House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Feb 1992

Column 826

measures for some considerable time. Will my right hon. Friend address the issue of secure accommodation for young offenders in Norfolk and Suffolk, which also poses a serious problem?

Mr. Baker : I re-emphasise what I have said about secure accommodation. I met the crime prevention panel in Norwich when I visited the constabulary there, and know that it does valuable work. It does particularly important work in relation to protecting vulnerable women as they go around the city centre--an effective example of a crime prevention panel co-operating with the police.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : Is the Home Secretary aware that the men and women of this country desperately want the ability to live in peace and security in their own homes without fear of burglary, having their car stolen or smashed open and having the radio taken? Would those same men and women share with me, and police men and women up and down the country, a sense of cynicism that, today, the Home Secretary, like a latter -day Rip Van Winkle, has suddenly been woken up by the news that the Conservatives are likely to lose the next election, and so is now about to introduce a measure to do something about the crime wave in our country?

Opposition Members have always supported positive measures to combat crime, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said, we support most of the measures announced by the Home Secretary. We ask the Government, however, why they do not go further. Why did they not grasp the nettle and tackle the causes of crime years ago? There have been 13 wasted years. Why did the Government not act?

Mr. Baker : I am delighted to accept converts. Over the past year, the hon. Gentleman has not supported measures--tough measures--that we have introduced. He voted against the joyriding Bill--

Mr. Sheerman : I did not.

Mr. Baker : Oh yes, he did. He voted against the Committee stage--

Mr. Sheerman : That is a lie.

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Sheerman : The Home Secretary is a liar.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am sorry, but we cannot have that. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw it.

Mr. Sheerman : What does an hon. Member do, Mr. Speaker, when he has been slandered in the House? I did not not vote against that Bill, as the Home Secretary has alleged quite falsely. No Opposition Member voted against it. The Home Secretary has lied to the House. What am I supposed to do?

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is compounding the problem. He must not ascribe--[ Hon. Members :-- "Withdraw."]

Mr. Sheerman : I will withdraw what I said, but, as someone who has been slandered by the Home Secretary, I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Column 827

Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has made his position clear. Now let us hear the Home Secretary.

Mr. Baker : I wanted to say-- [Interruption.] May I just say exactly what happened with the joyriding Bill? In crucial votes during the Committee stage, Opposition Members voted against the principle of the Bill --

Mr. Sheerman : Weasel!

Mr. Baker : They were weasel words. In Committee, the Opposition voted against the principle of a Bill that extended culpability to all the passengers in a car. They voted against that, and they voted against the burden of proof. That is what they voted against. They have also voted against other measures. If the House wants an example of how soft they are on crime, let me point out that they voted against renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act last night. Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am genuinely sorry that I have not been able to call all the hon. Members who wished to speak, but I shall certainly bear them in mind if and when we return to this subject. Points of Order

4.22 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from any Minister to make a statement about the arrest of two British nationals in Switzerland for alleged Iranian-related crime? Apparently, it is the subject of a D-notice.

Mr. Speaker : I have not heard of that, and I have received no request for a statement.

Mr. John P. Smith (Vale of Glamorgan) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Wales said that he will come to the House to make a statement about the virtual collapse of the public transport system in my constituency? One of the major companies has gone into receivership. As a result, ordinary people in my constituency cannot go about their business, because they cannot catch a bus.

Column 828

Mr. Speaker : I have had no request for a statement. I think that it would be appropriate for the matter to be raised in an Adjournment debate.

BILL PRESENTED

Young Persons' Rights

Mr. Terry Fields, supported by Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Jimmy Wray and Mr. Ronnie Campbell, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the conditions regulating Government training schemes ; to make further provision from the National Insurance Fund wth respect to social security benefits for young persons ; to make further provision with respect to income support and housing benefit ; and for purposes connected therewith : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed. [Bill 87.] Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker : With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the three motions relating to statutory instruments. Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

Urban Development

That the Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. David Davis.]

Question agreed to.

Column 829

Offences Against the Person (Amendment)

4.23 pm

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Offences against the Person Act 1861 to provide for increased penalties for assaults upon members of the emergency services on duty ; and for connected purposes.

