House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Dec 1991

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : The debate on the Christmas Adjournment is always interesting. Hon. Members speak on a variety of subjects about which they feel strongly and on which they feel they are knowledgeable. However, it is an impossible debate to respond to. Therefore, I will not make much of an attempt to respond to it but instead will concentrate on a few issues that I believe it is appropriate to consider at this time of the year.

I am sure that hon. Members were concerned to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) about people infected with HIV. Several other contributions will also be worth reading.

I cannot possibly carry on without mentioning the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). As a result of his position as deputy Chief Whip, he does not often have an opportunity to speak in the

Column 1040

House. However, my word, I enjoyed his speech today. Perhaps we should alter the convention that deputy Chief Whips should not speak in the Chamber.

I apologise for not being able to respond to all the points that have been raised. I want instead to refer to two issues that have a holiday and seasonal flavour. The first is holidays, and in particular bank holidays, and the second is television, which is the nation's most popular entertainment during holiday periods and which, for reasons that I will spell out briefly, is facing tremendous problems not least as a result of the Broadcasting Act 1990. As hon. Members will be aware, we will enjoy three bank holidays during the Christmas recess, two of which--Christmas day and new year's day--are common throughout the European Community. That is a basic standard of provision for workers throughout the Community. I am not sure whether the Government are hostile towards that harmonisation of holidays. Perhaps they feel that our competitiveness would improve if there were no holidays in this country or that investment would flow into this country if we ended those basic minimum standards of provision. However, even this Government must agree that it is not a bad idea to have some bank holidays. Mercifully, we will not have an opportunity to discover whether the Government want those privileges to be removed because the Conservatives will not be in office for much longer.

It is worth drawing attention to the fact that we have the worst provision of any European Community country in respect of national public holidays. We have only eight and we will be using up three of them in the next few weeks. Ireland and Holland have nine ; Italy and Denmark have 10 ; Germany and France have 11 ; Luxembourg and Portugal have 12 ; and Belgium, Greece and Spain have 13. I cannot for the life of me understand why we should not have more public holidays in this country. I am a reasonable fellow, so I will not ask for 13 overnight. However, perhaps we should have 11, the average for the Community.

The bank holiday on 25 December will be the first bank holiday since 24 August. That is a huge gap. Almost every other country has at least one public national holiday between those dates. Only Denmark and Holland are the same as us in that respect. It is high time that we had a holiday between 24 August and 25 December. That is another harmonisation that I would be delighted to see developed. There would be no crisis of confidence in British industry if we had another holiday then. The Government talk about a crisis in confidence whenever we make any improvements in basic employment rights. There would be no flight of capital, so why not will the Government take a risk in that respect ?

The other subject to which I want to refer which is oddly appropriate at Christmas time is the television industry and broadcasting in general. Whether we like it or not, television is the national recreation at Christmas time. The highest viewing figures always occur on Christmas day. The figures stagger me : 30 million of our fellow citizens will be watching television at peak time on Christmas day. The average person watches television for six hours on Christmas day. Over the last Christmas holiday period, an average of thirty-three hours of television were watched by our fellow citizens. That figure is much higher than for the rest of the year.

Column 1041

I believe that the British television industry and British programmes produced by British television are the best in the world. It would be a sad day if we began to slide down the road towards American-style television. I should perhaps declare an interest as I once worked in the industry, but I have no financial involvement with the industry now.

Morale and confidence in the television industry are at an all-time low, largely as a direct and deliberate result of the Government. I do not often pray in aid the present and former Prime Ministers. However, we all know the former Prime Minister's view of what she did to the television industry via the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the ludicrous franchise round that followed. When TV-am was told that it could not continue to broadcast, she wrote a letter to Bruce Gyngell in which she said that she was "only too painfully aware" that she was responsible for the system and that she was "mystified and heartbroken" by what had happened. It is astonishing that anyone could respond like that to legislation for which her Government had been responsible.

Even the present Prime Minister announced in his usual ringing rhetorical tones, "I don't think it has been an optimum success." That was his description of what happened during the franchise round. What happened was absurd. Sixteen companies had to tender for the franchise by placing bids in sealed brown envelopes. On those bids depended the jobs, programme plans, hopes and careers of many people and, most fundamentally, the quality of the programmes that we see on our screens.

