn. Those places will be there and available to be used as appropriate. However, we want to ensure that custody and community sentencing are tightly focused on the right people, and the national offender management service will enable us to do that.

Much of the money that is spent on the Prison Service was put in place by us—or certainly the plans were. As for the notion that there has been no U-turn, the Minister clearly has not read the Carter report, which we set up and was the precursor to the national offender management service. On page 2 of his report, Carter complains that as many as half of all burglars go to jail on first conviction, but presumably that figure will reduce under the new regime. Does the Minister really believe that more than half of convicted burglars should go free?

A rather interesting statistic is that people committing motoring offences are four times more likely to receive a custodial sentence than they were before. In relation to the legacy that the right hon. Gentleman's Government left behind, I made it clear that we are now spending—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the Minister reply.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are now spending £900 million a year more in real terms than we were when the right hon. Gentleman's Government left office. That means that 11,000 additional staff are in the prison and probation services, working to an objective—which I hope he shares—of reducing the reoffending rates of those in our correctional system.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I welcome the new system? It will be an improvement on that suggested by the Conservative party, which wants people to go to prison just long enough to lose their jobs, homes and relationships. Therefore, they will be guaranteed to come out and reoffend. He will be aware that a key aspect of the service will be better education and better liaison with work and job opportunities and housing at a local level. Will he therefore tell me how the new system organised regionally will be able to work most effectively with local authorities, which is where the test cases will be when prisoners are released from custody?

My right hon. Friend has put his finger on a couple of important points. The fact that short-term prison sentences are often disruptive and take people away from their homes and their jobs does not help to keep them out of trouble in the long run. We are rightly focusing the resettlement strategy much more locally, and there will be regional organisation. We hope very much that voluntary and community organisations will come forward to be active partners at a local level in making sure that we get reoffending rates down.

How many hours per week on average prisoners spent in education in 2003. [148329]

The average weekly figure for 2003 was 9.49 hours. This does not include distance learning, private study or learning that takes place on the wings, for example, through peer support schemes.

As a result of a question that I asked Mr. Narey, the then director general of HM Prison Service, the 53rd report of the Public Accounts Committee in 2001–02 stated:

"The Prison Service said that the single action most likely to impact on re-offending was investment in education to enable prisoners to obtain jobs on release."

The 53rd report of the Public Accounts Committee was right, but the hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that little is happening. Last year, 41,000 basic skills qualifications were gained in our prisons and we anticipate that 50,000 will be gained this year. He is right to suggest that better education and more qualifications will equip people to get jobs and stay out of trouble. That is our objective and we are delivering on it.

My hon. Friend knows that I visited Lancaster prison a few months ago and that I was impressed by the education facilities provided for some of its prisoners. It is important to reduce and stop reoffending, so will he tell us when such facilities will be increased and thus become available to all prisoners throughout the country?

I know about my hon. Friend's visit and I was grateful for his positive remarks afterwards—he is right. We have put in place education and skills coordinators in all our prisons to ensure that all prisoners have the opportunity to learn and develop skills. As we move forward with the new national offender management service, we want the joining up of education in our prisons and that for offenders in the community. As we do that, I think that we will get even better results.

As the ability to read and write is a crucial ingredient of people's prospects of employment after imprisonment, will the Minister tell us what efforts the Government are making, and whether they have made any impact on the high percentage of prisoners without those skills?

The hon. Gentleman is right. The improvement of literacy and numeracy is fundamental. The numeracy and literacy rates in our prisons are deplorably low, which is why we are investing £59 million a year in education in our prisons. That is beginning to yield results because, it is anticipated that 50,000 basic skills qualifications will be gained in prisons this year. That represents an amazing step forward that we want to sustain and improve on. He is right that, if we continue to make such improvements, we will increase the chances of people staying out of trouble.

If he will increase the length of sentences for those convicted of sexually abusing children. [148330]

Yes; the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which comes into force in May 2004, introduces new offences of sexual activity with a child and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity that are punishable by a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment. These will widen the scope of offending behaviour and replace existing offences, which carry maximum penalties of two and 10 years.

I am not someone who naturally looks for longer sentences to fill up prisons, so I am conscious of earlier remarks about the national offender management service. Longer sentences are advantageous in the cases of children who have been sexually assaulted because they protect children in our communities and give more time for the treatment of offenders so that they can overcome their obsessions. Does the Minister agree that they are preferable to the publication of offenders' names and addresses, which could lead to vigilante activity?