The police are responsible for protecting us from disruptive and unlawful elements in our society. The Metropolitan police and the Surrey constabulary, which cover my constituency, do a wonderful job ; so do the ambulance men and firemen who serve my county. Every day throughout the country the emergency services display devotion to duty under pressure. The police are coping with five times as many crimes as there were 30 years ago, yet we have to ask whether the members of the emergency services are getting the protection that we, as citizens, expect.

We have all heard of and been appalled by the stories during last autumn's riots of attacks on members of the emergency services who were trying to protect citizens. We know from Police Federation reports and others of policemen and policewomen who have been assaulted while investigating an incident or trying to keep the peace. Let us not ponder on the sick mentality of those who carry out such attacks. Let us start by ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. These attacks are nasty, brutish and despicable, regardless of the extent of the injuries caused.

My Bill does not focus on the tragic murders or the sickening cases of grievous bodily harm which have recently been reported. Here the full force of the law is unleashed. What is often not noticed is that members of the emergency services are increasingly faced with routine violence which can inflict injuries on them while they are carrying out their duties. The courts do not seem to be imposing stiff sentences on offenders. In recognition of that fact, my Bill is specifically concerned with assault and threatening behaviour which impedes an officer from carrying out his or her duty to protect the public.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has raised these matters many times in the House. I pay tribute to him. Alan Eastwood, the chairman of the Police Federation, disclosed last year that close to 20,000 police officers were attacked, a figure which he claimed represents one in four of the force's operational strength. In Surrey, between January and December 1991, 238 officers were assaulted. In London, 3,725 attacks were recorded against police officers in the 12 months to October 1991.

The Government have reacted to the concern expressed by colleagues. I look forward to the publication of the Home Office's survey of statistical evidence of attacks and consequent sentencing. I hope that it will soon be available. It appears that not only is the number of incidents rising but the attacks are becoming more vicious. In Surrey alone, in the six months to October of last year, 18 officers were placed sick as a result of the assaults made on them, causing in total 211 days lost through attack- related sickness. The police also tell me that attacks on women police officers are increasingly sadistic.

The police rightly expect that the perpetrators of assaults should be severely punished. Unfortunately, that is not happening. In Surrey, between November 1990 and

Column 830

October 1991, 140 incidents, involving 142 offenders, were concluded. Out of that number, only 11 offenders received a custodial sentence. More specifically, the deputy chief constable of Surrey tells me that on one morning last December, magistrates in Chertsey imposed the following penalties : holding a car boot sale in contravention of a planning notice, a fine of £1,400 ; no car insurance, a fine of £200 ; fishing in the Thames without a licence, a fine of £60 ; assault on a police officer, occasioning actual bodily harm, a fine of £50. Last year a Surrey police officer went before the Crown court to give evidence about the attack upon him by two men. The policeman had sustained a quite serious back injury and broken bones in his arm, and he was still having physiotherapy treatment nine months later. The thugs who administered that beating received only community service orders of between 180 and 200 hours respectively.

A sentencing policy of that nature is, frankly, laughable and displays no sense of proportion. What is even more demoralising from the point of view of the police is when a section 47 offence under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which might carry up to two or three years' imprisonment, is reduced to common assault, with a maximum of six months, or is dropped altogether, or only a warning is given. It is no wonder that the police are furious. That can only encourage the have-a-go mentality of idiots who will take a swing at the police because they know that they will get away with it. The police are at the sharp end of tackling crime. As citizens, we can assist with communitywide involvement in neighbourhood watches or can become special constables, but, essentially, individual officers have to take the impact of increasing violence with little physical protection. They expect our support. They should take a dim view of how they would be protected by the Labour party's threats to extend political control over police and crime prevention, knowing how some socialists always have a soft spot for criminals and how the Labour party has voted against or tried to weaken every major piece of legislation that the Government have introduced to increase sentences.

I am not surprised that many police officers are buying their own body armour or considering American-style batons. Such batons could be a useful adjunct and should be part of the equipment of every police force in the country. However, they may be better for restraining than for straightforward defence.

We have to increase the penalties available in law and to encourage magistrates to impose them. I hope that magistrates pay attention to the criticism that is targeted on their sentencing policy by many hon. Members.