The results of the round were absurd. The most dramatic contrast involved Central Television, which I was delighted was able to beat the system. It received its franchise with a bid of £2,000 a year, while Yorkshire Television--a smaller company--bid £38 million a year. There are no winners or losers in such a situation. It was a farce of free enterprise and so-called market forces. The irony is that the franchise that went via market forces was TV-am, about which the former Prime Minister was most upset.

Of the 16 independent television companies, three went to the sole bidders ; five went to the highest bidders--Anglia, Tyne Tees Television, HTV and a couple of others. Eight were awarded on so-called quality grounds ; in other words, the franchise went, not to the highest bidder, but to one of the others.

The net result has been chaos and uncertainty in the ITV system and that is mirrored in many ways by fear and anxiety in the BBC. The BBC is deeply afraid of the plans that the Government--should they remain in office--have for it. I can reassure the BBC that none of those plans will come to fruition, but it is still very worrying for the people working at the BBC.

As a result of all the changes, about £100 million which was previously available for programme making will go to the Treasury through taxation, and that is bound to have an effect on programme quality.

I referred to the number of people who will watch television over the Christmas period, but I did not mention that much of that television material would be made by the BBC. About 150 hours of Christmas programming is made by British film editors, producers, production assistants, location managers, lighting engineers and

Column 1042

sound engineers. All that expertise is in Britain, and it is under threat because of the Government's broadcasting lottery.

Conservative Members do not often get worked up about some matters, but I shall mention one about which they will get worked up. Another effect of the so-called free market on broadcasting is that, in the gloomy days of February when the world cup cricket series is being played in a sunny clime, because of a higher bid by British Satellite Broadcasting, we will not be able to see it on our television screens. The free market at work will ensure that most of our fellow citizens will not be able to watch it. I hope that plenty of constituents rightly complain about the operation of the free market on broadcasting.

Mr. Ward : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grocott : I cannot give way, as I have only a minute left. I should like to think that the Government would pay attention to those considerations, but I know that they will not do so. In a sense, that does not matter, because the Government will not be with us for much longer. The only reason why this Parliament is stumbling on is that the Government are waiting and hoping that something will turn up. There is no raison d'etre left for this Parliament. It has no functions of substance left to perform. The Government have no mandate left to fulfil. As we all know, it is simply a matter of the Prime Minister checking the opinion polls and hoping desperately that three or four in succession will show a slim lead for him. As soon as that happens, Parliament will be dissolved. The sooner that happens, the better.

7.1 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : Unlike the hon. Member for The Wrekin(Mr. Grocott), I do not have the luxury of not being able to respond to the debate. As always, many interesting and often detailed points have been raised. I try to keep abreast of most issues of policy, but I cannot cover every detail of what happens in constituencies. As usual, there has been a fair amount of telephoning to Departments during the debate. If I do not manage to cover all the points in the short time available to me, I will certainly draw Members' comments to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), with his characteristic courtesy, warned me that he could not stay for the end of the debate. However, I must comment on his speech. As always, my hon. Friend spoke for England, which makes me wonder how appropriate it is for a Scotsman to reply to his comments. However, as I have represented an English seat for nearly 18 years, I can say that we would be sad if we did not hear his voice and sentiments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge paid tribute to the armed forces. As recent conflicts have shown, the benefits of their discipline, courage, training and professionalism have been very evident. He also commented on the effect of progressive methods in education. He had in mind some of the heavy emphasis on child-centred education in primary schools. He will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I have

Column 1043

been concerned about such matters and have been trying to obtain a different approach in some of our primary schools.

My hon. Friend was a little off balance today in the picture that he painted. He might have pointed out that there are many outstanding teachers and clergymen, and a huge improvement in British management. In the 1970s, there was constant interference by the Government and difficult industrial relations which prevented managers from managing. We must contrast that with the position today : many British firms are performing extremely well, not least in export markets. I hope that he will agree that, over the past 10 years, there has been a huge improvement rather than the reverse. My hon. Friend also referred to the competitive world in which we live. I could not agree more. In training, which is a vital part of the performance of British industry, we have seen a two and a half times increase in real terms in Government expenditure on training, and, of course, a massive £20 billion emphasis on training and expenditure on training by British industry. I am pleased that that training priority has been maintained throughout the past year. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) made a rare but very welcome contribution to the debate. It was an understandable intervention. It was sad that it had to be about such a tragic accident. I am sure that the whole House would wish to offer its sincere condolences to Mr. and Mrs. Mohamed on the loss of their daughter. I understand that the authorities concerned--British Rail and the South Tyneside metropolitan borough council--are pursuing the provision of an alternative access road to land on the south side of Harrison farm crossing with a view to closing the crossing. The hon. Gentleman emphasised that he wanted a public apology from British Rail for some of the comments that he quoted from local newspapers. Of course, I will refer his comments to the chairman of British Rail, and I will do that straight after the debate.