My hon. Friend is right, which is why action was taken in the Sexual Offences Act. In addition, relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which comes into effect at the end of the year, will ensure that dangerous offenders—specifically sexual and violent offenders—will not be released until the Parole Board has decided that their risks are manageable in the community.

Is the Minister aware of a case in Mold Crown court last week in which a man who was convicted of having unlawful sex with a 14-year-old girl was not only sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment—I make no comment on whether that sentence was the right length—but forbidden from using the internet, I hope and presume, ever again? As that was probably the first time that a judge has made such a restraining order, will she welcome it and encourage other judges to do the same in similar cases in which paedophiles or sex offenders are convicted?

I welcome the judge's decision. He recognised how the internet can be used in such cases. Sentencing in an individual case is a matter for the courts and not for politicians. The judge in that case, Judge Daniel, said that it is time to re-examine the law so that harsher penalties can be handed down to men who pursue 14-year-olds. I am proud to say that that has been done and that, from May, harsher penalties will be available to the courts.

How many posts are vacant in the probation service. [148332]

The latest figures show that there are 1,060 vacancies. That equates to 5.6 per cent. of a total work force of 18,851.

The vacancy rate is alarmingly high. The alarm in the probation service was confirmed when I met my local probation officers a couple of weeks ago.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the establishment has not been reduced. However, the figure has changed since the earlier parliamentary answer. There are 166 vacancies in London, but I assure him that there has been no reduction in the establishment. The Government's commitment to ensuring that there are sufficient probation officers in training and in service is illustrated by the current number of trainee probation officers, 1,520, and the figure for 1996, which was a nice round figure—nought.

With the shortages of prison officers and the addition of the proposed national offender management service, the probation service will be forced to make major changes when it is already understaffed and overstretched. It was recently reorganised in 2001 and is now sinking under bureaucracy. With a senior member of the probation service saying,

"We are drowning in audits and inspections and regulations and have very little time left to deal with offenders",

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role and look forward to many interesting debates with her across the Floor of the House.

What action he is taking to reduce passport fraud. [148333]

The United Kingdom Passport Service is working now on a group of projects to reduce passport fraud through improved fraud detection and prevention. The focus is on developing the professional skills, technology, improved systems and intelligence methodology needed to tackle passport fraud. Among these are new arrangements for lost and stolen passports and the reintroduction from February of secure delivery for all passports. However, it is also crucial and in line with international developments that we incorporate biometric identifiers in passports as soon as possible and work on this has already begun.

I thank the Minister for her response. She has assured us that things will change from February, when the new special mail service is introduced. Will she also check what happens after a decision is made? Mr. and Mrs. Crossley are two of my constituents. As her office well knows, Mrs. Crossley's documents, decision and passport were untraceable for three weeks over Christmas, although a special delivery, which apparently vanished into the ether, was used. The number was given to the Minister's office, Mr. Crossley and my office, yet for three weeks it was untrackable.

If the hon. Lady gives me details of that case, of which I was not aware, I shall investigate it. I am not sure whether in talking about special delivery numbers she was referring to the Post Office not being able to trace the document, which is of course not the responsibility of the UK Passport Service. It is to eradicate the problem of passports being lost in the post as well as to deal with claimants saying that their passports have been lost or stolen that we intend to introduce secure delivery. We have appointed a company to do that. As part of the implementation of that project, there will be full tracking of every document from the point that it leaves the passport office to its delivery. Those new arrangements will begin in February and implementation will be completed in March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that organisations on the Indian subcontinent are openly advertising the provision of various travel documents, including passports? Will it be possible to do anything about that?

We are aware of that activity in India and, indeed, one or two other countries. The Foreign Office and our immigration staff whom we second to UK Visas have been working on those issues. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the Home Secretary will be going to India very shortly. It is certainly one of the issues that he will want to raise during his discussions.

Will the Government confirm that they will be putting biometric information into all new passports? When will that be introduced? Has the Minister considered not waiting until passports expire, but introducing, beyond a specific date, biometric information in all passports?

This is an important development, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. There is a pilot scheme at the moment. He will appreciate that the operation is complex, large scale and technical, so it is important that, before we start introducing biometric information for real, we ensure that we can handle the logistics. That work is being done now. Under a major pilot scheme, 10,000 people will be enrolled in a realistic environment. During early to mid-2005, we hope to be able to begin embedding microchips in new passports and in those that come up for renewal. That will involve storing an image of the face and selective passport information in a chip. That is an important development to enable us to position the United Kingdom population to meet international standards as well as to meet our objectives on document and national security.