The criminal must be seen to pay for the assault. The police are not fair game, ready for a punch-up by any gang that feels that they can get away with it. An assault on a police officer should lead to immediate custody, even if the injury is relatively minor. The penalty should range up to a gaol sentence of two years, with or without hard labour--the phrase that appears in the original 1861 Act.

Other members of the emergency services are also vulnerable, as recent events have shown. Only yesterday, youths were reported to have thrown stones at firefighters who were trying to extinguish a blaze on a housing estate. Sadly, that was not an isolated incident. Stone throwers have made emergency calls to lure firemen into ambushes. Do those louts consider what would happen if the emergency services were stopped from attending a genuine

Column 831

fire or the consequences for anyone trapped in the fire? Those are not minor incidents ; it is a very worrying state of affairs. In protecting our emergency services, particularly the police, we are protecting not only the individuals who wear uniforms but society. Police officers, firemen and ambulance men and women come to the aid of individuals. If they are deflected from their duty by mindless violence, we, as citizens, suffer.

Assaults on any citizen are serious. Assaults on the emergency services when they are trying to protect citizens are unforgivable and brutish. They must be stopped by the full imposition of the powers of law and I hope that my Bill will go some way towards toughening those provisions and that magistrates will then apply them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian Taylor, Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Robert Hayward, Mr. Michael Irvine, Mr. Tim Janman, Mr. Roger King and Mr. Graham Riddick.

Offences Against the Person (Amendment)

Mr. Ian Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to provide for increased penalties for assaults upon members of the emergency services on duty, and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March and to be printed. [Bill 88.].

Column 832

Orders of the Day

Local Government Bill [Lords]

[Allotted Day]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.35 pm

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this issue, but as a member of the Committee which discussed the Bill I seek your guidance. I notice from the amendments and new clauses to be discussed under the guillotine motion that the first part of the Bill will be given no consideration until we debate new clause 20. What was the procedure which ensured that there will be no debate on the first part of the Bill? It is vitally important that we have a debate on issues that were not properly dealt with in Committee. To judge from the selection of amendments, it seems highly unlikely that there will be any consideration of the major first part of the Bill. It is highly unacceptable to Back Benchers that an important part of the Bill is not to be debated on Report.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member knows that new clauses and amendments are dealt with in the order in which they appear on the selection list. It is true that we shall not deal with the first part of the Bill until we debate new clause 20. If the hon. Member is suggesting that I was unable to select new clause 5, I am afraid that that is right because it was outside the scope of the Bill.

New clause 3

Duties of Local Government Commission

.--(1) The Local Government Commission established under section 12(1) below shall have regard to the need--

(a) to reflect the identities and interests of local communities ; (

(b) to secure effective and convenient unitary local government ; (

(d) to promote accountable local government ;

(e) to secure the most effective, efficient and economic use of local authorities' financial resources ;

(f) to ensure the cost-effective exercise of local authority functions and delivery of local authority services ; and

(g) to provide for the consideration of appropriate strategic issues at a regional level.'.-- [Mr. Blunkett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker : With this we may consider the following : New clause 13-- Environmental protection --

. The Local Government Commission shall, in making recommendations under this Part, have particular regard to the need to secure effective planning for environmental purposes.'.

New clause 14-- Local Government Commission : Objectives -- The Local Government Commission shall be required to frame all its recommendations to the Secretary of State so as to take account of the following objectives :

Column 833

(a) to identify areas within which people expect to obtain most of their everyday services ;

(b) to establish local government boundaries that facilitate the meeting of people's needs and the respecting of existing social organisation ;

(d) to ensure that all issues relating to the effective and efficient delivery of services can be addressed independently of defining local government territories.'.

New clause 17-- Arrangements for direct service delivery for new unitary authorities --

.--(1) The Secretary of State may by order give power to the Audit Commission to--

(a) consider the implications for functions of all changes proposed by the Local Government Commission under section 13(5) and section 14(5) and ;

(b) make proposals to the Secretary of State on a function by function basis for separate or combined (either jointly or by one or more councils on behalf of other councils) service delivery arrangements for those functions included in subsection (1)(a) above and for the territories in which such services are to be provided. (2) An order under subsection (1) above may give directions as to the exercise by the Audit Commission of any powers under this section and such directions may require that Commission to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as respects matters to be taken into account.'.

