What is the (a) design capacity of the prison estate and (b) number of prisoners therein. [64745]

On 5 July 2002, the in-use certified normal accommodation of the prison estate was 64,232, and the usable operation capacity was 71,653. As of this morning, the total prison population was 71,360.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that my constituents will find it much easier to support his proposal for a fourth prison on the Isle of Wight if he can promise to recruit staff and to source supplies locally, to bring the street lights and sewers on the prison estate up to adoptable standard, and—most importantly—to guarantee that released prisoners will not jump local people in the housing queue, but will be re-housed where they committed their offences?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the current planning application follows on from existing planning permission for a 416-place prison on the site. I understand that, next week, he will meet Home Office officials to talk about the matters that he has raised today. I am very happy to give him the assurance that, as ever, the Prison Service does all that it can to ensure that local materials are used and local sourcing is undertaken when new prison places are provided. I am aware of the particular issues relating to lighting, highways and so on that he raises. Officials are looking at them, and it certainly is our intention that prisoners will be returned to their home area when they complete their sentence.

Although this Government have many excellent policies, is not the worst that which locks up increasing numbers of children and young people in prison? Should we not abandon that policy and ensure that the very small number of young people from whom society needs to be protected are maintained in secure accommodation under the auspices of the Children Act 1989?

As my hon. Friend will be well aware, the Government have made a particular priority of their youth justice reforms—both to speed up the time between the committing of an offence and sentencing, and to develop effective alternatives to custody for those for whom such alternatives can prove successful. I hope that he accepts that the most effective thing that we can do is to ensure that we bring effort, resources and reform to bear on reducing the chances of young people reoffending. If that proves successful, it will not be necessary for such young people to remain in custody, and they can go on to lead what we hope will be useful lives.

How far does the prison estate's design capacity take into account the need to avoid harm and self-harm among prisoners? In particular, when does the Minister propose to respond to the urgent request that I made three weeks' ago for him to look at conditions in Wandsworth jail? One of my constituents recently fell from, or was thrown from, the top storey of the building to the floor beneath, leading to critical injuries because of the lack of safety facilities.

I am aware of the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is being looked into, and I shall respond as quickly as I can. However, he raises an even more important and fundamental point—the work that the Prison Service is doing to reduce the incidence of self-harm under the safer custody initiative. At Winchester prison last week, I chaired a meeting of the round table group that is considering self-harm and suicides in prison. There has undoubtedly been a real change in the approach of prison staff, particularly in the six prisons in which the new safer custody initiative is being piloted. However, both sides of the House will share the genuine regret that, so far this year, the number of suicides in prisons has been higher than for the same period last year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should send people to prison as punishment, not for punishment, and that, having punished them by taking away their liberty, we should concentrate on policies that will ensure their rehabilitation in the community? In keeping with the point that was made earlier about housing, is not the rehabilitation of prisoners, rather than simply punishing them, key to ensuring that we keep prison populations down?

I agree. The deprivation of liberty is clearly part of society's way of saying to offenders that they must be held to account for what they have done. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the best long-term public protection measure is to reduce the chances of such people reoffending. That is precisely why we have undertaken work in prisons to increase drug treatment and testing. Ten years ago, there was almost no such provision in prisons. It was prison officers and staff in the pioneer prisons who, by looking at the offenders before them, recognised that that was what was needed if we were to have any hope of reducing reoffending in the way that my hon. Friend has described. We are investing to make that happen, but we need to do more because, in the end, that is the best way to protect the public.

While I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) said, is it not the case that 1 million crimes a year are committed by prisoners who have been released early? Perhaps they do not spend enough time in prison. Surely that point must be considered when assessing the broad canvas of prison sentencing policy.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, under the home detention curfew scheme the average period of early release is six weeks, and the scheme has a more than 90 per cent. success rate. He is right in one respect: prison is the place where we need to put dangerous, violent or persistent offenders who do not respond to the rehabilitation work that we are trying to develop. The great majority of prisoners will come back into the community and that is why it makes sense to invest in effective rehabilitation as the best way to protect the public.

Can I assume that the Minister regards the record number of prisoners in England and Wales—which has been announced in the same week as I understand we will see a further increase in crime figures—as a sign of failure, not success? If that is the case, in addition to reducing the number of young people in prison, do the Government put a high priority on taking many mentally ill prisoners out of prison and putting them into secure health service accommodation? Are the Government willing to endorse the view of the Lord Chief Justice and Mrs. Cherie Blair that courts should not send non-violent women offenders to prison at the present rate of near record numbers—to great harm to them and to society at large?

First, we will have to wait for the crime figures to be published this week. Secondly, I endorse the statement made by the Lord Chief Justice and by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, who—while they recognise that decisions about sentences are properly matters for the courts—have made it clear to sentencers that they should look carefully at the choice of custody for those offenders for whom prison may not be the most effective form of sentence. The hon. Gentleman's point about women and other prisoners reinforces the argument about the need for effective rehabilitation, having regard to family ties and job prospects on leaving prison. Compared to the population as a whole, prisoners are more likely to have low skills, little previous employment and a record of exclusion from school. That legacy of social exclusion does not excuse their crime, but it makes a powerful case for trying to address those causes of crime to try to reduce the chances of reoffending.

What steps he is taking to deal with clandestine immigration. [64746]

We are working closely with the French Government to deal with the problem of illegal immigration from France, and the trafficking networks which bring so many of these illegal immigrants across Europe. We are making efficient use of intelligence to target resources against organised immigration crimes, and we are investing in new technologies to detect and deter those attempting to enter the United Kingdom clandestinely in road freight vehicles.

Does the Minister accept that the measures now proposed, which have still yet to be implemented, are too little, too late? Will she acknowledge the unacceptable strain that that inactivity has placed on the rail freight operators and the hauliers? Is this not just another example of a failure of Government policy?

That is a bit rich coming from a member of the Conservative party, which does not seem to want us to co-operate with France or other EU countries on those measures. I do not accept for a moment that it is too little, too late. We are working co-operatively with the French in a staged and programmed way to implement increased security at Frethun and to introduce a range of measures, including improved security and identification of illegal immigrants, a joint reporting system and shared intelligence. Some of the measures that the French have worked with us to institute, including juxtaposed controls, demonstrate their commitment to work with us to tackle a joint and shared problem.

Does the Minister recognise that many of her hon. Friends are fully aware that one of the major pull factors that makes this country—and especially the south of England—a target for illegal immigration is the lack of an effective ID card system? That is something about which the Conservatives appear to be ambivalent. I contend that many of my hon. Friends would welcome a compulsory system and cannot wait to see it implemented.

The Labour Government have agreed that we need to address all the pull factors. An entitlement card, if the public wish to go down that route, could play an important role in tackling the potential for illegal working. However, my hon. Friend is right about the ambivalence of Opposition parties towards such measures. We are trying to make illegal working more difficult under measures in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, which the Conservative party opposed. Through the institution of non-suspensive appeals for clearly unfounded cases, we are making it possible to remove people very quickly—again, the Opposition parties opposite will not support us.

The hon. Lady should not worry about the parties opposite.

It appears that the Minister has a very short memory. Until 1997, thanks to the negotiations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), there was a very effective system for returning illegal immigrants to France. The present Government changed the system, and it has taken the election of a right-of-centre Government in France to make any progress.

At the very least, if the hon. Gentleman is going to ask a question, he should get his facts straight. The 1995 agreement—the content of which was determined by the previous Conservative Government—gave precedence to the Dublin convention in relation to asylum cases. In fact, the 1995 agreement in relation to non-asylum cases is still operational and under it we are removing more than 7,000 people a year to France. That compares with a few hundred who were removed from 1995 to 1997. This Government are bringing in effective measures to remove people, unlike the previous Tory Government, who were totally ineffective.

What plans he has to propose reforms to the law on rape; and if he will make a statement. 164747]

We all accept that rape is a particularly heinous crime. The legislative framework must enable us to take firm action wherever and whenever we can. We intend to publish our proposals for strengthening legislation on sex offences and sex offenders in the autumn, and to legislate as soon after that as parliamentary time allows.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and am pleased to hear that a working party has been set up. However, as he is aware, only between 2 and 5 per cent. of rape cases result in a conviction. Research shows that as many as 80 per cent. of people who suffer this crime do not report it to the police. That is not good enough. Just last week I spoke to staff at the Rape Crisis offices in Barnsley and in Yorkshire, and was told that three factors really worry them—cross-examination procedures; the use of past histories to denigrate the character of the victim and make it appear that she encouraged the rape; and the increase in the date rape drug. Will my right hon. Friend consider referring these matters to the Sentencing Advisory Panel with a view to making progress and ensuring protection for rape victims?

