---

Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

2. Ms Christine Russell (City of Chester) (Lab): If he will make a statement on partnerships between local authorities and the police for the reduction of crime and antisocial behaviour. [219829]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002, places a statutory duty on the police and local authorities, along with other agencies, to work together in crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Those partnerships have been a vital factor in reducing crime and antisocial behaviour, and their local strategies are available for consideration and improvement.

Ms Russell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that good partnership working in my constituency between the local authorities, the police and the fire service has led to significant reductions in crimes such as domestic burglaries, which have gone down by 40 per cent. in the past 12 months, and vehicle arson, which is down by more than 30 per cent. Will he join me in congratulating Chester city council on making community safety its No. 1 priority and on agreeing to invest significantly in a city-wide community warden scheme that will be rolled out from next month with the full co-operation of the police?

Mr. Clarke: I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Chester city council on that initiative, and I would go further: I wish that every district council in the country would take the kind of leadership role that Chester has adopted. She would also want me to congratulate Chester city council's partners, who have worked in Chester and more widely in Cheshire to address these issues. The point that she makes, which is fundamental, is that it is through the working partnership that the reductions in crime and antisocial behaviour are being achieved. That cannot be done by the police or any other agency alone; it can be done best by real working partnerships, and I commend Chester for what it has achieved in those areas.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): I recognise the good work done by the National Neighbourhood Watch Association, and I am sure that
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1273
 
the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that. However, why are Crimestoppers, Crime Concern and Victim Support all supported by central Government, while neighbourhood watch schemes are not, although they do such good work? I cannot quite work that one out.

Mr. Clarke: I commend the neighbourhood watch scheme on its important work. However, the hon. Gentleman put his finger on the issue in the way in which he asked his question. He listed a range of organisations that are doing absolutely excellent work in the field. Sometimes, the organisations work in parallel with each other, and sometimes, there is even an element of competition. We want to ensure that they can work together, which is why a major conference is being held at the end of the week to try to get an agreement on how we can achieve joint working in such areas. Each of the initiatives is an attempt to increase community involvement in fighting crime, which, as the hon. Gentleman implied in his question, is absolutely within the thrust of the entire approach on crime and disorder reduction partnerships that we have followed.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): One of the things that takes up a great deal of police time these days is taking evidence from witnesses. Of course that process is vital if we are to secure more convictions, but it is often so laborious that an individual police officer might be tied down for an hour or an hour and a half simply taking one witness statement. Is the Home Office examining ways of speeding up the process and making it less laborious, so that we can free up more time for police officers to be out on the streets?

Mr. Clarke: The short answer is yes, and the type of partnership that I am describing is a powerful way of achieving just that. If a local authority housing department works with the police, it can strongly assist in the gathering of evidence of antisocial behaviour, which allows convictions to be secured. Yes, we are doing what my hon. Friend asks, but we will do more still.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): What effect does the Home Secretary think it would have on levels of crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour if the legal age for purchasing alcohol was reduced to 16, which was confirmed as the Liberal Democrats' policy in the House on 25 January?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will not go into that.

Private Security Industry Act

3. David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab): What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Scottish Executive concerning the extension of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to Scotland. [219830]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): Since Scottish Ministers announced in March 2003 that they had agreed with Home Office Ministers and the Security Industry Authority that the regulation of the private security industry in Scotland would be achieved by the
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1274
 
extension of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to Scotland, there have been continuing communications at ministerial and official level. The necessary provisions are now in clause 166 and schedule 16 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. The Scottish Parliament consented to the extension through the Bill in a Sewel motion on 2 February this year.

David Cairns: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome the extension of the Act to Scotland. Although the vast majority of bouncers behave responsibly, the behaviour of a significant minority is no better than that of criminal thugs. Now that the Act is up and running in England and Wales, what evidence is there that its provisions are cutting down on the criminality committed by bouncers in pubs and night clubs and thus affording greater protection to our constituents?

Fiona Mactaggart: The evidence is contained in the fact that of those who have applied for licences, almost 1,000 have had their applications refused. People must undergo proper training and a Criminal Records Bureau check before acquiring a licence. As the Act rolls out, the uptake of training is increasing because more door supervisors are applying for it. We can deliver something that my hon. Friend has campaigned for determinedly in Scotland and drive out the connections with organised crime and criminality that have sometimes existed in the door supervision industry.

