1. If he will make a statement on progress in establishing asylum application processing centres in non-EU countries. [205635]

May I begin this afternoon by paying tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) during his most distinguished period of office, both as Secretary of State for Education and Employment and as Home Secretary? He has been an outstanding leader of this country and I pay tribute publicly to his tremendous work.

The Government are discussing with European Union colleagues the best and most durable solutions to processing applications for asylum effectively, and our focus remains clear: first, to continue to offer protection to genuine refugees while protecting our asylum system against abuse and, secondly, to strengthen protection in regions of origin to protect people and reduce secondary movement.

It was 2003 when the Prime Minister first raised this issue and said that it would be done. Why has no progress been made at all? Why has there been no action?

There has been a great deal of progress. The fact is, as I hope Members on both sides of the House will recognise, that the key to solving asylum issues lies in international action, and in particular in action with our EU colleagues. Since the discussions at Thessaloniki to which the hon. Gentleman refers, there has been a substantial advance by many colleagues in the EU analysing the best ways to proceed, so there has been great progress since then.

Is the Secretary of State aware that representations have been made from some quarters that it would be possible to transfer all applicants for asylum to an island somewhere where no costs would be involved? Is he aware of progress in this fantasy island proposal?

I have heard that, and I was briefed to that effect. Frankly, the idea was so fanciful that I could not believe that anybody had put it forward in any kind of serious way. I therefore dismissed it as absurd, as I assume it to be. I cannot believe that anybody would seriously believe that that is the right way to proceed.

May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position? I am absolutely certain that he will serve with great distinction. Will he assure the House that if processing centres are set up outside the United Kingdom in the applicants' countries of origin it will in no way divert resources from the immigration and nationality directorate, that general immigration work does need to be dealt with as quickly and as efficiently as possible, and that we should ensure that the good start that began in 1997 is continued, so that people have decisions as quickly as possible?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's best wishes, which I very much appreciate. I can confirm that he is entirely right that the Government will remain utterly focused on creating the most efficient and fair system of immigration and asylum that we can achieve in this country, and that is where our resources will be directed.

2. How many local authorities have sanctioned the use of dispersal orders since their introduction. [205636]

We estimate that dispersal orders were authorised in over 400 areas between January and September this year. Half of all crime and disorder reduction partnerships reported that dispersal powers had been used in their area.

Will my hon. Friend consider whether local authority intervention is necessary in the use of dispersal orders? My local authority, which is Liberal Democrat controlled, voted against the principle of dispersal orders in 2003, voted to use them in 2004 and is now considering whether to renew their use in 2005. Such dithering and delay has a bad effect on some of my constituents.

Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that these powers are used, but intriguingly the leader of the Liberal Democrats apparently called in 16 Liberal Democrat council leaders last week, read them the riot act and told them that they needed to get tough on crime, because his closest advisers believe that he is vulnerable to accusations of failing to be tough on thugs who terrorise the neighbourhood. What we have here is a party that decides to adopt such powers not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of naked, cynical, political opportunism.

I welcome the introduction of dispersal orders—[Interruption.] I hope that the Liberal Democrats will get a bit less excited. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the mechanism for introducing them can be cumbersome and that the process can take a long time to carry out? Will she consider the possibility of having an interim dispersal order, which could then be subject to the current mechanisms? I am thinking particularly of Rainham in my constituency, where quite a lot of time is being taken to introduce dispersal orders and a more rapid system would be beneficial.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. He will know that we introduced interim antisocial behaviour orders for that very reason—to try to ensure that the courts can put an order in place very quickly indeed. We have 400 dispersal orders and they have been fairly easy to use, but I am more than happy to look at his suggestion. Some members of the Association of Chief Police Officers have suggested that interim dispersal orders may prove useful in dealing with town centre disturbances associated with binge drinking. I am more than happy to look at those ideas.

Where is the joined-up government between, on the one hand, the new power for issuing dispersal orders and, on the other, the arrangements under the Licensing Act 2003 by which up to 500 people can hold a rave, creating any amount of nuisance in an area, at just 48 hours' notice after serving the police with an application?

The hon. Gentleman will know that in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 we strengthened the powers to act against gatherings of people in the very circumstances that he describes. We are trying to work across government not only through the Anti-social Behaviour Act, but by working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on town centre guidance. We are also working with young people themselves to ensure that we can divert many more of them away from antisocial behaviour and into more constructive activities. This Government have a very good joined-up policy across the piece.

In the village of Whitwick in North-West Leicestershire, the local Hermitage leisure centre has been the focus over a 12-month period of sustained antisocial behaviour by young people towards local residents and staff who work there. Does the Minister agree that the decision by North-West Leicestershire district council to sanction a dispersal order is to be welcomed, but that applications need to be the result of effective partnership with the local police and that, in parallel with the application for a dispersal order, some provision needs to be made for positive activities for young people in the area concerned, perhaps with concessionary prices targeted at the age group concerned?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The way in which the orders are framed means that a superintendent of police has to suggest the order, but must get the agreement of the local authority for it to be made. Fundamental to the use of the dispersal power is that kind of partnership working to ensure that the local authority is drawn into the process and that the issue is not simply about enforcement. The whole of our antisocial behaviour strategy is about a twin-track approach of tough enforcement and support, particularly for young people, to get them involved in a range of activities so that we can prevent them from getting on to that cycle of crime and disorder for the future. We have to have tough enforcement to ensure that communities such as that of my hon. Friend are protected from the harassment and intimidation that all too often take place in this country.

3. If he will make a statement on the rules for applications for a British passport. [205637]

British passports are issued in the United Kingdom under royal prerogative by the UK Passport Service. Citizenship is a matter of law, primarily under the British Nationality Act 1981, and is usually determined by the facts of a person's date and place of birth and those of his or her parents. An applicant for a passport will need to submit the relevant supporting documentation to establish both their nationality and their identity. Guidance on this documentary evidence can be found in the notes for guidance that are published in the passport application form pack.