The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) spoke very movingly about what happens in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to our sentiments as we move towards the Christmas period. All hon. Members share his view about Mr. Hill and hope that he will recover. We share absolutely the abhorrence of terrorist activities to which he referred. I join him in his tribute to the business men of Northern Ireland for their resilience and determination. The hon. Gentleman knows well that the Government remain absolutely committed to bringing terrorism to a permanent end.

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) raised a couple of points, one of which was about homelessness in Manchester. He will know of the considerable sums of money--

Mr. Alfred Morris : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot give way at all.

Mr. Morris : It was not only about Manchester.

Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman referred to Manchester. I cannot give way, because I must be fair to all hon. Members. I was about to say that, with reference to homelessness, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the concentration

Column 1044

is very much on London, because many people come to London for a variety of reasons. He will be aware that there has been a considerable increase in the provision available to the homeless. About £100 million over three years is being spent on that issue because of the heavy concentration of the problem in London. In respect of areas outside London, where concentrations of rough sleepers are comparatively small, the Government expect individual local authorities to make emergency provision for people sleeping out in their areas. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government provide funding for voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness throughout the country. Grants totalling £4.5 million have been given in the current financial year to 93 voluntary organisations in England, which involves an increase of about 30 per cent. in expenditure. I have in front of me the names of the three organisations in Manchester which are currently receiving support. Another important point is that much housing stock in Manchester--6.5 per cent. of homes--is currently empty. Action on that front by local authorities is a way of dealing with the problem. There are points that I could make about repossessions, but, in view of the time, I must move on.

The right hon. Gentleman asked particularly for answers to some factual questions that he raised with my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. I have been endeavouring to obtain answers in the short time available since the right hon. Gentleman spoke, and I regret to say that I cannot supply the figures that he requires. However, he will know that the Government expect local authorities to be well aware of their legal responsibilities under the 1970 legislation and to ensure that their policies and practices comply with it. The Government have powers to intervene in alleged cases of default, and will not hesitate to do so if necessary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) made a most moving speech. We understand not only his tremendous interest in such matters but his outstanding concern. His point has been substantially considered already and raised on many occasions in the House. I have great sympathy with the plight of those who have been infected with HIV as a result of blood transfusion.

As my hon. Friend knows--this will disappoint him--the House has only recently decided that it does not support the principle of no-fault compensation for medical accidents. I say "disappointed" because that point has already been made to him in the context of that case. It is widely accepted that the haemophiliacs are a special case, and the Government have acted accordingly. However, we have not been convinced that the blood transfusion recipients who have been infected by HIV are a similar special case, but we would consider any new arguments that might be made. As my hon. Friend requested--this was his precise point to me--I shall certainly draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who has also advised me that he cannot be present for the close of the debate, raised the question of the recognition of Croatia. As he will know, considerable efforts are being made to try to achieve a lasting ceasefire in Yugoslavia and my noble Friend Lord Carrington has been unceasing in his efforts, as has the European

Column 1045

Community. In addition, Mr. Cyrus Vance has only recently returned from a visit to Yugoslavia. I understand that his report to the United Nations will be issued today.

We shall continue actively to explore the possibility of United Nations involvement. However, recognition would not stop the fighting. The Serbs could be provoked to tighten their grip on the areas of Croatia that they now hold. Recognition now, without any agreement on such issues as minorities, could be a recipe for chaos. The southern republics might also seek independence, and fighting could spread to them. Although there are difficulties, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been taking the closest interest in all the peacekeeping efforts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) raised two matters. The first related to foam-filled furniture, an issue in which I recall being involved when I served at the Department of Trade and Industry. As my hon. Friend knows, the United Kingdom supports the introduction of the European directive that will provide a level of fire protection that is commensurate with the requirements of our furniture regulations. However, the Commission's former proposals were not acceptable because they would have resulted in a lower level of safety requirements than we already have. They would not have provided any protection against the toxic effects of foam fillings. We have made it clear to the Commission that the United Kingdom will retain its regulations until a satisfactory regime is available under the directive. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to pursue that point.