The figure for reported rapes resulting in conviction to which my hon. Friend referred is 7 per cent. The number of those taken to court is staggering: in 1977, 68 per cent. of defendants were found guilty; by 2000, the figure had dropped to 29 per cent. There are clearly serious issues: first, encouraging people to report; secondly, the way that they are handled; and, importantly, finding the right balance for both the male and female involved.

Does the Home Secretary accept that recent high profile cases have made it clear that both the alleged victim and the person accused should remain anonymous throughout a trial, otherwise there is dreadful adverse publicity for people who are often found innocent? That cannot be right.

It would be a great mistake if we made a judgment on the back of one case. In the case of Mr. Hann, we should be prepared to think a little during the summer and, when we make our proposals on the revision of sex offences, we should do so in the light of all the evidence. I do not think that there is disagreement about the fact that victims should remain anonymous; the real issue for all of us is whether, in the transparent society where the media expect us to be honest and open about what is taking place in relation to criminality, it would be acceptable for a particular type of perpetrator to remain anonymous when that was not the case for others. In the light of the campaign for a free society, I shall be interested to hear from Opposition spokesmen whether they feel that is the case.

The cross-departmental inquiry reporting on the thematic investigation into rape was announced in April and it was said that it would report at the end of June or the beginning of July. Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of when there will be a report as to how the three relevant departments intend to take forward the recommendations made by the inspectors? Can he tell us what input the Lord Chancellor's Department had in that cross-departmental inquiry, given that the report was highly critical of the judiciary, especially its excessive readiness to include previous sexual history?

My hon. and learned Friend is right: the report announcing the inquiry was published on 8 April. The action plan has been completed and we will shortly be able to publish it. I am convinced of the commitment of the Lord Chancellor and his Ministers to join the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and me in ensuring that we get this right. Given that the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and I are males, we should keep the lack of understanding of many men strongly in mind when addressing this critical issue.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the most tragic and awful rapes are those affecting children, and that we need to reconsider the operation of the court process, since it delivers an even lower conviction rate for those accused of those even more terrible offences? May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there should be more training for judges and, in particular, that they should be discouraged from allowing defence barristers to bully and confuse already extremely frightened children and from using points of order to get the case deferred from day to day and hour to hour in order to break down a frightened and demoralised child?

The hon. Gentleman and I are in entire agreement: we should and will address the need to avoid the adversarial judicial system being applied to juveniles, and I look forward to all-party support.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of acceptable behaviour contracts. [64748]

We believe that acceptable behaviour contracts have proved extremely useful in preventing or restraining antisocial behaviour before formal legal sanctions are taken. We have commissioned a survey of schemes in England and Wales, while conducting a thorough evaluation of the original scheme in Islington. We would certainly want to encourage the wider use of acceptable behaviour contracts.

I thank the Minister for that reply. The youth offending team in Stockport has been very active in drawing up such contracts, particularly with youth offenders whose criminal activities are accompanied by threats and intimidation. Thirty of those contracts have been signed already, and only five have been breached. I believe that they are very effective because, on one hand, the breaches have serious consequences and, on the other, a lot of positive help is given in dealing with underlying problems such as drug or alcohol abuse, or indeed school attendance problems. Will the Minister join me in congratulating those in the youth offending team in Stockport on the very good work that they are doing? Has he any plans to apply that approach to the probation service's work with adult offenders?

We are happy to congratulate those in the youth offending team in Stockport on their work. People tackling antisocial behaviour in many parts of the country are certainly using acceptable behaviour contracts in a way that makes it very clear what behaviour is required and what action—possibly eviction from a tenancy, or a formal antisocial behaviour order—will follow if the contracts are breached. They are very effective. Acceptable behaviour contracts can certainly be used with adults, and that is being pioneered in several parts of the country. In the right circumstances, they can be as effective with that group as they can be with young offenders.