May I thank the Minister for the constructive discussions that we have had about the case of my constituent, Captain Warwick Strong, who served Her Majesty's armed forces loyally in the most severe troublespots of the world and was prepared to lay down his life, but who, because of the regulations, was not in the United Kingdom on the qualifying day five years before his application in 2002? It seems now that he is eligible for indefinite leave to remain, and hence for a British passport afterwards. Will the Minister give me an assurance that these applications, in a full, open and deserving way, will be fast tracked?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I, too, found my discussions with him in relation to this case constructive. As I undertook to do, I have reviewed Captain Strong's application over the weekend. His application from 2002 has been reviewed several times, and I am content that the decision taken to refuse his application was correct. Those who did not resist the temptation—I should say that the hon. Gentleman has not behaved in this way—to behave in a disgraceful way in relation to Captain Strong should reflect on the fact that his application was refused on the basis of a mandatory rule that was introduced in the 1981 Act by a Conservative Government.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, since his original application, Captain Strong appears to have had a further two years' residence in the United Kingdom, bringing his total residence to six years, which is more than the five years required for naturalisation as a British citizen. If he still wishes to become a British citizen, the first thing that he needs to do is acquire settled status. As an ex-member of the armed forces who has served four or more years, he should be eligible for indefinite leave to remain in the UK under Her Majesty's forces' new rules introduced on 25 October this year. Once settled, Captain Strong would be free to live and work in the UK indefinitely and to apply for British citizenship. I invite the hon. Gentleman to encourage Captain Strong to apply. If he wants to ensure that that application is dealt with properly, I will give him separately from this answer the name of an official in the immigration and nationality directorate who will deal with it.

4. What plans he has for the policing of antisocial behaviour associated with late-night drinking. [205638]

A Christmas alcohol misuse enforcement campaign is under way in all 43 police force areas in England and Wales. Town centres across the country are being targeted in an effort to crack down on alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder. We will continue to work closely with the police to tackle that.

Will my hon. Friend examine rule changes to make it possible for police authorities routinely to charge the leisure industry much more of the costs of policing late-night drinking? Not only are the costs high, but policing late-night drinking is a drain on police officers' time. It seems unfair that the general taxpayer should pay the costs of an industry-related problem.

My hon. Friend is right. I am delighted that her local force is playing a full part in the Christmas alcohol misuse enforcement campaign. The industry should contribute towards the extra costs that arise from not only policing, but the impact of late-night drinking on our town and city centres. We are committed to a voluntary approach and are working on business improvement models. If the voluntary approach does not have a significant impact on the problems, we will re-examine the matter early in the next Parliament, in which case our review might well include further legislation.

Four years ago, when he was a junior Home Office Minister, the new Home Secretary launched his action plan for dealing with alcohol-related crime. Unfortunately, the number of violent crimes linked to alcohol has risen by no less than 10 per cent. Does the Minister think that the new Home Secretary's strategy has been a roaring success?

Our new Home Secretary has an excellent record in that area, and I have no doubt that he will go from strength to strength driving down crime, making our communities safer and contributing positively to the life of this country. The alcohol misuse enforcement campaign that we ran over the summer was extremely successful. The police visited 30,000 premises, issued 4,000 fixed penalty notices and arrested 5,000 people. In the areas in which the campaign was conducted, serious violence decreased by 9 per cent., which is real evidence that good police action makes a difference.

My hon. Friend knows that Scarborough is one place in which that summer-time initiative was conducted. Will she commend the organisers of a recent conference on the night-time economy, which many participants from the industry attended? Will she take the opportunity to come to Scarborough and see how much progress has been made through the type of partnership that she extols from the Front Bench and that we in Scarborough try to deliver in the community?

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in commending the work of the partnership in Scarborough, which has been so effective in tackling binge drinking. Like many other seaside towns, Scarborough sometimes experiences a particular problem with its night-time economy. My hon. Friend makes the point that the problem is a matter for not only the police but local authorities and transport operators, and we all have a responsibility to try to make our communities safer. I shall be delighted to consider my hon. Friend's kind invitation to have a day out—or perhaps a night out—in Scarborough in the new year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of the new licensing arrangements that will be undertaken by local authorities will hammer them considerably? My own local authority, Derby city council, has estimated that it will find some of those costs punitive. Much as it supports the new arrangements, as do I, the Home Office needs to consider the heavy costs and financial burden that they will impose on local authorities.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has given an undertaking that the licensing fees will be sufficient to cover local authorities' inspection and enforcement responsibilities. That has been confirmed by the Deputy Prime Minister. Clearly, at the Home Office we have an interest in ensuring that local authorities have the full resources to be able to carry out the enforcement as well as the licensing process itself. A consultation is being undertaken about the level of fees to be set. My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to make these representations.

The hon. Lady responded earlier to a question about licensees selling to intoxicated people. I suggest to her that another problem urgently needs addressing: high-alcohol alcopops that are produced by the drinks industry, aimed at young people and often drunk in excess. We see that in town centres day in, day out. Does the hon. Lady honestly think that the drinks industry will regulate itself, or do not the Government have the bottle to take it on?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the alcohol industry, in common with most sectors, has some extremely good operators who want to get rid of the rogue element in their industry, but some irresponsible people are still running promotions such as, "All you can drink for £10." We are determined to ensure that we drive out such irresponsible marketing, which is why we are working on a code of practice to ensure that we have decent standards in the alcohol industry. This Government have given unprecedented attention to that problem. I entirely reject the notion that we are not tackling those interests head on, because we are absolutely determined to try to change the culture. That is very difficult in this country, but we have to do it because these are very serious problems indeed.

5. what plans he has to bring forward proposals to change the law on the rights of householders to defend their property. [205639]

Current law makes it clear that a person may use reasonable force in self-defence or in the defence of his or her family or property. However, we recognise that there is public concern in this area and the review of murder will be looking at self-defence in cases where someone dies. In addition, we are looking with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service to see whether the position needs to be clarified in order to send out a strong message that the law is on the side of the victim, not the offender.

On 6 December, the Lord Chancellor said that the law relating to householders' rights did not need changing and that he would not support my hon. Friend's Bill. However, on 8 December, the Prime Minister said that it was most likely that he would

"support a change in the law."

A national debate about householders' rights has been raging for six years. When will the Government listen to people and actually have a clear policy?

What the Prime Minister did say in the reference that the hon. Gentleman mentions was that

"we are on the side of the victim, not the offender."—[Official Report, 8 December 2004, vol. 428, c. 1160.]

Our starting point is that the current law strikes the correct balance between the rule of law and the right of people to defend themselves. However, there is of course a public confidence issue. We are consulting ACPO and the CPS and we will listen carefully to their advice.

As there is such widespread public concern, why does not the Minister invite my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) to discuss his Bill and what it will contain in order to try to create between them a measure that the whole House can support?

We do not intend to invite such discussion, but we look forward with interest—I am sure that that applies to hon. Members of all parties—to the publication of the Bill of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and the ensuing debate in the House.

