---

Crime Reduction

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timetable is for assessment of each of the category of projects under the crime reduction programme; and if he will make a statement. [128524]

Mr. Charles Clarke: The provisional timetable is shown in the table.

	Outputs
Programme/project	2000	2001	2002+
Local Initiatives
Burglary Reduction	Final process evaluation reports of round 1 projects November 2000	Final outcome evaluation reports of round 1 projects December 2001	Final cost-effectiveness evaluation reports of round 1 projects March 2002
			Final programme evaluation report of round 2 and 3 projects December 2004
Local Initiatives
Targeted Policing (Evaluation of Round 2 projects yet to be commissioned)	Stop and search report on 'street population' October 2000	Final report of FSS pathfinder project March 2001	Final outcome evaluation reports of round 1 projects March-June 2002
		Final process evaluation reports on round 1 projects December 2001
		Crime stoppers report February 2001
Violence against women
(Projects yet to be decided)
Early Interventions
Effective school management		Final outcome evaluations December 2001
Early interventions
'On Track'		National evaluation year 1 report September 2001	National evaluation final report October 2002
Youth Inclusion			Evaluation to be undertaken by the Youth Justice Board. Report expected March 2002
Neighbourhood Wardens
(Main programme projects yet to be decided)	Evaluation of selected existing schemes October 2000
Design against crime		RSA assessment of student design award process January 2001	Final evaluation report on Design Council initiative April 2004
		Evaluation of impact of Crime Prevention Foresight Panel's report on other Foresight Panels' reports July 2001	Overall evaluation report of student design award process December 2004
		Pilot virtual reality lighting impact evaluation report November 2001	Report on effectiveness of Foresight Panel dissemination process mid 2002
			Evaluation of activities spawned by CP Panel, mid 2002, and their impact, mid 2003
			Evaluation report on improvement in lighting design process early 2003
CCTV Capital Modernisation Fund
(Projected dates--evaluations yet to be commissioned)		In-depth scheme evaluation reports from December 2001	Programme level report mid 2002
Sentencing Policy	Cost-effectiveness findings on existing adult Restorative Justice schemes July 2000	Cost-effectiveness report on enforcement of financial penalties schemes October 2001	Final outcome report on professional/sentencer awareness schemes February 2002
Drug arrest referrals	Six month report due October 2000 (London). Evaluations outside London yet to be decided	12 month report due April 2001 and 18 month report due October 2001 (London)	Two year report due April 2002 and final outcome evaluation report due April 2003 (London)
Treatment of offenders			Final outcome report of basic skills pathfinder project October 2004
			Final outcome report of resettlement of short-term prisoners projects September 2004
			Final outcome reports of community service pathfinder projects autumn 2004
			Final outcome report of offending behaviour pathfinder projects autumn 2004

4 Jul 2000 : Column: 173W

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the targets set by his Department for the reduction of crime, the date the targets were set and the timescale of the targets; what further targets he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [128525]

Mr. Charles Clarke: In September 1998, the Government set a target for a 30 per cent. reduction in thefts of and from motor vehicles. This target covers the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2004.

In addition, by 31 March 2000, all police authorities in England and Wales were required to set for themselves five-year targets for reductions in domestic burglary and vehicle crime. The police authorities in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire and the Metropolitan Police Service were also required to set five-year targets for reductions in robbery. These targets cover the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2005 and have been published in each police authority's Best Value Performance Plan for 2000-01. The full list of these targets, as they appear in Best Value Performance Plans, is available on the website of the Association of Police Authorities--www.apa.police.uk.

In their Best Value Performance Plans, police authorities have also set a number of other crime reduction targets which reflect local priorities.

Local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships will set targets for April 2001.

The Home Office Public Service Agreement, which will be published to coincide with the outcome of the Spending Review 2000, is also likely to contain targets reflecting key aspects of the Department's business.

4 Jul 2000 : Column: 174W

National Crime Squad

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the evidence which he has disclosed to the Court in the judicial review application by Williams Jeffery Barber on behalf of the National Crime Squad and others. [128923]

Mr. Charles Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not submit evidence in this case, in which the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad and National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is an independent body, sought judicial review of a decision by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

NDPBs

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the net revenue cost was in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000; and what the planned revenue cost is for 2000-01 of each of the executive and advisory non-Departmental public bodies listed on pages 88 to 96 of his Annual report for 1999-2000. [128926]

Mr. Straw: The net revenue cost and planned costs for the Home Office Executive and Advisory Non- Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are set out in the following table. I have taken "net revenue costs" to mean the Grant in Aid for Executive NDPBs minus any receipts payable to the Exchequer offsetting costs.

Neither the Tote nor the Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) have any revenue cost, as they are self-financing. The expenses payable to the Alcohol Education and Research Council are within the travel and subsistence budget of the Liquor Gambling and Data Protection Unit.

It is not possible to estimate the planned costs for some Advisory Bodies, as the members of those bodies only receive expenses when necessary.

4 Jul 2000 : Column: 173W

£000

	1998-99	1999-2000	2000-01
	Executive NDPBs: Net revenue cost
1. Alcohol Education and Research Council	0	0	0
2. Commission for Racial Equality	14,825	16,425	16,835
3. Community Development Foundation	1,090	14,363	14,643
4. Criminal Cases Review Commission	4,300	4,800	5,400
5. Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority(19)	125,200	142,100	214,600
6. Gaming Board	1	232	-336
7. Horserace Betting Levy Board	0	0	0
8. Horserace Totalisator Board (The Tote)	0	0	0
9. Office of the Data Protection Registrar	-3,324	-880	3,143
10. Parole Board	2,669	2,672	3,100
11. Police Complaints Authority	3,410	3,444	3,468
12. Police Information Technology Organisation	36,229	52,055	33,781
13. Youth Justice Board (YJB)	900	36,528	234,019
Advisory NDPBs: Net revenue cost
1. Advisory Board on Restricted Patients	60	66	n/a
2. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs	20	22	n/a
3. Animal Procedures Committee	285	315	295
4. Firearms Consultative Committee	4	6	20
5. Metropolitan Police Committee	29	36	8
6. Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England	299	797	1,731
7. Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales	29	39	61
8. Poisons Board	0	0	n/a
9. Police Negotiating Board	70	79	47
10. Race Relations Forum	4	23	23

(19) Compensation and Administration costs combined

Note:

Cost rounded to the nearest £000

4 Jul 2000 : Column: 175W

Visas

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in 1999 applied for permission to switch their visa category; how many such applications were approved; what the net cost was to public funds of handling these applications; and if he will make a statement. [128925]

Mrs. Roche: The available information relates to decisions taken on all applications to switch category after entering the country. In 1999, 40,900 principal applicants switched into a non-asylum category and 2,700 were refused. This excludes 41,700 (provisional) applications for asylum made by principal applicants after entry. I regret that the costs incurred dealing with applications to switch category cannot be separated from the overall costs of the Integrated Casework Directorate.

---