Does not the welcome use of acceptable behaviour contracts simply underline the complete failure of the bureaucratic antisocial behaviour orders, which the Government also pioneered? When will the Government get a grip on the rising tide of petty vandalism and aggressive behaviour in our neighbourhoods and parishes and introduce more local solutions such as those contracts?

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Antisocial behaviour orders have been used with great effectiveness. They are particularly effective where they are used alongside acceptable behaviour contracts. The Police Reform Bill, which is currently before the House—in fact, we shall discuss it on Report tomorrow—contains a series of measures to make antisocial behaviour orders more widely and flexibly available and to enable courts to introduce interim antisocial behaviour orders so that they can be used quickly. I certainly hope that Opposition Members will do nothing else tomorrow or in another place to delay those measures being placed on to the statute book as quickly as possible, but I fear that that is their intention.

If he will introduce stronger controls on animal experiments. [64749]

Our existing controls, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and various regulations passed since then, are widely regarded as the most rigorous in the world, and we currently have no plans to change them.

The Minister will be aware that many people are opposed to any animal experiments, but the majority believe that they should be carried out provided that they are strictly controlled. Will he assure me that the introduction of genetically modified animal technology will not increase the number of experiments carried out?

I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance, but I am sure that he will be aware that there are various pressures on both sides of the equation. On one hand, the use of robotics in testing chemicals is removing the need for animal experimentation in many cases, but, on the other, he is absolutely right to suggest that the potential of some genetic procedures to develop cures for illnesses such as cystic fibrosis, cancer or Alzheimer's puts a great deal of pressure on the medical establishment. There may well be a growth in experimentation as a result of those opportunities, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members would not want that development to be slowed down.

Is it not also important to underline the fact that doctors and scientists do not carry out scientific procedures on animals gratuitously and for fun? They do so because it is for the benefit of both veterinary and medical science. Many years ago, my father was research secretary of the British Tuberculosis Association. A cure would not have been found for killers such as TB if researchers had not been able to carry out scientific procedures on animals.

Every establishment, every procedure and every individual who is involved in animal experimentation must be licensed under our current procedures. I would hate to think that anyone was prepared to carry out unnecessary testing on animals. I am sure that that is not the case, but we need to be ever-vigilant. We need to make absolutely sure that the procedures that we have in place are rigorously enforced if we are to maintain the necessary confidence in such work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also understands that there are very strong feelings about that work.

Did Home Office Ministers welcome as enthusiastically as I did the implied statement by the Government when an award was given of a CBE to Dr. Brian Cass of Huntingdon Life Sciences, which renders such important service to medical advance in this country?

Some of the procedures that are carried out at Huntingdon Life Sciences, at other companies and at our universities the length and breadth of the country are absolutely vital to the development of medicines that will ultimately be in the interests of humanity. We should never be slow in coming forward and saying so, and in recognising some of the truly magnificent work that is done in this area. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Does the Minister share my concern that the number of animal experiments in this country—to return to an earlier point—has remained virtually unchanged since the Government came to power five years ago? We have not even properly sorted out cosmetics testing yet. Is it not time that we tried to eliminate duplicated experiments, of which there are many; that we tried to promote alternatives such as computer modelling and cell culture; and that we eliminated those experiments that are unethical, such as those that are still being carried out to test tobacco smoke?

The hon. Gentleman and I have many dealings together in the portfolios that we share on behalf of our two parties. If he has any evidence of unnecessary duplication of animal testing, he should bring it forward. It is no good making allegations in the House without bringing forward specifics. If he can do so, we should examine the matter and do what we can to eliminate it. We are doing our very best in the areas of publication and data sharing to make absolutely certain that unnecessary duplication does not take place. No evidence has been presented to me that suggests that it is taking place in the UK. If the hon. Gentleman has such evidence, he should bring it to my attention.

What plans he has to reform working practices in the police service. [64751]

What plans he has to reform working practices in the police service. [64757]

Alongside the Police Reform Bill, we were successful in reaching an historic agreement in May with the Police Negotiating Board, which has resulted in substantial proposals for reforms. Those include: competency-related pay; a deal to reduce police overtime and to switch 15 per cent. over the next three years into front-line services; the scrapping of the old roster system; changes to overtime notice periods; the introduction of extra rewards for jobs at the sharp end; a £400 uplift per increment and a shorter promotion scale; more flexible arrangements to enable officers to work part-time; and new measures to improve the management of ill-health, among other things.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he will agree that the introduction of special priority posts in the package of reforms to which the Police Negotiating Board agreed on 9 May will do much to help police forces up and down this country to focus more on front-line services, and to concentrate on issues and areas of significance, importance and concern to the communities and constituencies that they serve.