I am sorry that the Under-Secretary does not feel the need to discuss such matters with me face to face, but I probably understand that. The crux of the Bill is the phrase "grossly disproportionate", which is already used and has been enshrined by the Government in civil law as a test for whether one should be able to sue. Will the Under-Secretary explain whether he agrees or disagrees with the use of the phrase for the law that we are considering? In view of the question that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) asked, whose side is the Under-Secretary on: the Lord Chancellor's or the Prime Minister's?

I am not afraid of face-to-face discussion; indeed, I greatly welcome it. That was not the suggestion that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made. I am prepared to discuss the specific measure now, from the Dispatch Box and, indeed, at any time, just as I would be prepared to discuss issues with any hon. Member.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the phrase, "grossly disproportionate", and I look forward to other opportunities to hear his definition of the phrase. The Crown Prosecution Service would be required to make a judgment, as it does at the moment, about what constitutes "reasonable". He may be interested in the comment of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who told The Sunday Telegraph that he would look for clear evidence of excessive force before considering a prosecution. If it is not excessive, it is reasonable. That is an excellent starting point for our considerations.

6. How many traffic police are operating in Coventry and the west midlands. [205641]

I understand from the chief constable of the west midlands that at 30 November there were 302 full-time equivalent dedicated traffic police officers in his force, 38 of whom operated in Coventry. A further 89 full-time equivalent posts are allocated to the central motorway policing group.

Given that we are entering the Christmas period, will my hon. Friend tell us whether the Department is prepared to hold discussions with the Department for Transport to reduce the number of drink-related accidents in Coventry and the west midlands?

We undertake such work all the time. My hon. Friend will have heard the response of my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety to earlier questions about the alcohol campaign this winter. One of our aims in that campaign is to persuade people to avoid alcohol abuse, not only in town centres but when they get behind the wheel of a car, where they can become dangerous. We know that those campaigns can be successful and help to reduce the incidence of driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Will the Under-Secretary give us the figures for the number of prosecutions in Coventry and the west midlands in the past five years for driving without due care and attention and dangerous driving when under the influence of alcohol? Will she compare those with the figures for the number of people caught speeding in the area?

I do not have those precise figures, but we know that the new technology that we are using increases significantly the number of people who can be arrested for a range of offences while driving. Automatic number plate recognition—ANPR—technology has been rolled out in the west midlands and 13,500 people have been arrested for offences that include theft and burglary. Prosecutions of those who have been caught for speeding increased substantially as speed cameras were introduced. In practice, as they have the deterrent effect of which they are capable, the peak of arrests for speeding has begun to decline. The number of court proceedings in the past couple of years reduced from 154,000 to 150,000 to 144,000. Speed cameras are beginning to work.

7. What his latest estimate is of the total cost of the identity cards project. [205642]

The cost of biometric passports is estimated to be £415 million per annum by 2008–09. Re-using that passport infrastructure for ID cards will save money on issuing both separately. For United Kingdom citizens, the cost of operating ID cards, on top of passport costs, is £85 million. We estimate an additional £50 million per annum to provide verification services.

In addition, as we set out in November 2003, we estimate set-up costs in the first three years to be £186 million. There will be some additional costs beyond this period. We are continuing to work on these estimates and will inform the House when we are in a position to provide updated figures.

People throughout this country want to see the Government fighting crime, dealing with terrorists and reducing fraud and illegal immigration. Will the Minister explain why he is not spending that massive amount of money on more police, efficient security services and enough customs officers to do the job, instead of this ID scheme, which is a piece of plastic and a massive waste of money?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he uses a phrase that he gets from his colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), which he has been trotting out in the media all morning—this ID scheme is a piece of plastic. Of course it is not a piece of plastic. It is an ID card supported by a modern database, which will collect biographical information in relation to people and match it to their biometric information to give a gold standard of identity. That will be expensive, but the collection of the biometrics is required to let people have the sort of travel documents that they will need for the 21st century, so that work will have to be done in any event.

It would be a dereliction of the Government's duty if, in doing that work, we did not take advantage of being able to secure the identity of the citizens of the United Kingdom to do just the things that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) encourages us to do, which are tackling serious crime, terrorism, illegal immigration and illegal working, but, most of all, to give the people of this country what they want—80 per cent. of them tell us they want it—which is a secure form of identity.

Can my hon. Friend give us an example of a major Government IT project that has both come in on cost and worked?

All Governments have faced challenges in relation to developing IT programmes that serve the needs of the people of this country. I am sure that the Opposition spokesman on my area of responsibility probably goes red every time he thinks of the wasted money that the last Government incurred in relation to an IT scheme for immigration and nationality: they sacked half the workers before they brought it in and it then had to be scrapped because it did not work.

Increasingly, however, there are IT schemes that are working and delivering. The best example in my area of responsibility is the UK Passport Service, which has a database of 44 million people and provides a first-class service.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us had hoped that the new Home Secretary would reassess the position on identity cards, including cost, instead of making woolly-minded attacks on those of us who have considerable doubts about whether an identity card scheme will do any good whatever? Will he bear it in mind that continental countries with identity cards have the same problems of illegal working, illegal immigration and the rest of it, which clearly have not been resolved by identity cards?

My right hon. Friend is well known to be a supporter of identity cards and was before he became Home Secretary. It was highly unlikely that in his early days as Home Secretary he would want to rethink a policy that he was already committed to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) raises an issue that is yet another great Opposition canard in this debate: that identity cards do not help other countries—for example, in their fight against terrorism. He always trots out the argument that the Spaniards had the Madrid bomb and they also have identity cards, but he has not asked the Spanish Government whether identity cards helped them to confront terrorism. I have, and they tell me that they do. Spain has 700 convicted terrorists in prison and is very successful in its use of identity cards to interdict terrorism.

8. What progress has been made on tackling crime associated with drug misuse. [205643]

I am pleased to inform the House that between April 2003 and June 2004, recorded acquisitive crime, such as theft and burglary, fell by more than 12 per cent. We know that people with drug addiction problems are hugely responsible for such crime. The drug interventions programme provides a route out of crime and into treatment. So far, crime is falling faster in the drug interventions programme areas than elsewhere across the country, as drug addicts get out of crime and into treatment.

My hon. Friend will know, I hope, that excellent work has been done in Reading with those who have committed drug-related offences. Does she agree with me and with the crime reduction initiative drug user project in my constituency that publishing photographs of women who sell themselves on the street to feed their drug habit will not help such women, but that treatment will?

I am pleased to say that not long ago I visited Reading, where I met members of the drug action team and the police. Reading is doing a very good job both in ensuring that there is capacity for treatment and in dealing with offenders. My hon. Friend will also be aware that I am currently undertaking a review of issues related to prostitution. There are serious issues in relation to the antisocial behaviour caused by street prostitution, but I agree with her that 90 per cent. of street prostitutes are addicted to class A drugs, and we need to examine how to get them into treatment. That is why the Drugs Bill proposes an intervention order for adults, which can be provided where an antisocial behaviour order has been issued, to get people into treatment. I hope that that will be used in this area.

I regret that I guessed wrong as to which question the new Home Secretary would go for. Craving your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, may I take a moment to congratulate him? He and I have known each other and, I dare even say, been friends for about 30 years. I look forward to seeing him for many years across the Dispatch Box, albeit, perhaps, in some time, from the other side.

The last time the Home Secretary was a Home Office Minister, he said:

"I believe the most likely impact of a relaxation in the law would be to increase consumption . . . and I think that would be bad for the people concerned and bad for society".

Does the Minister agree?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we reclassified cannabis for a number of reasons. First, we had A, B and C categories, and we felt that having cannabis in B was not appropriate. We are trying to have a credible discussion with young people and adults about the different harms of different drugs. Cannabis is still illegal, however. Secondly, we felt that reclassifying cannabis would allow the police to devote greater amounts of time and resources to priority areas such as class A drugs. A recent Metropolitan Police Authority report showed a 53 per cent. decrease in arrests for cannabis possession, which has saved a huge amount of officer time, which can be better used, for example, to shut down crack houses—150 have been shut down this year—and to support efforts to tackle those organised criminals involved in drug distribution and supply. That is the right way to tackle the problem.

I do not think that that was a yes or a no. Since the Home Secretary left his previous position in the Home Office, drug-related offences, criminal damage, theft, robbery and violence against the person, all drug-driven, have all gone up. Sadly, our British teenagers top the European Union league of drug abuse. Now that the Minister has a new Home Secretary, will she consider reversing the declassification of cannabis?

No, I will not consider reclassifying cannabis, because there are serious issues in relation to understanding the nature of different drugs. All illegal drugs have different harms associated with them, and we need to give a credible message to young people. The figure on young people who have used cannabis is 26 per cent., which has gone down, and some of our figures suggest that it will decrease further in future. Our strategy must recognise the crime connected with those involved in drugs, which is exactly what we are doing by putting record amounts of money into treatment and policing to tackle the problem. The evidence is in what I said earlier: recorded acquisitive crime has gone down, and the number of offenders going into drug treatment is increasing day by day.

Given that 95 per cent. of the heroin on Britain's streets originates in Afghanistan, and that the United Nations has reported a 64 per cent. increase in poppy cultivation in Afghanistan in one year, can my hon. Friend assure me that she will work closely and urgently with our counterparts across Europe to crack down on the trafficking of this evil crop before it reaches our shores and causes even more crime and misery?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I know that he has paid a huge amount of attention to this area, and committed a lot of his time to examining the problems underlying source and supply. The issue in Afghanistan is complicated, and involves tackling the people involved in developing the crop. It is also about livelihoods—alternative livelihoods for the people involved. He makes an important point, because the drugs go through Europe, through a number of different countries, so our work across the European Union, and also with countries such as Turkey, is essential in trying to stop the supply of drugs to the UK.

Does the hon. Lady accept that cannabis use among British teenagers has doubled since 1997? In constituencies such as mine, which includes many small market towns such as Sowerby, Thirsk, Bedale, Boroughbridge and Easingwold, petty crimes and vehicle crimes are fuelling cannabis use, and the Government have failed to deal with that problem.

As I said to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) a moment ago, cannabis use among young people has been going down in recent years, but we still take the problem very seriously. That is why we have the Blueprint education project—one of the first longitudinal studies that examines how children in years 11 and 12 can better understand drugs and their implications and dangers. We need to have a credible message about these issues. FRANK, which was launched in May 2003, has had 3.5 million visits to its website, and 657,000 phone calls have been made to the service. That shows that there is information out there for families and young people—but we should never be complacent about such issues, and we need to ensure that we continue to drive down the number of people who peddle drugs. The Drugs Bill will do that by, for example, making it an aggravating factor to sell drugs near schools or use children as couriers.

Should we not give preference to those who volunteer for treatment without committing a crime, rather than coercing people into treatment after they have committed a crime?

We know that drugs fuel crime, and in the drug interventions programme we find that when we test people and get them involved in assessment, they are more likely to take up treatment. That is why we feel that in the Drugs Bill we need to move to testing on arrest, but also to making assessment a mandatory part of the process. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the fact that the Home Office is focusing on the relationship between crime and drug addiction does not mean that people who volunteer for treatment, but who have not committed a crime, will lose out. We are putting more money in, working with the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, and treatment has increased across the board, including treatment for people who self-refer and have not committed a crime.

A few months ago, as part of the parliamentary police scheme, I visited the Tower project, run by Lancashire police in Blackpool, which works with persistent offenders who are drug users, enabling them to break their drug habit. That has led to a 30 per cent. reduction in acquisitive crime in Blackpool. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an example of how joined-up police work can achieve the results that we all want—less drug use and less acquisitive crime? Will she commend Lancashire police for their work, and does she agree that such a scheme could be adopted in other parts of the country?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the success of the Tower project. Such projects have informed our thinking on how to tackle offenders when drugs are at the heart of their offending behaviour. It is part and parcel of the drug interventions programme, and our work with persistent and prolific offenders, to look at projects such as the Tower project, and I commend Lancashire police for their challenging and innovative approach to these serious issues.

9. if he will make a statement on police numbers. [205644]

11. if he will make a statement on police officer numbers. [205646]

This Government have delivered record police numbers. There are now nearly 140,000 police officers—an historic high, and an increase of more than 12,500 since 1997. I hope that the shadow Home Secretary will intervene on this question and indicate how he feels about that development.

Chiltern Vale police, who are not paid London weighting, regularly lose experienced officers to forces such as the Metropolitan police, who are. An experienced local officer recently suggested to me that the Met might like to pay a transfer fee for poaching police from other forces. Will the Home Secretary have a serious look at that constructive proposal?

I understand the issue raised; indeed, my honorary Friend has made this point consistently for many years—[Hon. Members: "Honorary?"] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I meant my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety. The House will be interested to know that the number of officers in the Thames Valley force has increased by 444 since 1997. I do acknowledge the existence of the recruitment issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, but the fact is that we are succeeding in increasing the officer numbers in the Thames Valley force, as elsewhere.