What discussions his Department has had about current controls on the sale of knives. [148334]

We take our responsibility for public safety in this area extremely seriously. My officials are seeking the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers on the adequacy of legislation and its enforcement.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. She will be aware, because I have written to her about it, of the concerns in Blackpool over the sale and availability of knives, particularly to the 16 to 18-year-old age group. The issue has been commendably taken up by my local newspaper in Blackpool, The Gazette. Does she share my concern that the Department's statistics do not differentiate between offences involving kitchen knives, for example, and those involving combat knives, which could be obtained on the street? Does she agree that it is important that the Government have more precise information about such offences so that they can judge whether the age of purchase should be raised?

My hon. Friend has been assiduous in taking up the matter on behalf of his constituents. I have read the articles in The Gazette and I am highly aware of the campaign. As he knows, there is a range of legislation on the matter, banning the carrying of offensive weapons, banning blades on school premises especially and banning the sale of knives to under-16s.

Is the Minister aware that concern is spreading because knives are now being used in areas that are not used to violent crime? On Sidcup high street, a young teenage constituent of mine was stabbed in daylight, at tea time on a Saturday. Even in such areas, the culture of violence is becoming a problem. Do the Government intend to have an amnesty for handing in knives?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, in the past few years, there have been several amnesties in different parts of the country, many of which have been extremely successful, with a huge number of knives handed in. It is an offence under existing legislation to sell knives to under-16s, but violent crime and the carrying of knives are issues of concern, which is precisely why the Government have asked ACPO to consider the matter in detail and see what more we can do. An extensive range of current legislation bans the manufacture and sale of knuckledusters, swordsticks, martial arts equipment of the type that is often used, flick knives and gravity knives, but I am concerned that young people in particular are gaining access to such weapons.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the sale of other offensive weapons? I recently received an advertisement for a pepper spray that was directed very much towards women buying it for self-defence. I can see that it might be tempting to keep such an object in one's handbag, but of course possession is an offence under the Firearms Act 1968. Is there not a need either to take strong steps to stamp out the sale of such weapons, or to consider liberalising the law?

My hon. and learned Friend raises an important issue. The general ban on the carrying of a range of offensive weapons goes back as far as 1953. I advise the House that there is legislation that bans the marketing of knives in particular where that might encourage combat. That legislation is difficult to enforce because it deals with the way in which products are marketed, but it establishes a precedent for legislation on not encouraging the use of a range of weapons in an aggressive fashion. I shall ask the police to examine that issue as well.

What steps he is taking to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system. [148337]

The simple answer is that a degree of common sense would help to raise confidence in the criminal justice system. However, tough sentences for violent and heinous crimes, sensible interventions in relation to first-time non-violent offences, reductions in crime rates and reconviction rates, steady increases in the number of offences brought to justice and in the number of police, and the introduction of community support officers and their steady increase—in other words, all the things that we have been doing in the past seven years—also increase confidence in the criminal justice system if those operating within the system apply that degree of common sense.

My constituent Mr. Roy Roomes has described Upminster as a police-free zone. His car has been either stolen from his driveway or vandalised on five separate occasions. What will the Home Secretary do to ensure that police resources in the London borough of Havering are not monopolised by the demands of the nightclubs in central Romford, so that sufficient police remain to cover law and order in the rest of the borough, including Upminster?

Some co-operation from those selling the alcohol in Romford to help us to get additional community support officers and uniformed policemen and women would be a start, as would ensuring that the police reform consultation paper that I launched in November is widely circulated in the hon. Lady's constituency. That will enable the people there to make their views known both to the local commander and to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and enable us to engage the community in shaping the activity, priorities and effectiveness of the police service, given that all hon. Members appear to be keen on the idea of local operational responsibility.

The Home Secretary will know that the criminal justice system requires high standards of evidence if it is to operate effectively. In that regard, will the right hon. Gentleman consider increasing the number of independent witnesses who are available to the police, local authorities and others so that in cases of violent antisocial behaviour, where people are too afraid to come forward to testify about what has been happening, there is more chance of securing convictions?