Mr. Blunkett : It is unfortunate that we are debating the Bill in this way. Effectively, we are debating only part II on a guillotine motion on Report and Third Reading, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said. We debated part II on the final day of the Committee proceedings on a guillotine motion, taking from 10.30 pm until midnight to deal with the issue of reorganisation. In one sense, we have reversed that process this afternoon because, despite the fact that the Committee's report to the House states that only one set of changes was made, in Government amendments to clause 8, it seems that we shall not be debating and scrutinising on Report that matter which was amended by the Government in Committee. It must therefore be put on record that the way in which the guillotine has been ordered and has fallen is less than helpful in terms of the proper scrutiny and debate of a major piece of legislation. Clearly, there is no point in pursuing the issue of selection at this stage, but it is important to put it on record that we are deeply opposed to the amendments made to clause 8 in Committee and that we shall continue to oppose those impositions.

I regret that we are not dealing with this major issue--the reorganisation of local government in England--with unanimity and consensus. For agreement, certainty and stability to have been reached would have been a logical conclusion to the shambles consequent on previous reorganisations. For the lessons of 1972 not to be learnt in 1992 shows a deliberate and presumably intentional refusal to learn the lessons of history. If the Government have the opportunity of implementing their proposals, the nation will live to regret it.

We could have reached a consensus about the nature of the reorganisation, and we could have had a degree of unanimity about its objectives, but we have not done so because the Government have chosen to continue on an

Column 834

ideological path that they commenced some 13 years ago. Local government was seen as an obstacle to the economic and social reconstruction of Britain and was believed to be a block on the reorientation of our democratic structures so that the operation of the market place rather than the ballot box would be supreme. The Government substituted their market square for our family circle. Everything was subjected to the law of Mammon. The intention was to determine whether something was profitable and whether it could be put out to tender. The key values of centralisation and privatisation were placed above those of accountability and democratisation. Under new clause 3, we raise today the whole question of what local government is supposed to be about. What is the reorganisation intended to achieve? Is it driven by a desire to ensure that local people have a say over their lives in a pluralistic democracy in which they can choose for themselves the nature of the provision, the extent of the services delivered, and the quality that they wish to see, and in which they have the ability to raise and spend money to achieve those objectives? Alternatively, is the Bill about reorganising local government in the image of its makers in Westminster and Whitehall--namely, the majority party in the House? It is clear to us that the answer to the latter question is yes. The reorganisation is about the Government's ideological determination to ensure that local authorities are no more than a mouthpiece for a handful of people who manage to find civic office. It is not concerned with local government as a means of community expression and a part of government rather than merely local administration. It is important to raise a number of key questions today about the nature of local government and what we seek to obtain in reorganising its structure and functions. It is clear to us that local government should be just that- -it should be local and it should be government. The Bill and the propositions for the operation of the local government commission will achieve the exact opposite. They take away the ability of local people to act loyally, and they order government only in the sense that it is centralised in the hands of Ministers and civil servants in Westminster and Whitehall. Such government is not local because local people will not be able to determine the way in which local government operates its services. The whole design and structure of the propositions are predicated on the belief that local services will be put out to tender, and will be privatised or centralised.

The appendix to the guidance for the commission shows clearly how major services, which we expect to be dealt with by local government, are to be taken substantially away from the determination of locally elected representatives. The guidance is explicit, so it is worth repeating--as we did briefly in Committee--the way in which it is phrased.

Housing is currently a key function for district authorities outside the metropolitan areas. The Government's decision is clear because the guidance talks about the way in which the housing function should continue. It says :

"Authorities also own and manage some four million units of housing but Government policy is that they should adopt an enabling role, assessing needs in their area but relying on housing associations and the private sector for new provision."

In other words, the function of a local authority in providing directly for the needs of its electorate will be

Column 835

removed. The ability of a local authority to respond directly to the aspirations and the desperate needs of people will be diminished. Instead, the role of local authorities will be merely to monitor and to appeal to other people to provide for the desperate needs not only of the homeless but of the many people who seek rehousing at different times in their lives. They may need more suitable accommodation, such as sheltered provision in old age. They may need more appropriate dwellings as their families grow up or as their families are extended.