We are grateful for the many more police officers, community support officers and neighbourhood wardens, but will my right hon. Friend include the funding of neighbourhood watch schemes in the totality of crime prevention? We think that is a very good idea.

It is a very positive idea; indeed, encouraging police officers to work in partnership with forces such as those that my hon. Friend mentions, and with their local communities through neighbourhood watch, is an important approach. We are considering the best funding regimes to incentivise that approach, and I will consider his proposal in that context.

The Secretary of State might wish to know that in the past few days Essex police has called up for training as potential police officers some 50 people who have been waiting for well over a year to be called into the police force. Can he confirm that the minute they begin training, they will appear on the roll as police officers? Is such recruitment going on around the country, and does it have anything to do with 5 May?

Recruitment of police officers is certainly going on around the country: indeed, it has been going on since 1997, which is why we have more police officers now in Essex—as elsewhere in the country—than we did in that year. Such recruitment has nothing to do with any forthcoming election; rather, it is to do with the policies that we have advanced. The issue in the election, which the main Opposition must address, is that they have stated clearly that they would cut spending on Home Office resources in real terms.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that since 1997 there has been a welcome net increase of almost 100 in the number of officers in Durham constabulary, but is he aware that as a result of next year's grant settlement, and of proposed changes concerning the training of probationary police officers, the chief constable of Durham might have to cut the number of officers by nearly 40 if he is to balance the budget? Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and other Durham Members to discuss the situation?

I will meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues, but I should point out that most police authorities recognise that the settlement announced a couple of weeks ago, following the pre-Budget report, is a very generous and positive one that allows continuing investment in policing throughout the country. That said, I am happy to have the meeting that he requests.

Given the rise in crime across Britain that has occurred while the right hon. Gentleman has been away from the Home Office—and, indeed, throughout the tenure of this Labour Government—and given the near doubling in the number of violent crimes and the worrying fall in detection rates, why does he not accept that we need more fully trained policemen and women, and implement the Conservative party's costed policy promise to provide 40,000 more police? Is that not what people in Britain want to hear from the Home Secretary and this Government today?

First, crime has reduced under this Government, not increased, and in that regard the contrast between our record and that of our predecessors is dramatic. Secondly, the shadow Chancellor is making these Conservative policies, which state explicitly that in real terms there would be no extra money for policing; in fact, as with everything else, there would be a real terms cut in spending. I wish Conservative Members would own up to that fact.

10. What measures he has taken to stop clandestine entry into the UK from France. [205645]

The measures taken include the deployment of state-of-the-art detection technology, the levying of civil penalties on hauliers, and closer co-operation with carriers and port authorities and, principally, with our EU counterparts. We also now have full immigration controls in place in Calais, Boulogne and Dunkirk, which include the searching of tourist and freight vehicles using a variety of detection methods, ranging from sniffer dogs to carbon dioxide probes. All these measures have led to a 23 per cent. decrease in the number of detected clandestine entrants into Kent in the first six months of 2004, compared with the last six months of 2003, and to a 36 per cent. increase in the number of detections in Calais in the same period.

I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. He will be aware of the Prime Minister's meeting with EU leaders last month to discuss a five-year immigration and asylum plan aimed at streamlining policy. In that context, will the Minister tell the House whether any further progress has been made on this issue?

Thanks principally to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), we have further plans to improve existing security in the ports to France and others. Following the recent meeting between my right hon. Friend and the French Interior Minister at Calais on 15 November, we announced the roll-out of further UK detection technology to the port of Dunkirk by summer 2005. We continue to work with our EU partners to drive down illegal entry across the EU, with regular exchanges of intelligence and regular joint operations impacting on organised human smuggling. Indeed, on 14 December, as a result of one of those operations, we saw the conviction of Mohammed Shahzad, who was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on the charge of conspiring to facilitate illegal entry to the UK.

Is the Minister aware that many of those who enter the UK clandestinely from France end up working in Worcestershire, where officers of the excellent West Mercia constabulary quite regularly apprehend them? When the police ring the immigration and nationality directorate, it suggests that these clandestine entrants should be issued with a travel permit to go to Croydon. How many of those entrants does the Minister believe take up the kind invitation of IND staff to pop down and see them in Croydon?

I am not in a position to discuss in detail with the hon. Gentleman the activities of the West Mercia police. I would say, however, that it cannot have escaped his notice that we have recently significantly increased the detention estate that is available to the IND. Indeed, it has more than doubled since the Government came to power. We now have state-of- the-art facilities as opposed to the inappropriate detention facilities that we inherited from the previous Government. Now we are turning our attention to the challenge faced by local police forces in the continued detention of people discovered in the back of lorries as clandestine entrants. Thankfully, of course, the number of such entrants has decreased significantly, largely as a result of the steps that the Government have taken.

12. What plans he has to encourage liaison about witness support between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. [205647]

We are putting victims and witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system. The "No Witness, No Justice" project provides support for witnesses through a local partnership between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. That will include a witness care unit in every area of England and Wales by March 2005.

The "No Witness, No Justice" scheme is very good. It is primarily about providing information about the case and getting rid of any obstacles that stop people coming to court. However, there is more to getting people to court than transport and child care. It is often about criminally injured victims needing specialist support from domestic violence advocates or rape crisis services, for example. There are real concerns now that the police and the CPS are starting to see witness care as a monopoly and are discouraging specialist referrals. Will my hon. Friend ensure that all witness care units adopt the approach taken by my own in Cleveland, which is to set up a directorate of help groups and actively take responsibility for facilitating specialist contact where it is needed?

I always take the advice of my hon. and learned Friend in these matters, because she is very close to the agencies in her constituency that deal with them. Victim support is also an essential ingredient in the partnership that we are seeking to develop between the voluntary sector, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. I can confirm that there will be three witness care units in my hon. and learned Friend's criminal justice area, the first opening in Hartlepool on 31 January, the second at Middlesbrough Crown court in May and the third at Middlesbrough magistrates court in October. Her comments about the importance of the specialist help that is sometimes required will be taken seriously by those agencies. It is essential to provide appropriate support so that witnesses can come to court and ensure that criminals are convicted.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate all the people who have helped to set up the new justice centre in Nuneaton where the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the courts have come together under one roof? Having done that, will he also encourage the CPS to be a little more positive in ensuring that cases are brought to court, because victims of crime often feel that they have been left out?