I agree: people want to see the police on the streets—they want that reassurance—but they also want police time to be targeted and the intelligence methodology to ensure that we can bear down heavily on what all of us accept is a major problem for modern society. Many of the issues that were targeted in the first five years of this Government have been successful, and we are now succeeding with street crime and robbery. We need to be equally successful in bearing down on violence. Targeting rewards and support for those at the sharp end is part of that process.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on reaching an agreement with the Police Federation—a long awaited and long overdue agreement. Does he agree, however, that more action needs to be taken to reduce bureaucracy in police working practices, so as to get more officers out on to the streets of Putney where my constituents value them most—that is, at the sharp end?

Yes, I do. Sir David O'Dowd's interim report has given us a lead in enabling us to take immediate action, but much more still needs to be done. We have slimmed down the performance indicators; we have put out for consultation slimmed-down proposals for the police and criminal evidence codes; we are introducing new technology that will be a major boon for the police on the beat and in the community; and we have introduced the back-up support necessary for forensic science. All that will enable the police to do their job more effectively. An extra 4,500 policemen and women have also been put in place over the past two years, and they will make, and are making, a difference in reducing crime.

Will the Home Secretary explain the change to police working practices that finds police officers in south Yorkshire reporting to a junior Education Minister who represents a north London seat and police officers in Nottinghamshire reporting to a junior Treasury Minister who represents a seat in Bolton? I know that the Home Secretary is keen on empire building, but is that not a bit ambitious?

Yes—very amusing. My only advice—I need to take it myself when I read the Sunday newspapers—is not to believe a word one reads. The truth is that Ministers are not overseeing the policing of any area. They were asked if they would work with local partners—the Crown Prosecution Service, the court service, the police and those working in education and youth offending teams—to see whether we could remove any obstacles to those organisations working together. I challenge Conservative Members and any reporter who cares to do so to give me the name of anyone working at local level who has found the work of those Ministers anything but helpful.

Does the Home Secretary agree that a fundamental feature of working practices is that they are based on the tripartite system of chief officers, the police authority and the Home Secretary working together? As we approach the Report stage of the Police Reform Bill, to which he and the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety have referred, will the Home Secretary accept that there remains a fundamental belief that, especially under clause 5, he is seriously damaging the tripartite arrangement? Does he understand that, contrary to the comments that the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety just made, we are not seeking confrontation. The crux of our concern is who runs the police service. Its independence is derived from the tripartite system. Even at this late stage, may I invite the Home Secretary to come to the House with amendments to clarify that he will not seek further powers to direct or overrule chief officers or police authorities as they carry out their duties?

I am very happy to come to the House with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety to ensure that we clarify exactly what is meant so that there is no mischievous misunderstanding. Let me get the position absolutely clear. Chief constables are operationally independent, and no one is challenging that. Police authorities have a role. I understand that Opposition Members wish to enhance that role, and I am happy to assist in that. As Home Secretary, I am responsible to the British people for the resources used and the statistics bandied about, and there have to be some levers to pull. That includes being able to ask for an action plan, to comment on an action plan and to expect the police authority to work with the chief constable on implementing an action plan. Anyone who challenges that simple and perfectly innocent approach is simply causing mischief rather than helping us to do the job.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that on Friday evening, Mr. Alan Musgrove, a constituent of mine, was gunned down on his doorstep in front of his family? It was the fourth such assassination in my part of east London, Forest Gate, but no one has been brought to justice for any of the incidents. The newspapers say that he was "shot by mistake", which gives rise to the question whether anyone can be correctly gunned down on their own doorstep.

No, although I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As a result of the growth in gun crime, it is necessary in London and elsewhere to reinforce Operation Trident. We need to work with the communities that are most affected by gun crime and those most likely to be the perpetrators of gun crime. We must ensure that we clamp down on the ownership of guns, but arming all our police force would not help us in that endeavour in any way.