Asylum Seekers

4. Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): How many asylum seekers have been denied the right to remain in the UK over the past 12 months; and how many of these persons have left the country. [219831]

The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr.    Desmond Browne): In 2004, there were 51,300 cases—involving 62,700 people including dependants—of people who had been refused asylum or lost an appeal. Of that specific number, 3,500 principal applicants have so far been removed—that is 4,100 people including dependants—and others of course will have left the country without informing the authorities. As we do not have embarkation controls, it is not possible to determine whether that has happened. E-borders and identity cards will enable us to monitor that far more precisely in the future.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Although I accept that this is not an easy problem to solve, is the Minister aware of public concern that as of last year, it seemed to take an average of 20 months after people's final refusal to remove them from the country? Is the problem the redocumentation of people who destroyed all their papers before they made their applications and, if so, is there anything that we can do about it? I emphasise the fact that I am well aware that it is not easy to solve the problem, but how can we sort this out?

Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he asked his supplementary question. He identifies one of a number of problems
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1275
 
with the removal of failed asylum seekers. There are, for example, administrative difficulties involving certain countries in redocumenting their citizens. There was a practice until November, which was accepted across the House, of not removing people, or enforcing the removal of people, to Zimbabwe. I think that hon. Members will know that there is a direct correlation between our ability forcibly to remove asylum seekers and the intake from certain countries. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the question of redocumentation as being the principal concern. That is why, in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, we criminalised the deliberate destruction of documents. We have been prosecuting people for that in significant numbers. The number of those who have been arriving at ports inadequately documented, since the introduction of the 2004 legislation in October, has been reduced by 50 per cent.

Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): My hon. Friend will have been as shocked as I and others have been by the BBC film about Oakington. He will know that on the Global Solutions Ltd. website it is stated that the employees at Oakington have been screened by the Home Office and subjected to vigorous vetting. I know that my hon. Friend has set up an inquiry into these matters, and I am glad that he did so so quickly. However, for how long will the inquiry last? What implications are there for the way in which Global Solutions conducts the rest of the contract that it has with the Home Office in respect of other institutions?

Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. As I made clear at the time of the programme, I take these allegations extremely seriously. That is why, immediately after the programme, when I was in a position to have fuller facts than the BBC was able to give me prior to the programme going out, I announced an independent inquiry by Stephen Shaw, the prisons ombudsman, into the allegations contained in the programme. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the allegations until the investigation is completed and Stephen Shaw has reported.

First, while Stephen Shaw's inquiry is under way, the immigration and nationality directorate is examining how our procedures can be strengthened. Secondly, I have asked Stephen Shaw to report quickly. Once he has reported back and made recommendations, I will be able to consider any implications that there are for the remainder of the detention estate and, of course, our relationship with GSL.

Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Does the Minister accept that there is cross-party disgust at any racist treatment of asylum seekers, refugees or migrants? Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), will the hon. Gentleman confirm that if Global Solutions is found to be wanting in Mr. Shaw's independent inquiry, the Home Office will consider suspending its contracts? The company has already been subject to an independent inquiry into the burning down of Yarl's Wood. It does not help to inspire any confidence in my constituents in and around
 
7 Mar 2005 : Column 1276
 
Bicester that it is a fit and proper company to run an accommodation centre for asylum seekers when they see on their televisions refugees being treated so appallingly.

Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I accept that he speaks for all parties in the House in his condemnation of racism. I have made it clear that racism has no part anywhere in our society, and particularly not in the immigration system. Detention and removal are an essential part of an effective immigration control system, but they must be carried out with humanity and dignity and in accordance with our laws, especially those laws designed to protect people from racial discrimination.

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about our continued relationship with GSL will have to be considered in the light of the report from Stephen Shaw. GSL is a successful company in managing and carrying out many contracts with the Government. Until Stephen Shaw reports, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it would not be appropriate for me to comment any further.

Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): How many immigrants with permission for permanent settlement on the ground of marriage have been removed for not staying within the marriage for two years? I ask the question because my constituents—the women concerned—are told that they have become third parties and, therefore, cannot gain information.

Mr. Browne: I commend my hon. Friend on her continued, consistent and appropriate campaigning in this area, which is of great concern not just to her constituents, but to many people throughout the country. We have made changes to the immigration rules to counter the abuse of marriage that she identified, and the practice should be abhorred by everyone. I am not in a position to give her the specific information that she requires at the Dispatch Box, but if it is collected in a communicable form I will give it to her. Since I have assumed responsibility for this area of work, I have done my best to increase the amount of information that can be communicated to women, including those for whom my hon. Friend speaks.

Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, Cathcart) (Lab): Is it not the case that the process of removing illegal immigrants who arrive in the country as asylum seekers and, indeed, the system for preventing them from coming here in the first place would be profoundly undermined if the immigration service suffered the cuts proposed by the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was a waste of time calling the hon. Gentleman.

---