The central emphasis of our policy is to put the victim at the heart of the system. I commend the agencies in Nuneaton, which are clearly working together effectively to ensure that witnesses and victims are given support. Up and down the country, not least in Liverpool, where a community justice centre opened only a few days ago, we are seeing justice related much more to the communities where people live and where the offences about which we are so concerned take place. As we see partnerships developing between local communities and agencies, we will see greater justice being delivered.

13. What assessment he has made of the potential for efficiency savings in his Department beyond those proposed in the Gershon review. [205648]

The efficiency savings recommended across Government by Sir Peter Gershon's efficiency review equated to an average of around 2.5 per cent. per annum cumulatively. In assisting Sir Peter, the Home Office proposed a target of increasing value for money by £1.97 million, which is roughly 3 per cent. a year cumulatively. The target provides a challenging but realistic ambition for the Department and the police service to increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which key public services are delivered.

My constituents are keen to see a greater proportion of money spent on front-line services, such as an increase in police community support officers. Does the Minister agree that there is a limit to how far that process can go and that if the Conservative party was allowed to impose its £20 billion cuts—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

14. What plans he has to increase the presence of police on the streets. [205649]

We have secured and will maintain record numbers of police officers. There are now around 140,000 officers in England and Wales. There will be at least 5,500 community support officers by next March. The neighbourhood policing fund will help increase the number of CSOs to 24,000 by 2008.

On 4 January, 24 police probationary constables will start their training in Cleveland police. That is in addition to the extra 228 police officers that Cleveland has had since 1997. Their training will be different from most because it will be locally based, on the streets and in their local communities, rather than provided through the more traditional residential method. What will the Minister do to ensure that that approach continues after their training so that the public see, and are reassured by, the increased number of police provided by the Government?

I am delighted to welcome the 24 new constables who will start to police my hon. Friend's area from January. The fact that they will undergo community-based training means that they will work with local people from day one rather than going into weeks and weeks of residential training. In developing our new style of neighbourhood policing for the long-term future of the country, I am absolutely determined that we get police officers, community support officers and wardens working with local people and doing joint tasking and co-ordinating. They will direct their activities towards the priorities that local people set, which is why, in the national policing plan, we made tackling antisocial behaviour and other low-level crimes one of our top priorities. Those are the things that local people want us to do.

Will the Minister give an assurance that funding for police constables and community support officers is entirely separate, and that the increase in the number of community support officers is not going to have an adverse impact on the number of police constables who can be trained?

The hon. Lady will know that I and other Ministers have gone on record time and again to say that the record number of police officers in this country will be in addition to the community support officers whom we are now developing. There is absolutely no case of community support officers being recruited at the expense of police officers. They have different jobs to do; they complement each other; they work together; they are a strong partnership. We are committed to maintaining record numbers of police officers and ensuring that we have more visibility and accessibility—the things that local people want to build safer communities.

15. What measures he is taking to reduce the reconviction rate of young offenders. [205650]

We have completely reformed the youth justice system with a new structure, innovative new sentences and investment in early intervention. This approach is already bearing fruit, with the rate of reconvictions of juvenile offenders falling by 6 per cent. between 1997 and 2002.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we are moving in the right direction, there is still a long way to go? Far too many young offenders are reconvicted. Some of the figures are appalling in terms of the number of offences committed. Will he make it an absolute priority to provide education and training to young people so that they can get proper employment when they reach the right age and do not have to commit crimes to live?

Education and training are critical in trying to reduce rates of reoffending. Lancashire Connexions is working closely with youth offending teams in Lancashire, in Blackburn, Darwen and Blackpool, in order to ensure that after young people come out of young offenders institutions, they get back on track and back into work. It is essential that we see that as a priority, and we will continue to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the legislative consequences of the House of Lords judgment that the detention without trial of aliens held in HMP Belmarsh under the anti-terrorism laws is unlawful.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made last Thursday, 16 December 2004. Let me reaffirm that the case is about the compatibility of our domestic legislation with the European convention on human rights. As the Human Rights Act 1998 makes clear, Parliament remains sovereign and it is ultimately for Parliament to decide whether and what changes should be made to the law.

I think I welcome the Home Secretary's rather brief and complacent reply. The judgment of the Law Lords was in terms of unprecedented condemnation and could not have been more unequivocal. Lord Hoffmann said that the case called into question

"the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention."

That has now been reinforced by the resignation of Mr. Ian MacDonald as special advocate, in response to what he termed an "odious" law. He is not alone in that opinion.

Will the Home Secretary accept that the Liberal Democrats fully understand the difficult balance between ensuring the safety of the public and the security of the nation on the one hand, and rights under law on the other? We did not expect the Home Secretary precipitately to set aside the judgment of his predecessor as to the national interest, but can it really be the case that his Department has made no contingency plans for the present circumstances? What work, if any, has been done to explore the eminently sensible suggestions of the Newton committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights? Specifically, when will he introduce legislation on the use of intercept evidence, and why are the Bills currently before the House not suitable for that purpose?

Those detainees should be prosecuted and tried. Clearly there are difficulties, but should we not now seek consensus in this House on a proper solution? Certainly we would be happy to work with the Home Secretary and with others to develop an appropriate solution to the problem. However, simply renewing the present deeply unsatisfactory legislation is not an option.

My answer was brief, but not complacent. The fact is that a committee of nine Law Lords has spent the last 11 weeks considering the issues raised by this case in great detail. It would have been discourteous and wrong to respond instantaneously to such consideration. It was and is my duty to examine very carefully the judgments of those Law Lords and to come to conclusions. In making my assessment, my duty is to look first to the security of this country, and in that context I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about working on a basis of consensus. I hope that his party will be prepared to do that, but in so doing that it will consider carefully the precise legal measures.

We have of course considered the questions raised by the Newton committee and a number of other representations, including from the Joint Committee, but we shall look carefully at the Law Lords' judgment. I shall not be rushed into coming to a conclusion on the right course to take simply to meet some conception of brevity that the hon. Gentleman has to offer. We shall look at the issue properly. We shall come to proper conclusions and bring them to the House. The most important point, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), now the Foreign Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)—the previous Home Secretary—made clear on several occasions, is that it is Parliament that must decide how best we deal with this country's security interests. I shall report to Parliament and Parliament will come to its conclusions, but my report will be based on a detailed and full understanding of the decisions and views of the Law Lords in their consideration.

The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to careful consideration of these issues. When the House is invited—presumably early next year—to consider how, or whether, we want to change the law as it relates to the group of foreign nationals in Belmarsh, it will be enormously helpful if we have the clearest idea of what further anti-terrorism measures the Government propose to cover British citizens, as flagged up in the Queen's Speech. Can my right hon. Friend give us any hope that when we look at those issues, we shall have a better idea of what will be in the draft Bill referred to in the Queen's Speech?