My hon. Friend's second point related to animal welfare. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When I held that post, I put a lot of effort into animal welfare issues and into trying to ensure that the Community sought to achieve similar high standards to our own. My hon. Friend referred especially to the new directives on pigs and calves. They do not satisfy the necessary basic welfare requirements that are provided for in our legislation. That is why we voted against them. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to press for the Commission's reviews to be completed as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised a detailed case relating to fair employment tribunals. It would be wrong for me to comment on a tribunal decision. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Fair Employment Commission is independent of Government. However, I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who will bear them in mind. I can advise the hon.

Column 1046

Gentleman immediately, however, that there is nothing wrong with the display of the Union flag or royal portraits in appropriate locations and circumstances. I have already referred to the difficulty of making statements next week, so I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman one then but, as I have said, I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) spoke interestingly and with much knowledge on the subject of uninsured drivers. I shall draw his suggestion about the introduction of insurance discs to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

I advise the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that the Community funds for butter aid allow for considerable expenditure in this country. About £43 million-worth of surplus produce has been distributed in the past three years, and we rely on the voluntary organisations to carry out that distribution. This year we have designated 774 organisations as potential participants, which is way up on the number designated last year. That is why there must be rules. Although I greatly sympathise with the hon. Lady's constituent, I do not know of the individual circumstances to which she referred.

I have only one comment to make about the closing remarks of the hon. Member for The Wrekin. There are plenty of raisons d'etre for the House to continue with this Session, because we have plenty of work to do. His comments totally ignored the fundamentally important outcome of the Maastricht negotiations and the importance of the fact that it was my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary who undertook those negotiations, not his right hon. Friends, as the country has widely recognised. That is why the country will want my right hon. Friends to lead Britain into the 1990s and beyond.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House at its rising on Friday 20th December do adjourn until Monday 13th January 1992.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Lightbown.]

Column 1047

Crime

7.15 pm

Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West) : It is said that fortune smiles alike on the just and the unjust, and I am grateful that in the ballot for this evening's debate, fortune did not make that distinction, because I invite the House to consider the subject of crime and how to reduce it. That subject is a source of great concern to my constituents.

In the industrial black country of the west midlands, we could list many problems. We are never short of topics for conversation these days, but one recurring source of anxiety is the crime wave. I accept that the statistics show that the increase is not uniform across all offences, but no one will persuade the people of Rowley Regis and Oldbury that crime has not been increasing or that it is not continuing to increase. Their experience tells them what the statistics confirm--that between 1980 and 1989, recorded crime rose by 46 per cent. In 1990, the last year for which we have the figures, it increased by a further 17 per cent. And those figures relate only to recorded crime. People increasingly say to me, "I had a break-in but, no, I did not report it. What's the use?" I shall return to what they mean by that observation in a moment.

My constituents sometimes read about massive frauds, and some of them are the victims of what has come to be known as white collar crime. However, when they speak about crime, they have in mind the burglary of people's homes, malicious damage and petty but distressing assaults. They believe that it is a function of Government to do something about it. They have lived for 12 years with a Government who believe that nothing is the legitimate concern of Government. It is all the fault of parents or of the decline in churchgoing or of the break-up of the family. That is a bit rich from a Government whose policies on the poll tax and social benefits are driving children away from home.

"But," the Government say, "it is nothing to do with us." My constituents do not accept that. They believe that Governments can do something about the increase in crime, especially when they see the Home Secretary receiving standing ovations at successive Conservative party conferences for saying that he jolly well will do something about it.

I do not suggest that there is a single simple solution that will restore law and order at a stroke. There are as many ways of reducing crime as there are reasons why people commit crime. Human conduct--whether human virtue or human wickedness--is not reducible to one single motivation. I would not dispute that increasing the penalties that the courts may impose may help to reduce some offences.

As the Minister of State and my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will recollect--I am encompassed about with a great cloud of witnesses--earlier in the year I was responsible for tabling an amendment in Committee to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to increase the penalty for badger baiting. To her credit, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) listened and was persuaded. I believe that increasing the penalty will go some way to reducing that vicious manifestation of cruelty.