Further to the baffling reply that the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), if individual police forces are not reporting to individual Ministers, and if those Ministers do have a role in the street crime initiative, will he tell us, as someone who is keen on making announcements, when that was announced to the House, and how that novel form of accountability is meant to work?

Some people are more difficult to baffle than others. Ministers do not have to report to the House on a day-to-day basis to demonstrate how helpful they can be in ascertaining facts from a local level—after all, that is what we are here for. They receive messages on how to unlock blockages and ensure that mistakes are overcome rather than repeated. Ministers ensure that legislation comes before the House to make the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or the court service work better.

If he will make a statement on his plans to ensure resettlement and rehabilitation opportunities for former prisoners. [64752]

We are investing, on average, some —60 million a year in education and offending behaviour programmes in prisons. We are working closely with Jobcentre Plus on increasing the number of prisoners who find work or training on release. We are also piloting support for short-term prisoners and those who misuse drugs. Accredited programmes have been shown to reduce reoffending by between 5 and 15 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as long ago as 1993 organisations such as the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders became increasingly concerned about the dramatic increase in the number of women sent to prison? Although we know that the Government cannot intervene in the sentencing of individuals, will the Department continue to have an input into sentencing policy? Given that a fairly large number of young children are put in care because their mothers are sent to prison, does he accept that the problem calls for the utmost sensitivity, not ideological backlashes?

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend's point. One of the saddest features of the female prison population is that 37 per cent. of sentenced women prisoners have attempted suicide. Women prisoners have access to the full range of programmes available in prison and we are looking for ways to make those more appropriate to their particular needs.

Will the Minister do all that he can to recognise and support the work of Christian groups such as the Kainos community, which operate in prison with the support of prison authorities to ensure that the spirit and character of prisoners is not neglected in their preparation for successful release?

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. One really heartening development in the past few years has been in the links between the Prison Service and the voluntary sector, which works in many prisons providing a wide range of support. One of the pleasures that I had in this job recently was attending a conference organised by CLINKS at the Design Centre in Islington, where 500 people came together to talk about that work. They discussed how the Prison Service can learn from the contribution of the voluntary sector in maintaining precisely the qualities and sense of spirit that the hon. Gentleman talked about and also how the voluntary sector can learn from the Prison Service.

Are not existing rehabilitation programmes closed to many prisoners who are repeat offenders by virtue of the fact that they are usually in prison for a very short time? Another factor, particularly for women prisoners, is the fear that they may lose their home as well as their family. Does not the Home Office need to work closely with other Departments to ensure that such a situation does not arise?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. These are matters that the recent social exclusion unit report drew to our attention. We need to do more, particularly for prisoners serving short sentences. When I was at Winchester prison last week, I was very impressed by the team of three prison officers who are delivering the custody-to-work programme in that institution. They are enthusiastic and hard working, and they are making links with employers outside the prison because they recognise as much as anybody else does the importance for prisoners of finding employment opportunities once they leave their care.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that no group requires resettlement and rehabilitation more than 18 to 20-year-olds, of whom some 72 per cent. commit further offences within two years of release. Does the Minister agree that structured programmes are needed and that they must be consistent? If early release is brought on by overcrowding rather than being planned and if we have "going straight" contracts that are not part of an integrated programme, we are going in the wrong direction because we are pushing young offenders back out into the community before they have been properly prepared for it.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we do not have integrated programmes for young offenders, we will not make the progress that is required. That is precisely the point that was made in the social exclusion unit's report. That is why the community sentences developed by the national probation service can include intensive supervision, offending behaviour programmes, drug treatment and testing orders, work in the community and the use of tagging. The availability of those instruments enables us to construct a sentence in the community that is effective in working with young people.

If he will make a statement on his plans to develop a refugee resettlement programme with the UNHCR. [64753]

In the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill now going through Parliament there is a provision to introduce a resettlement programme that will enable those refugees whose life, liberty or security cannot be protected to be brought safely to the United Kingdom and provided with protection. That will provide a legal route for those seeking international protection and is further evidence of our practical support of the refugee convention.

I thank the Minister for that response. Does she agree that that programme can be one of the ways by which we cut off the supply to unscrupulous human traffickers, opening up a legal migration route within the country of origin? Over the longer term, will that not reduce the number of unfounded asylum claims in this country, and does not the programme demonstrate the need for more effective international co-operation on these issues?