First, I appreciate the work of my right hon. Friend and his Committee in considering this matter with due care. The best way that I can respond to his question is by saying that it would be better if we looked at such situations in the round, as he suggests, so that we have a comprehensive view of them. That is not to say that particular difficult questions are not raised, but he is right to say that consideration will be best effected if we are clear on how we are pursuing the issues.

The Opposition do not underestimate the difficulty that the judgment presents for the Home Secretary in balancing his duties, but it is impossible to overstate its importance. It is only the second time since the second world war that a panel of nine, rather than five, Law Lords has sat. The Government cannot claim to be surprised by the judgment. When the Act was moved, we warned that the longer the detention went on, the more difficult it would be to justify. The powers taken by the Government at the time were viewed as temporary; presumably that is why the previous Home Secretary commissioned the Newton report.

The report was published exactly a year ago this week and in that time exactly nothing has happened. I remind the Home Secretary of some of the recommendations and reiterate the points made by the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who was quite right on this matter. The committee suggested that the power of freezing order be repealed, as it has not been used. Will the Government accept that? The committee recommended that it should be possible to use intercepts in court, as the Liberal spokesman said, and as we, too, have argued. We intend to table an amendment to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill to try to get the Government to accept changes to the law. Will the Home Secretary accept that, or undertake changes himself?

The committee also recommended proposals on plea bargaining. There are some changes to Queen's evidence in proposed legislation currently going through the House. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the changes meet those requirements on plea bargaining? Newton recommended that the Home Office carry out research into alternatives to the use of powers granted under part 4. What research has been carried out? What progress has been made?

Even after evidential changes that we recommend, there may still be cases of grave concern to the security services that cannot be tried. I am conscious that there is at least one case of an alleged terrorist released under licence, case G. A three-member panel ordered his release after he was diagnosed as psychotic. G is electronically tagged and has to report to the police five times a day. He is not allowed to use telephones, mobile phones or computers, and visitors are restricted. Does that give us a model for similar cases in the future if the courts cannot deal with them?

I reiterate that I do not recommend the release of those prisoners immediately, but in the interests of natural justice I recommend that the Government move as fast as competently possible to sort the problem out legislatively. If the Home Secretary does that, we shall give him every support.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's concluding point; it is important to reach a conclusion of these matters as soon as possible so the House can decide clearly how it wants to proceed. I was not particularly surprised at the Law Lords' judgment. In fact, it would be a surprise if there were not deep controversy about the ethnical, philosophical and moral issues that are involved. These are difficult questions, and it is not surprising that people will come to difficult and complicated judgments on them. I reiterate that I have the particular responsibility of looking at the national security of this country—I appreciate the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on that question—but I simply will not be rushed into taking a view on this in the first few days of my stewardship of my office, without looking at the situation in the round. The assurance that I can give to the House is that, early in the new year, I will come with proposals for the House to consider and we can then look at them in the round, which is as it should be.

I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. As one of those who voted for the Act that the House of Lords has decided is contrary to the human rights legislation, for which I also voted, I recognise the major dilemma that the Government face in trying to reconcile maintaining the security of the people of this country with our treasured reputation for the rule of law and the maintenance of natural justice. So in the spirit in which the Home Secretary has made his statement, I urge him to look carefully at the proposals from the Newton committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The objective of terrorists is, in the end, to persuade us to bring our sacred institutions into disrepute so that we can be mocked throughout the world as hypocrites. I know that he recognises that, and I hope that the House will be able to come up with proposals that reconcile the two needs.

I appreciate the tone and style of my right hon. Friend's remarks and, yes, I can give him the assurance that I will seek to address this matter in the way that he suggests. I should like to make one observation on what he said. Some of the terrorist organisations active in the world that we seek to contain are about destroying every fundamental freedom that we have; not only the fundamental freedom of the House to debate a range of issues, but the rule of law itself and the right of the media to discuss questions in a general way. Their explicit aim is to destroy all those things, which hon. Members throughout the House have sought to build and develop over many years. We must defend ourselves against these attacks. The best way to defend ourselves in these circumstances is a matter for debate—it is in that spirit that I appreciate my right hon. Friend's remarks—but we cannot run away from this. When we read some people's comments, we see that they do not appreciate the seriousness of the matter. Our obligation is to take that seriously and then to decide the best course, for precisely the reasons that my right hon. Friend gave.

I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has emphasised in his response the supremacy of Parliament on these matters. That is hugely important. I also endorse his statement that his approach will be based fundamentally on questions of national security and the need to protect the community. I urge him to consider that whatever he does should be based simply and essentially on the legislation framed to meet the needs of protecting the whole community, not on little quirks of immigration legislation.

I think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Our existing legislation is based on a foundation of principle, which I see as my duty to seek to defend. That is the way in which we must approach this matter and the way that, historically, the House has sought to approach these matters; the House would wish to do so in the same way in the future.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer to this question and congratulate him on emphasising that he will proceed cautiously. Reference has been made to the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which, as he knows, I chair. I urge him to consider one of our recommendations: that intercept material should be admissible in court, as it is in many other countries. Will he confirm whether he will discuss with our security services ways in which that material can be admissible, while protecting personnel and methods?

I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. I will consider the recommendations of her Committee, especially the one that she cited. However, let me make the point that this Government implemented the Human Rights Act under which her Committee was established and the Act under which the Law Lords gave their judgment. We should be proud of the Act and of our approach. As my right hon. Friend said, we were clear from the outset during our first debates on the matter that difficult and not straightforward questions such as those that we are discussing would be raised, but it is better to address them with a discussion of human rights and its importance rather than trying to ignore them. I put that remark on record while giving a full commitment to examine carefully her Committee's recommendations.

As there is obvious concern about any individual who is kept in prison for a long time without charge or prosecution, will the Home Secretary explain to us and the public the opportunities that the people in prison have to put forward their arguments if they think that the complaints made against them are inaccurate, or perhaps created by someone unfairly?

They have the opportunities that the current law gives them; that is the state of affairs. It is important to recognise that our legislation is designed to deal with threats from organisations that want to destroy any such rights and abilities in any respect whatsoever.

Would the Home Secretary care to reflect on the fact that the big problem with the legislation is that it gives him the power to imprison foreign nationals, which is obviously discriminatory? Does he not think that we have crossed a rather dangerous rubicon, in that politicians, rather than independent courts acting under the criminal law, are allowed to imprison people?