Column 1048

My constituents would not dispute with the Home Secretary the part that increased penalties can sometimes play, but they think it reasonable to expect that he should sometimes have some other ideas. Like the old army doctors who thought that the answer to every complaint was a laxative pill, the Home Secretary goes on prescribing the same remedy as he offered last time, while the patient's condition continues to deteriorate. That is despite the fact that the Home Office, even under Tory Governments, has produced some valuable studies of the factors that encourage crime, as the Minister and Opposition Members have agreed more than once.

It is not always necessary to wait until a crime has been committed and then respond to it. It is better, if possible, to prevent a crime from being committed. [ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] There seems to be some unanimity about that. In the past few years, a whole science of crime prevention has grown up. No one now argues that medical science is confined to waiting until people fall ill and then curing them. Everyone knows about preventive medicine. If we are wise, we all try to arrange our diet and life style accordingly.

A great deal of work has been done recently on what has come to be called situational crime prevention. I am happy to announce that I did not invent that expression, but it refers to a valuable field of activity. It involves such measures as improved household and car security, property marking, better street lighting, safer pedestrian access and better design for car parks and shopping areas. It includes building security considerations into planning practice and improving the design of public transport systems. It would be sensible to bring together, by greater use of crime prevention committees, all the various groups and bodies that should be involved in taking those measures. Indeed, local authorities could give a better lead if they were not confronted by a Government determined to reduce them financially and funtionally to impotence.

I repeat, perhaps at the risk of being tiresome to some of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members, what I have said many times before. Of course it is not true that everyone who is unemployed or deprived resorts to crime, nor is poverty an excuse for lawlessness--that is not the argument--but there is such a thing in every locality as a social climate. The greatest single influence on most people, especially in the age groups where, unhappily, crime is most prevalent, is the opinion of a peer group.

A teenager on a deprived estate will not respect the law because the Minister and I say that he ought to do so, but if his friends and associates and other teenagers tell him that the authorities are trying to be fair and trying to build a better environment, and that taking out his frustrations on his neighbours will not help, he may listen to them. Of course, they will not be conned into telling him that if it is manifestly not true.

The Government paid lip service to the Scarman report. They denounced "Faith in the City" without even reading it. No prophetic messages from the Government reach those peer groups. Common sense tells us that three of the factors that are most likely to induce crime are poverty, boredom through enforced idleness, and resentment. The Government would do us all a favour if they did something about those factors and explained what they were trying to do.

I should like to concentrate the remainder of my contribution on one aspect of crime reduction. There is virtually no dispute between academics and the people

Column 1049

whom I meet in the clubs, between the two sides of the House, or between social science and common sense that an important factor in reducing crime would be greater activity by the police, giving them a higher profile and in particular putting more officers on the streets.

The West Midlands police force has been addressing that problem. I have an account of its thinking over the past few years. It has considered how to arrange administrative tasks so as to leave the maximum number of officers free for operational duties. It has established administrative support units manned largely by civilians to remove as many administrative tasks as possible from officers who have operational duties. It has saved an average of one hour per officer per day. It is seeking to replace controls at sub- divisional level with single divisional control rooms. It has established a computer and communications system. If time permitted, I could list more of its initiatives.

West Midlands police force then considered carefully how the operational officers who had been made available should be deployed. Some have to be put on specialist tasks. The more we urge the police to undertake a wider range of activity, the more special tasks there will be. The West Midlands police force has a programme of working with schools. The programme is designed to induce more confidence and co-operation with the police and to reduce the number of juvenile offenders. It has set up special domestic violence units. I suspect that I would be naive if I did not expect some reaction when I mention special units in the West Midlands police force. No one in his right mind would accuse me or any of my hon. Friends of minimising some of their units' less praiseworthy digressions. This is not the occasion to discuss them, except to say that I have learnt that if any group of people have specific duties imposed on them and discover that the burdens placed on them are not matched by the time and resources available, they may be tempted to cut corners. The West Midlands police have made provision for the various special units. Subject to that, they have tried to arrange that as many officers as possible are out on the streets. Of course, some of them need to be in squad cars so that they can respond quickly to a call. Sometimes they need more squad cars, but the object is to have as many officers as possible on patrol and for residents to have a resident beat officer who is available when they need help. The chief constable and the police authority in the west midlands calculate each year the number of officers they will need to perform their duties, but it is not left to a police authority to decide what its establishment should be. It must obtain the approval of the the Home Secretary, with or without the advice of the Minister of State. Lest there should be any confusion, let us be clear that police authorities do not come as beggars asking for a gift that will cost them nothing.

When the establishment figures are approved, the police authority has to pay its full share of the cost. The cost is shared between central Government and the police authority, precepting on its constituent councils. The authority consults the councils. Councils know that money for policing has to be raised out of poll tax or by cutting some other service to their residents, but they recognise

Column 1050

that, if their residents are to be protected and crime is to be reduced, the money must be found, subject to the amount that the Government have cut by poll tax capping.

In 1988, the West Midlands police authority went to the Home Secretary and said, "Here are our proposals. These are our detailed calculations. We need an increase of 350 officers." Do you know what the Home Secretary said? He said, "You can have 70." In the following year the authority said, "We have looked at it again and we still need 350 officers." The Home Secretary said that it could have 62. The next year the authority asked again for 350 officers. The Home Secretary said that it could have 63. Last year the authority tried to compromise and asked for 148 officers. It was allowed 48. This year it asked for 121 officers and he has allowed it 11.

Those are depressing figures on any showing. They mean, translated into fact, that in Sandwell there are whole estates the doors of which are made of steel because, if they were made of wood, they would have been kicked in on the first night they were put up. People living alone are afraid to go out shopping beause they fear that when they get back they will have been burgled. I know people who park their cars a quarter of a mile from where they live because if they parked them outside their homes the vehicles would be vandalised, and by the next morning they might not be there at all.

Happily, there is some good news from time to time. Recently on one such estate, the CID arrested an entire gang. They were tried, convicted and sent where they belong, and I hope that there will be a period of peace on that estate. But it is all like the Roman empire in its decline, with the forces of law and order too thinly spread, racing to beat the latest threat, only to learn that while they have been away the vandals have broken through somewhere else. I am somewhat inhibited in telling the House the whole story. If I made all the details public, a welcome signal might be sent to the criminal fraternity, but I know of a sub-divisional station which on some nights is manned by one woman police officer, together with one male officer who has agreed, with no great joy, to do a night's overtime.

If that male officer is out responding to a call and another call comes in, the woman police officer must seek such help as she can get from another sub-division, or close the station and go herself. So people who telephone the police station may or may not see an immediate flurry of activity, depending on whether somebody was available when the phone rang. Hence, sometimes they do not bother to telephone. That is why I say that the recorded crime figures do not tell the whole story. That situation is the despair of local residents and heartbreaking for the police. It is not the way to reduce crime.

Let me add one other matter, on which my hon. Friends who represent Sandwell constituencies and I have written to the Home Secretary seeking a meeting. I shall understand if the Minister of State does not respond tonight to the issue, and I am not inviting him to do so, but it is part of the picture and is well known to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The present headquarters of the West Midlands police is situated in central Birmingham. It is overcrowded and unsuitable in many ways. A number of changes that the police wish to make, which would increase efficiency and save expense, are not possible in that building. The car parking space is too limited for the purpose and, in any event, the whole place requires extensive refurbishment,

Column 1051

which would be very expensive. As it is held on a lease, the cost of the refurbishment would virtually be money thrown away. It would be better--and, over a reasonable time scale, cheaper --to construct a purpose-built headquarters. An ideal site is available in West Bromwich, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). The police authority has decided that it would be common sense to go there.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Hear, hear.

Mr. Archer : I knew that I would not have to try hard to persuade you on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Such a move would offer a bonus, because it would regenerate the appearance, the environment and the economy of the area. The project is wholly supported by Sandwell metropolitan borough council. It would greatly assist the effectiveness of policing, and be value for money, if the Home Secretary looked favourably at that proposal. That being so, wisdom may suggest that I should abstain from further comment about the Home Secretary, but he should know that my constituents would find the quality of their lives changed if crime were more effectively reduced. They expect more from a Home Secretary than a periodical upgrading of the penalties and a rousing speech at the party conference, followed by a wave of hysteria from pinstripe-suited and blue-hatted lynch mobs. A little thought would be worth a great deal of that kind of reaction.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) : At the last Conservative party conference, which rightly gave a standing ovation to my right hon. Friend, there was only one hat worn by a lady in the audience, and it was grey and knitted.

Mr. Archer : I suppose that even a cosmetic improvement is to be welcomed. Some of us wish that when the leopard changed its spots, it changed its behaviour as well. While perhaps I am responsible for the frivolity, I am making a serious point.

My constituents want some serious thought applied to the problem. That would be worth a lot of shouting. Our constituents deserve better, and we are not asking for the impossible. It is better to spend money on crime prevention than on long criminal trials, prison sentences that could have been avoided and repairing and replacing property which need never have been damaged or lost in the first place. My hon. Friends and I say that a little thought and some resources now would pay a worthwhile dividend.

7.35 pm

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : It is a particular pleasure for me to speak following the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and to be able to respond to some of the points he made. He must know that much of what he said is well understood and that the general thrust of his argument is supported by my hon. Friends and myself.

I wish at the outset to trespass into the area of his jurisdiction and comment on the methodology of arriving at police establishments in the 43 police forces of England

Column 1052

and Wales. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I have a particular interest and responsibility for the subject, and I comment accordingly.

It is right to say that it is for the chief constable to decide what his police resources should be, both police and civilian, with the increasing emphasis these days on civilian resources, for what they do in support of the police and in the prevention of crime is increasingly recognised and often outstanding. I think, for example, of scene of crime officers. Without their work, the information and necessary evidence would not be available to clear up crime and make arrests.

So the chief constable decides what his establishment ideally should be, and he discusses that with the police authority, which inevitably supports him. But then it is a matter for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to decide, on an independent basis, what resources should be available. It is on the advice of that body that the Home Secretary makes his decision about police strengths. We should not just ignore the number of police officers in a constabulary. We should think also of the ways in which they are used, and my recent Select Committee on Home Affairs report, for example, on sick leave was a good example of an analysis of the use of police officers and their time.

Mr. Archer : So that nobody is misled, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to make it clear that the Home Secretary is not bound to act on the advice of the inspectorate of constabulary, and the fact that he has made a decision does not necessarily reflect what the inspectorate said?

Sir J. Wheeler : That is correct. The Home Secretary is not bound to act on the advice of the inspectorate of constabulary, but he must take into account a large number of other factors. For example, he may want to see whether the chief constable has been making use of civilian resources as well as he should, and he might be saying to the inspectorate of constabulary, "If you can demonstrate a better use of money and resources through civilianisation, that might have a bearing on the availability of uniformed police officers." The Home Affairs Select Committee report, when the Committee looked at sick leave, for example, found that some progress could be made in improving on the sick absence record of police officers. The equivalent of the entire strength of the West Yorkshire constabulary is absent on an annual basis through sick leave, if we use that as a means of illustrating the depth of the problem, and, by improving on that, more police officers, who are expensive, would be available. My right hon. Friend must also take into account the fact that, by one means or another, 90 per cent. of the cost of the police service comes from the Exchequer, the taxpayer, and only 10 per cent. is raised through local government tax.

I was very interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about crime figures and the extent of crime in Britain today. It is widely believed that the United Kingdom has a rising crime wave, and crime is thought to be more widespread in the United Kingdom than in other western countries. That is simply not the case. Crime levels have been rising throughout the western industrialised world since the 1950s, on average by about 6 per cent. per annum. They have risen everywhere, under Governments of every political complexion, so it has nothing to do with the nature of the politics of a country.

Column 1053

It is widely believed that the United Kingdom has one of the highest rates of crime, whereas it has one of the lowest in the western world. Our society is much less violent than that of north America or of the Commonwealth of Australia, as the 1989 international crime survey showed in the report published in March 1990. The United Kingdom and Germany have the lowest overall crime rates of all the industrialised countries.

Crime statistics, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, are the most commonly used indicators of the level of crime, but they refer to notifiable offences reported to the police. That measure does not show the total crime, only the incidents reported to the police. When these figures show a substantial increase, it is usually assumed that crime, in particular violent crime, has risen dramatically, but, particularly in recent years, other factors have influenced those statistics.

Women have been encouraged to report rape and domestic violence. I was delighted to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer to the work of his own police force in setting up a unit to receive that kind of report from women. That is a very desirable objective. Because this is being done, crime statistics are increased and their nature is changed. This is particularly true in this country, where the insurance industry requests that thefts and burglaries are reported so that a claim may be proved.

The increasing ownership of telephones has created a greater inclination to get in touch with the police. Five million more motor cars on the roads since 1980 mean that there is bound to be more damage to, theft from and taking of motor vehicles. Also, of course, 15,500 more police officers are likely to detect and record more crime and, indeed, to be available to receive reports. So a whole host of factors influence the collection of statistics.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Next Section

Home Page