The wider use of professional witnesses by housing authorities, social landlords and local authorities is welcome. Taking that together with protecting people who are brave enough to be prepared to provide evidence will make a difference. In the end, that involves the community being prepared to stand up and be counted. Those of us who have responsibility in this area must ensure that when individuals are so prepared, they do not find themselves the further victims of vandalism and antisocial behaviour.

When the powers contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 will be introduced. [148338]

On 20 January, we will publish a guide to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which will give the dates when the measures in the Act will be commenced.

While I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, we are all aware that introducing legislation is not the same as implementing legislation. Implementation is taken over by agencies such as the police. Will she consider asking the police ever so nicely—it is an operational issue—to make greater use of mobile closed circuit television units? Then, with the evidence in front of them, will she consider asking the police to make an appointment with the parents of some of the youngsters involved—either taking them into the station or going to their homes—and sit with both the youngsters and the parents so that parents are fully aware of the actions of their children and the implications once they become accomplices to those actions? They will no longer be able to claim that they are unaware.

My hon. Friend makes the important point that enacting legislation in the House is not necessarily implementation. That is exactly why we have the "together" campaign, with the academy and the website running it out throughout the country. He has suggested an excellent solution to the problem, which I understand has been adopted by police forces in several areas—certainly in my community—whereby the police can intervene early and find the youngsters who are committing these actions, confront their parents and then work together with the parents to find solutions so that we can divert young people from behaving in this way. It is an excellent idea to get CCTV evidence, and I will be encouraging the police to do so.

Does the Minister agree that communities used to police antisocial behaviour themselves? If parents could not or would not take action, the local bobby would do so swiftly. Is not that a model of policing that we should be trying to return to, rather than relying on lengthy processes of issuing orders and court proceedings that mean that, inevitably, much of the damage has been done by the time that any action is taken?

Yes; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the introduction of fixed penalty notices, which we have been piloting in a number of areas. We are about to roll them out nationally. They are very effective and there is swift justice on the spot. They confront young people with the consequences of their behaviour. I dare say that that is perhaps better than the traditional method of a clip round the ear. Those notices are beginning to be much more effective.

If he will make a statement about the future of the Forensic Science Service. [148339]

The Home Secretary's announcement on 17 July 2003 of the decision to establish the Forensic Science Service as a public-private partnership will ensure that it will continue to serve the public interest and to increase the benefits it delivers to the criminal justice system. The FSS is a world leader in its field. We believe that the PPP will ensure that it can respond speedily, flexibly and effectively to opportunities for exploiting new scientific developments in an increasingly competitive environment.

On the day that the folly of privatising the railways is fully exposed publicly, why are Ministers considering privatising a successful public service such as the Forensic Science Service solely on the pretext of raising extra funds for capital investment, especially when that service last year made a surplus of £10 million, which is equivalent to half the amount required for investment?

I understand that my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends are concerned about the FSS. I have been keen to be involved through the work that it is doing on firearms. I should make the point that this is not about privatisation, which the McFarland review rejected outright. The PPP offers us the best means both to compete effectively and protect the public interest. There was a £10 million surplus last year, but the McFarland report said that the FSS would need at least £20 million to £30 million a year just to stand still. We must give it the opportunities to gain further investment so as to continue to be a world-class leader.

If he will make a statement on projected levels of immigration. [148340]

Projections on population growth and the contribution to that growth from net inward migration are made by the Government Actuary's Department. Its figures project, on the basis of current trends, a total annual population growth of 0.31 per cent over the next 30 years, about half of which would come from net migration. However, by clamping down on illegal immigration and unfounded asylum claims, and welcoming legal migrants where they can contribute to our economy, the Government are managing migration actively and continuously to ensure that, on the one hand, the UK is well positioned to gain the benefits of migration in an increasingly competitive global market while at the same time making sure that we are integrating newcomers successfully into our communities.

I thank the Minister for her answer. While the overwhelming majority of people seeking to live here are hard-working and desirable, does she agree that, at the end of the day, it is a question of the number that we can accommodate? Can she confirm that net immigration is running at over 200,000 a year and that the Government envisage no upper limit to the level of immigration? Where does she propose to accommodate a population equivalent to a city the size of Southampton every year henceforth?

The right hon. Gentleman is citing figures from an organisation whose figures continue to be spurious and not at all related to those published by the Government Actuary. The figures produced by the Government Actuary are nothing like the 200,000 that MigrationWatch UK has talked about.