As my hon. Friend knows—his record on these matters is well understood in the House—there is a substantial process of review of any of the decisions taken in the area. That includes legally qualified people, so that judgments can be made on precisely the issues that he describes. However, I come back to the absolutely fundamental point; the House must decide whether it wants its Government to try to work to defend national security in these circumstances and to put that as a central question. That issue remains for my hon. Friend, for me and for every other Member of the House. I am sure that we will continue to discuss these matters, but I remain firmly of the view that one cannot simply assume that there is a benign set of organisations out there with a specific and interesting point to make. There are people who are determined to do what they can to destroy the fundamental foundations of our society.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have opposed the powers since their introduction. Any legislation that he introduces must reflect the judgment of the highest court in the land. He must do away with the right to hold people in detention indefinitely. Should he not be trying to create an offence of associating with terrorists or terrorism, which might, in appropriate circumstances, lead to a custodial sentence?

I hear that suggestion and know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has long experience of debating these matters in the House. I assure him that I shall examine his suggestion carefully when making the considerations to which I referred earlier.

My right hon. Friend is quite right to say that he will come to the House with proposals early in the new year—we look forward to hearing them—and to point out that terrorists are bent on destroying our fundamental institutions and our institutions of liberty. One of the fundamental institutions of which we were most proud was the fact that we did not detain people without trial or without allowing them to see the evidence on which they were kept in custody. Such things are fundamental, but we believe that the legislation has already given the terrorists one of the victories that they want. Will he examine carefully the suggestions of the Joint Committee and the Newton committee? In particular, no one understands why intercepted communications cannot be used if they might convict people, provided that the communications have been subject to proper safeguards. Finally, there are people in prison at the moment about whom we are talking in something of the abstract. What will happen to them in the meantime while he cogitates?

I think I dealt with my hon. Friend's points earlier. I repeat that I will return to the House with proposals relating to all of them. I also repeat to my hon. Friend and the House that our obligation to do all we can to inhibit those who want to destroy our fundamental institutions of freedom is critical, and I am determined to uphold it.

When the Home Secretary rightly warned against an instant response, did he recall the instant negative response that his predecessor gave the Newton committee when we recommended a range of measures which, taken together, could deal with these foreign nationals and, indeed, with United Kingdom citizens about whom similar suspicions were felt? Why has no work been done in the interim to prepare the new legislation that we thought should be prepared by the end of the year?

I think I have already dealt with those points as well. I have committed myself to considering the issues involved, and to returning to the House to discuss them in the round.

Although most of those affected by the decision are in Belmarsh, one is in Woodhill prison in my constituency. I entirely accept the Home Secretary's description of this issue as a difficult one, requiring us to balance the right of the individual to a fair trial against the need to protect the general public. When the issue returns to Parliament, will he be as open as he can be with Members about all the information behind these cases, and explain why the measures on which the Government decided were the only way in which the matters could be handled at the time? Back Benchers want to understand the reasoning behind the Government's current proposals.

I can assure my hon. Friend that I will indeed be as open as I can be, although I think she and the House understand that difficult security issues are involved.

During the passage of the 2001 Act, many of us could not quite square detention without trial with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. May I urge the Home Secretary to act quickly and positively? Otherwise, the certification that Bills comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 may well become a meaningless endorsement.

I return to the point with which I began. The Human Rights Act requires a derogation to be indicated if necessary in a particular case. That was done in this case, quite properly. It is then for Parliament to decide how to respond to the circumstances. I do not think that our approach involves any devaluation of the Act, which has been followed to the letter and in accordance with processes that were established when the Bill was passed.

My right hon. Friend spoke of the threat of international terrorism. When carrying out his assessment, will he take account of what happens in other countries facing similar threats? Will he also confirm that the individuals currently being detained could leave tomorrow, and return to the countries from which they come?

I can confirm that. I had not thought to highlight the point, but it is important and arises specifically in the case of those detained in such circumstances. I can also confirm, as I did earlier, that we will consider the situation in the round.

Does the Home Secretary accept that the Law Lords did not make what he described as an ethical, moral or philosophical judgment, but a legal judgment? Does he accept that that judgment is now a statement of law regarding the relationship between human rights legislation and terrorism legislation? Since the judgment, he has given the impression—unintentionally, I am sure—of being rather contemptuous of it.

I am not at all contemptuous of the Law Lords' judgment. Theirs is the very highest court, and they judge the law in the way described by the hon. Gentleman. However, as an experienced parliamentarian, he will understand the relationship between their judgment and the duties and obligations of Parliament. That was clearly established at every point during the progress of the Human Rights Act, and rightly so. That has also been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside, the former Home Secretary, who I am delighted to see is present. That has been clear throughout the whole of this discussion. The Law Lords understand that very well and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands it properly, but it is in the light of that that the judgments have to be made by this Parliament.

Few of us envy the Home Secretary in the current dilemma, any more than we did his predecessor, who I am also extremely pleased to see in the Chamber. Many of us who feel that there is excessive hysteria about asylum issues in general still do not feel that it will be possible to defend free entry to Britain for people whom we believe wish to support terrorist acts in Britain. I consulted constituents on this last year, and my impression is that there would be widespread support for powers to prosecute people for co-operation with terrorists—I say co-operation rather than mere association—as an alternative to detention under current law, and that that should apply to British nationals as well as to foreign nationals. Will the Home Secretary consider that in his review?

I will consider that, but my hon. Friend used the word "envy" in an interesting way when he said that he did not envy me or my predecessors the responsibility here. There is a key point here. If we choose to live in a democracy, we have to face up to the responsibilities of that and take the decisions necessary to ensure that we continue to live in a democracy. That may not be enviable, but it is not only my responsibility and the responsibility of other Members of the Government; it is for all Members of the House to think how to carry out such responsibilities properly. I would argue that that extends to wider groups in society as well. It is not a question of my having a particularly unenviable responsibility; it is a question of all of us facing up to our responsibility to preserve democracy when it is under these kind of threats. I am glad that the issue will be debated in the House in the new year so that we can consider how to address it.

In considering the matter, will the Home Secretary also bear in mind the political dimension of the difficulties that we and the Government have in rationally criticising the state of affairs in Guantanamo bay while we ourselves also have imprisonment in this way?

I will look at those issues, but my hon. and learned Friend makes the point extremely clearly. The obligation to determine how to defend our democracy is particularly an obligation on our learned Friends in the House, who should consider how the law can play its proper role. That is a key question for us all.