It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will confirm, that the intention behind the Government's housing policy is to ensure that people no longer turn to their elected representatives to have their needs met. They will be expected to turn to the private sector and to housing associations alone. None of us says that a pluralistic approach cannot be applied to those issues.

4.45 pm

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in some instances the sheer size of local authority housing departments militates against good management? Does he acknowledge that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), a previous Front Bench spokesman on housing, said that Birmingham was trying to manage more than 100,000 properties which simply was not practical? Is it not right that we should now talk about local authorities being concerned more with enabling than with simply trying to manage bigger and bigger departments?

Mr. Blunkett : The Bill deals with authorities outside the metropolitan areas. No one could describe the housing authorities in the non-metropolitan districts as gigantic. It is interesting to reflect that a recent report has shown that there is now grave concern about the size of housing associations, and about the way in which their operations can be more centralised and more at arm's length than those of local authorities. Local authorities have sought to decentralise their management and their facilities. Birmingham tried to parish the city, but was blocked in that endeavour. It attempted to ensure that there was devolved and decentralised management, which many good local authorities have sought to achieve.

Many of us feel that direct involvement by tenants in the running and operation of housing and housing estates is a valuable contribution in ensuring that they have genuine democratic control over what is rightly theirs. Placing tenants outside the local authority sector disables that process and makes it far more difficult. Recent studies have shown that there is far less tenant control in other sectors of housing than there is in the good authorities which have carried out Labour party policy in devolving and decentralising not only housing offices, but the management and control of their housing stock.

There are fundamental issues about the way in which facilities are taken away from the people for whom they are supposed to be intended. The same applies to education, in which the Government have also made their intentions clear. Much of the Bill is a hidden agenda. It is difficult for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to hide anything under a bushel, so the intentions for education have been made clear. We need to make them even clearer today. The guidance to the commission says :

Column 836

"The number of schools operating as grant- maintained is likely to rise significantly".

[ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] "Hear, hear", comes heavily from Conservative Members.

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : Only two of them.

Mr. Blunkett : My hon. Friend points out that it comes heavily from two Conservative Members.

The guidance continues :

"grant-maintained status should become over time the natural organisational model for schools It is also intended that the local authorities should lose their present responsibility for further education colleges and sixth- form colleges and for schools inspection."

The Further and Higher Education Bill is in Committee today, under a guillotine, for the dismemberment of the further and adult education service.

Authorities rightly look eagerly to the notion of unitary status and being able to bring together under one umbrella the provision of a number of key services so that they can integrate their social and economic policies for the locality as a whole. Unitary authorities would mean that people would have just one door to knock on. The authorities grasp in the air for the castles promised them, but find that they disintegrate into sand between their fingers because the functions that they would inherit bear no resemblance to local government as we have known it throughout the last century. Instead of authorities having the power to act directly to house their people or to ensure education for children from nursery schooling to post-16 comprehensive education, just as the authorities feel that they have the opportunity to deal in a co-ordinated and integrated fashion with the needs of their people, suddenly they find that those functions are being taken from them. The illusion of new power and new responsibility is therefore turning into

disillusionment. The people find that central Government are centralising and neutralising the powers that local authorities believed that they would have. The Government will determine funding arrangements from the centre and will relate directly to local schools or colleges through funding agencies rather than through the local education authority ; Ministers will be responsible but not accountable for what happens locally.

Even in social services, we see the Government's intentions spelt out in the draft guidance to the commission. It says :

"The Government's policy is that social services authorities should concentrate more on commissioning the procurement and assessment of services and less on direct provision themselves."

It recognises that child care has to be an exception, given the Children Act 1989, and the fact that the Minister of State at the Department of Health, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), has constantly referred to her commitment and to the need for local authorities to be able to act.

The logic of everything said, whether on housing, education, social services or the generality of provision, is that a local authority should no longer provide directly for its citizens but should become the enabling authority that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) used to describe, which would meet only once a year to let private sector contracts. The No Turning Back

Next Section

Home Page