Resettlement is a humanitarian measure to provide protection and a legal migration route, and it has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by refugee organisations. My hon. Friend is right that it will help to keep people out of the clutches of the organised criminal gangs who are fuelling almost all the illegal immigration across the EU. In the longer term, and in the context of international co-operation and common systems, it could have a beneficial impact on levels of illegal immigration and unfounded claims. We need to keep up the pressure to bear down on illegal immigration and people trafficking, and that, too, requires international co-operation, including co-operation with source and transit countries.

Will the hon. Lady tell the House how she intends to respond to the high commissioner's offer to visit Sangatte to see which refugees should come to this country? Against the background of £5 million being made available to improve the security fence at Frethun, what guarantee have the Government been given that Sangatte camp will close?

We welcome the offer of assistance from the UNHCR and the fact that it sees a potential role for itself in such situations. Decisions about the way forward will of course be taken by the UK and French Governments together.

May I say how pleased I am that the Government are taking seriously the offer made by Ruud Lubbers, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, when he was here last week? He came to the House to talk to us about refugees, and offered to break the deadlock between Britain and France on that issue.

If there was a deadlock, it was broken a few weeks ago when my right hon. Friend met his French counterpart and introduced the first package of measures. Those discussions have been continuing at official level and will be resumed on Friday this week at a meeting between my right hon. Friend and French Ministers.

What initiatives he is taking to promote drug awareness. [64754]

Raising awareness of the dangers of drugs is a main focus of the national drug strategy. Educating young people and protecting them from the risks and harm of drug misuse is a high priority. Most schools now provide substance misuse education and parents are given information about where to get help. In December, I launched the first in a series of drug awareness campaigns promoting the national drugs helpline. The campaign resulted in substantial increases in numbers of young people contacting the helpline for advice and assistance.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He will be aware that 50 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds have at some stage indulged in illegal drugs. As he said, one aim of the national drugs strategy is to reduce drug taking among that age group. Does he agree that former addicts are sometimes the best people to explain—rather than preach about—the pitfalls of taking drugs? Will he ensure that that will become an undertaking of this Government, and that such people will be allowed to go into schools to explain the problems?

My hon. Friend hits on a very important area. I do not believe that preaching to young people works or has the desired effect. I know from personal experience, having listened to a former addict explain some of the difficulties that they had experienced and managed to overcome, that such intervention is one of the most powerful weapons. I am sure that people with such communication skills would be happy to help where we could use them appropriately. They could have a great effect on the young people to whom they manage to talk.

Is the Minister aware that he and the Home Secretary have indeed taken a huge initiative to promote drug awareness? Has not his Brixton experiment promoted awareness among young people that the Government want to send mixed messages on the persistent use of cannabis, and promoted awareness among drug dealers that Brixton is the place to be? How will either of those forms of awareness contribute to reducing drug dependency in this country?

We have had quite a debate on drugs over the past year since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appeared before the Home Affairs Committee and asked for an adult debate on the issue. In some ways, we have managed to increase awareness of the effect of different substances and the harm that they cause. By misrepresenting the situation in Lambeth, the right hon. Gentleman is not helping the debate at all.

Is there not one other form of drug awareness that the Minister would accept that he and the Home Secretary have failed to promote: the awareness of the public about the true nature of what they are proposing? The Home Secretary has leaked that he will double sentences for cannabis dealers. At present, cannabis is a class B drug, and the maximum sentence is 14 years. If, as leaked, he universalises the Brixton experiment by moving cannabis to class C, the maximum sentence for dealing in it would naturally be reduced to five years. If the Minister multiplies that by two, the maximum sentence will, I gather from mathematicians, be 10 years. Will he explain to those of us who are not mathematically inclined how a move from a 14-year maximum sentence to a 10-year maximum sentence constitutes doubling sentences for cannabis dealers?

The right hon. Gentleman ought to try to concentrate on the issues of substance instead of playing games with figures. The position is clear and has been for a long time. There has been an extensive debate in the Home Affairs Committee, in which members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party participated, where evidence was taken from everybody. Advice has also been given by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, and we shall discuss with the police and announce to Parliament in the near future our exact proposals on reclassification and all its ramifications. I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman making a constructive response to that.