| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Jan 2003 : Column 12—continued
Street Wardens
7. Martin Linton (Battersea): What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of street wardens. [91428]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): As my hon. Friend is aware, there are three centrally funded warden schemes. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister retains overall responsibility for them, although many of the issues surrounding them fall to the Home Office as the lead Department. All the schemes are relatively new, so robust evaluations are not yet available. However, the preliminary work that has been done suggests that such schemes can contribute significantly to bringing down levels of crime, reducing antisocial behaviour and reducing fear of crime.
Martin Linton : Is the Minister aware that a Government-funded street warden scheme has already had a dramatic effect on reducing crime in Clapham junction—reducing crime overall by 13 per cent., compared with 4 per cent. borough-wide; reducing street crime by 32 per cent., compared with 20 per cent. borough-wide; reducing car crime by 40 per cent., compared with 7 per cent. borough-wide; and reducing the fear of crime by 60 per cent., according to a Wandsworth council survey, compared with the target given to the scheme of reducing fear of crime by 10 per cent? Given the success of these initial schemes, will the Minister do all he can to increase the number of community support schemes in areas like the London borough of Wandsworth?
Mr. Wills: Yes, I am well aware of the success of the scheme in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am also aware of how hard he has campaigned and lobbied to make sure not only that the scheme is implemented, but that it is adequately funded. As a result, even Wandsworth borough council, which is no political friend of the Government, as the House is aware, recognises how successful the scheme has been. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything we can to make sure that those successes are replicated throughout the country.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Can the Minister make sure that such schemes are extended much more widely in the outer London boroughs, which have a serious problem with vandalism and unruly behaviour on the part of young people? Has he received
any report yet from the Metropolitan Commissioner about the success of police community support officers in the central zone?
Mr. Wills: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be replicating the schemes. Their success is evident and we will make sure that both they and the community support officers to whom he refers do the job that they are intended to do—to reduce crime, to reduce fear of crime and to reduce antisocial behaviour.
Youth Offending
8. Dr. Hywel Francis (Aberavon): What measures he is taking to tackle persistent youth offending. [91429]
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): We have introduced a range of measures, which have cut re-conviction rates for young offenders by 14.6 per cent. compared with those for 1997.
Dr. Francis : The Minister will know of the success of Neath and Port Talbot crime and disorder partnership in achieving the first interim antisocial behaviour orders in the whole of Wales. Will he join me in congratulating the partnership on its proactive approach, particularly the local police and the local authority? Will he also consider providing additional funding for youth offending teams, and explore ways in which magistrates can be given all the information that they require as to why antisocial behaviour orders are being applied for, by considering evidence over a 12-month period, rather than over six months, as at present?
Mr. Denham: I certainly congratulate the Neath and Port Talbot crime reduction partnership on making such early use of the new measures that were introduced last summer in the Police Reform Act 2002. There is already clear evidence to show that interim antisocial behaviour orders are enabling people to respond very quickly to problems in local communities.
The six-month rule arises from underlying magistrates legislation rather than the antisocial behaviour order legislation. Let me make two points: first, we have changed the guidance, which should now make it easier and faster to bring ASBO cases to court; and secondly, it is possible to use evidence collected before the six-month period as background information when an ASBO is sought. With those things in mind, I think that antisocial behaviour orders are now much quicker and more flexible and adaptable than before.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): Does the Minister agree that one persistent nuisance from persistent young offenders is graffiti? Why do the courts appear to be making so little use of the powers that Parliament has given them to require offenders to clear up graffiti? Does that reflect the low priority that they and perhaps the Government accord to the problem?
Mr. Denham: That certainly does not take anything away from the priority that the Government accord the problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will publish
a White Paper on antisocial behaviour in the very near future, with a view to introducing legislation in this Session.The response made in the courts varies from one part of the country to another. There is no doubt that where good efforts have been made to involve magistrates and magistrates' clerks in understanding local priorities for tackling antisocial behaviour, we have had much better support from the courts. I urge every crime reduction partnership to ensure that it has included the Court Service fully in understanding the nature of local problems and the measures that are being taken to tackle them.
Lunar House
9. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): If he will make a statement on measures he proposes to improve the administration of Lunar House in Croydon. [91430]
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): Substantial progress has been made in some areas, and as the Home Secretary said earlier, we expect to see a radical transformation this year in the operation and efficiency of the immigration and nationality directorate. We are pursuing a range of measures including the provision of additional resources and implementation of new processes to tackle backlogs and improve the handling of immigration and asylum applications, as well as correspondence.
Andrew Mackinlay : We are agreed about one thing: it can only get better. Why has it taken so long to address this problem? I have been in the House for 10 years and I know that the experience of all Members of Parliament is that documents are lost, letters are not replied to and decisions are sent to the wrong people. I give the Minister notice that, in six months' time, I shall try to raise the same question again—and there had better be improvements or there will be one hell of a bloody row.
Beverley Hughes: I can tell my hon. Friend that there has been progress. I share his frustration about the time that it is taking to sort out a situation that was in almost catastrophic meltdown when we took over in 1997. I should like to give him some examples, as I am not being complacent about the issue. The time taken to make an initial decision in asylum cases in 1997 was nearly two years. In 75 per cent. of cases, that time is now down to two months. Some 4,800 people were removed having failed in their applications in 1997. The number will be 13,000 this year. There is progress and it is steady. We would like it to be faster, but we clearly have a much more orderly and effective system that we ever had in 1997. I assure him that further measures are in place to improve on that situation and bring about the well managed, routinely organised and administratively efficient system that we undoubtedly need, and I will welcome the opportunity to report to him in future.
Andrew Mackinlay: I apologise for using the vernacular, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): The Minister has just told us that 13,000 people were removed last year because they had made unfounded asylum claims. How many asylum applicants had their applications refused last year and were therefore liable to be removed?
Beverley Hughes: I have not got that figure in my head, but many thousands were refused last year. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the figure that I cited earlier: fewer than 5,000 people were removed in 1997. We have put in place the resources to tackle the undoubted difficulty of removing people. As someone who has been involved with the Home Office and now serves on the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Gentleman should know the difficulties. We are dealing with them robustly; we have increased the number of removals year by year, and we will continue to do that.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): I am sure that the Minister knows that all too frequently people receive letters from the Home Office that state that they will receive permission to stay in the United Kingdom, or win an asylum appeal, but they are still waiting for the official status letter six months later. In the meantime, they have to survive on no income and are unable to get a job. Why is it impossible to send the official status letter as soon as the decision is made, instead of a letter that states, "You will be getting the official letter"?
Beverley Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a matter not simply of the official letter but of ensuring that, at the point of final refusal, people are encouraged and helped to leave; and that if they do not leave, they are forced to do so. We are pursuing all the means that we can to maximise the potential for voluntary removals. When people will not go voluntarily, we must enforce their removal.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |