House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Oct 1992

Mr. Blair : I am delighted to do that and I welcome the changes. The British Transport police have been working very hard to ensure that that is the case, and that is perhaps one reason why they should be involved more closely in some of the consultations.

There was an air of complacency about the Home Secretary's speech. Of course the Met are trying hard to

Column 685

curb crime and in some areas they are being successful. I shall refer to those in a moment because it is important to balance the areas of success with the problems.

The figure which truly astonishes me--this may be merely the novelty of the position that I hold--is that the clear-up rate is still less than one in five. In fact, the clear-up rate is one in 10 for burglaries. We have a very long way to go. Some people might say, and the Home Secretary by implication hinted, that burglary and crimes against property are not in the same league as violent crime against the person. However, anyone who has suffered a burglary is aware that it is more than just the fact that one's home has been broken into : it is an invasion of what should be the sanctity of someone's home. An understanding of that is necessary if we are to realise the seriousness of the situation.

The police themselves do not escape the personal consequences of crime. It is worth recording that 12,000 officers were injured while on duty. Some 3,600 were injured as a result of assaults, 700 or more of them so seriously that they were off work. That is appalling and we must work very hard on that.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : I agree with my hon. Friend right down the line about the fact that policemen are at risk. That was another area of complacency in the Home Secretary's speech. He moved on very quickly after referring to Sergeant Alan King, who was stabbed. We all agreed with his comments, but nothing has been done to improve the protection of the police against knife attacks. The Met has carried out a study into body armour, but nothing has been done and I understand that many policemen are having to buy such armour privately. Should not the Home Secretary have produced proper proposals to give policemen more protection against such attacks?

Mr. Blair : I entirely agree that such attacks are to be deplored and I hope that the Home Secretary has heard what my hon. Friend said about measures to deal with them. On behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to the bravery of Sergeant Alan King and Detective Constable Jim Morrison who died on active service last year. We remember them with gratitude and offer our heartfelt condolences to their families.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke : Working parties continually consider the protection and equipment which should be given to the police and all the police associations are involved. I want to make it clear that we all agree that policemen are seriously at risk all the time in London. That is why we do not neglect the constant problem of reviewing the protection available and we shall continue to do that.

Mr. Blair : I thank the Home Secretary for that intervention. He will be aware of the strong feelings on all sides of the House about the position of policemen.

As well as the normal duties of policing, the Met has been responsible for anti-terrorism work. That has been particularly difficult with the recent spate of bomb attacks by the IRA, which have been carried out with a total and callous disregard for the human casualties which have resulted and will inevitably result from such activities. The Opposition treat the IRA's recent attempts to shift the blame on to the police for not heeding warnings which in any event are often confused and misleading with complete and utter contempt.

Column 686

Certain problems are especially acute in the capital. I was astonished to learn that 75 per cent. of the illicit drugs market is in the capital. That must be a matter of huge concern.

Under Sir Peter's leadership, the Met has developed considerably in the past few years. His two clear achievements have been the Plus programme and the introduction of sector policing. It is easy to dismiss the Plus programme as a series of platitudes and I do not hope, as the Secretary of State did, that it is to be equated with the citizens charter.

The Plus programme has been effective in two ways. First, it has carried through organisational changes which have benefited the force. Secondly, it has changed the ethos of the service. The very acts of publishing a statement of common purpose and values, holding seminars on it that each of the 44,000 staff has attended and holding it up as a standard against which the service is content to be judged affect and change the culture of the force.

It is as well to recognise that some of the criticisms about the police in London and their ethos and culture are by no means confined to those on the fringe. Sir John Woodcock, in his address to an international conference on crime a few weeks ago, made it clear that criticism of the police had gained increasing currency among all sections of the community and that it was therefore absolutely necessary that a change in ethos and culture should take place.

Mr. Dicks : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer to the terms of police manpower and the cost to the taxpayer of demonstrations. [Interruption.] This is important. There are costs in taking police off their normal duties to police the miners' rally last Wednesday and next Sunday's rally. This Sunday, police will lose time off and work overtime or be taken off their normal duties to police unnecessary demonstrations.

Mr. Blair : That is an absurd point. [Interruption.] Having intervened on me, the hon. Gentleman might at least listen to the reply. Of course they police demonstrations. They also police football matches. There is also activity in relation to the royal family. Unless one is suggesting that all those activities should be banned, they are something that the Metropolitan police will do. In the end, if there is a lack of confidence in the police, that is not just bad in itself : it affects the efficiency of policing because it disturbs the relationship of confidence between the public and the police. That point has been made by some of my hon. Friends. If there is no confidence in the police and if any section of the public feel that they cannot approach the police with confidence, policing in the capital is likely to be less effective and detection rates are likely to be lower.

We know, for example, that there has been a 66 per cent. increase in the number of reported offences of rape. In a bizarre way, that can be treated in one sense as implying that, probably, more people are now willing to report the offence of rape than they were before. Also, it means that in the previous few years thousands of people have not reported the offence because they did not have confidence. That is not a matter for complacency. We must realise that there is still an immense distance to go in increasing the confidence which must exist for effective policing.

Column 687

There are other ways, too, in which the force is changing. The Home Secretary mentioned sector policing. That should be fully in operation by April 1993. Again, the purpose is to bring policing closer to the local community. However, the Plus programme and sector policing are examples of what has been the fairly central shift in policing, not in government necessarily but within the police force itself in the past few years. There has been an abandonment of the notion of the police as sole custodians of policy and responsibility, and the adoption of notions of partnership based on shared responsibility. That concept is recognised by many police forces throughout the country. We must build upon that base and ask the Government whether the concept of partnership in the community--to which they pay lip service--is actually replicated in their arrangements for how policing is done. For instance, the police cannot earn the respect of young people unless they have the co-operation of schools and teachers. Members of one of the local London authorities talked about truancy rates the other day. At any given time thousands of children in the capital city may be engaged in serious truancy every school day. That is appalling and it will require co-operation between education authorities and the police. Local business will often know better how to take crime prevention measures if it is involved with the police in formulating them. The voluntary sector, the youth service and local authorities have a vital part to play in reinforcing the community's ability to police itself. In February, the National Audit Office produced a study about reducing crime in London. It examined partnership initiatives in five of the 69 divisions. It found that there had been considerable success but that much more needed to be done. The programme is in its infancy, but what was not doubted at all by the National Audit Office was the clear conclusion that better partnership--the involvement of local people in policing--works, and that where proper evaluation takes place it is seen to work.

The Commissioner's report draws attention to some of the best programmes of crime prevention in the capital. Apparently there are now 40 crime prevention design advisers to help in the design of estates to try to screen out criminal activity. Some of the best schemes are at Chalk Hill estate in Brent and North Peckham estate in Southwark, where there has been a combination of policing initiatives and local authority improvements with the full co-operation of the local authority.

Partnership in the community then influences other considerations of policing policy. The Home Secretary spoke of the mix of ethnic minority police officers and how it had risen, but the proportion is still very low compared with what it needs to be. That, again, is bound to affect the confidence of the ethnic community in the police and the reporting and assisting in the detection of crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will deal with that matter in slightly greater detail. She will aslo deal with racial attacks in London. Those matters are still deeply serious and there is growing evidence that on certain estates in London such attacks are increasing.

Column 688

John Smith, who is the deputy commissioner-- [Interruption.] John Smith is an excellent name. At the recent Partnership in Action conference, the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police said :

"There are many fine examples of individual initiatives undertaken separately by police, voluntary agencies, and local authorities. But if they were to be carried out simultaneously, as part of an overall strategy, I am quite certain they would have even greater impact, and longer lasting improvements would be achieved."

He made that comment shortly after dealing with the Morgan report, which was commissioned by the Home Office and entitled, "Safer communities, Local Delivery of Crime Prevention through the Partnership Approach". The body convened by the Home Office was charged with preparing the report, and it did so. Its findings were quite clear--that there had to be much greater involvement of local authorities in crime prevention work, that partnership is what would work and would reduce crime, and that there was evidence that, where those elements of partnership were present, crime was falling. Ministers have still not responded to the Morgan report on crime prevention. It is their own report and it was published, I believe, in August 1991. We were told in the Metropolitan police debate last year that the reason for delay was that consultations were being carried out. I hope that we shall get some sort of answer today, at least from the junior Minister, if not from the Home Secretary, on the Government's attitude to the Morgan report. I suspect that the reason why the report has not been responded to is that its conclusion--that local authorities have a vital role in crime prevention--was unpalatable to the Conservative party.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Does that not emphasise the tantalising half-revelation that the Home Secretary gave? Although accountability to public authorities is important--there is a gap in London --such organs of statutory accountability also provide for information and conversation, which fulfil the very partnership that my hon. Friend is talking about. The Home Secretary not only gave no intimation of whether the role of elected and responsible police authorities in the rest of the country might be changed drastically in one way or another, but in respect of London it was made just a tail-end remark. Does that not mean that his speech reflected much less responsibility than that office has?

Mr. Blair : I agree, and I will deal with that point in a moment.

Mrs. Barbara Roche (Hornsey and Wood Green) : Will my hon. Friend confirm that some of the best responses to the Morgan report were from London Labour authorities? In the London borough of Hackney, the council made a joint response with the police, whereas, surprisingly, in the London borough of Wandsworth the council made a separate response from the police.

Mr. Blair : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that piece of information, which undoubtedly tells us a great deal.

Mr. John Marshall Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the record of several London local authorities is such that we do not want them to have anything to do with law enforcement? Leading members of the London Labour party incite others to break the law. The thought of their

Column 689

being in charge of the police force is unacceptable. We read in the Daily Mail today how dotty Haringey council is. It could not run a booze-up in a brewery.

Mr. Blair : I seem to remember that the Daily Mail told us that we would have an economic recovery following 9 April, so it is not the best source. I assume from the hon. Gentleman's strictures on Labour authorities that he is attacking the police for co-operating with Hackney council in making a joint response to the Morgan report. The hon. Gentleman's bigotry is out of date.

The nub of the argument is that to accept that partnership is the way forward, that there should be policing in the community and that we require a multi-agency approach, throws into sharp relief questions about the best way of allowing local people to have an input in a proper elected police authority for London.

I was uncertain exactly what the Home Secretary said about partnership in his speech today. If he will not take it amiss, I appreciate that he has not read the Maastricht treaty, but I did not realise until I heard him this morning that he had not even read his own speech. He said that he intended to take a fresh look at the matter and seemed to imply that he was prepared to bring some semblance of uniformity to the arrangements outside and inside London. That is entirely right, provided that there is proper local accountability.

The argument for a proper police authority for London is now much stronger on the grounds not only of local democracy but of effective policing. If the consensus behind partnership in the community is correct, and if the Home Secretary believes what was written for him, surely a vital part of such a partnership is the full involvement of people through a proper elected authority which, of course, is what happens outside London. Local people play a valuable role in my police authority in county Durham. There is no question of a battle between police and local authorities. The police recognise that community involvement provides a focus for local feeling and a channel for local input, and that local people feel that their voice is heard and their priorities can be taken into account. That means that the authority can work better and more practically. It is not simply an abstract question of democracy. Partnership is at the heart of effective policing in the capital.

Mr. Mackinlay : I have listened carefully to the discussion about local authority involvement in London. Is my hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Wandsworth and the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea have unilaterally sworn in police constables to look after their parks? London local authorities have sworn police constables and the Home Secretary does not know who they are. There is no central monitoring of their performance, qualities, training or recruitment. Both in London and elsewhere, there is a hotch-potch of non-Home Office constables. The Home Secretary refuses to recognise that they are a problem, but there are police officers in London within the control of two Conservative councils in London.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. I draw it to the attention of the House that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and long interventions do not help.

Column 690

Mr. Blair : I hope that the Home Secretary has noted my hon. Friend's remarks. All that stands in the way of a proper elected authority is the utter fixated dogma of the Conservative party. It has carried its particular prejudice, which was exemplified by the intervention of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), against one or two local authorities into a generalised prejudice against all local government. I recognise that this point is controversial, but it must be made. It is the same with the Government's obdurate refusal to recognise the clear link between the environment in which people live and the way in which they behave--in other words, between the society and the level of crime in London. I should make it clear that no one excuses crime. The first duty of any effective police system is to detect and punish those who commit offences. That is what our constituents want, expect and deserve. However, it is absurd to postulate a choice between individual responsibility for crime and the broader influence of society on criminal activity. It is not abstract sociology, but plain common sense. Not only Opposition Members make that connection ; it is also made increasingly by police officers. For example, in February 1992 Commander David Stevens, head of the crime and community involvement branch of the Metropolitan police, said that crime was directly linked to what he called the "social and economic malaise". Sir Peter Imbert said in a foreword last year :

"the crime map fits all too closely over the map of disadvantage." This year he said :

"The continuing growth of crime is a fundamental concern which, in part, I attribute to the marginalisation of some elements in our society. The notion that there is a link between crime and social deprivation is a compelling one."

Mr. John Smith, the deputy commissioner, said in May this year : "Any comprehensive strategy to address the root causes of crime must not just embrace the contribution of police and the criminal justice system ; it must also deal with the whole range of environmental, social, economic and educational factors, which so fundamentally affect its occurrence".

I cannot believe that the Government can turn a blind eye to all the evidence that is building up from those engaged in policing. Sir Peter Imbert put the matter correctly a few days ago, when he said : "Effectively then, society is not only more questioning but also more fragmented. Without true social cohesion it will be increasingly difficult for police to respond to the growing disparity and diversity of demands being made upon them."

In London, as elsewhere, there are signs that the police are trying their hardest to curb crime. Local people are desperately committed to the battle against crime, but the question is whether the Government are prepared to back the efforts and commitment of local people and police officers. We submit that they cannot do so unless they accept full responsibility not only for policing but for the state of the economy and, indeed, the state of the nation as a whole. The Government's failure to accept that responsibility, and their belief that inaction is always preferable to Government action, leaves us with no confidence that they can turn back the rising tide of crime either in London or in the rest of Britain.

10.38 am

Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : I wish to delcare an outside interest as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. This annual debate

Column 691

provides the House, and the 84 Members who represent Greater London constituencies, with a valuable opportunity to discuss the policing of our area and to question the police authority's policy, which is uniquely vested in the person of the Home Secretary. It is also an important addition to the excellent opportunity that all London Members have, at least once a year, to discuss with the Commissioner and his colleagues operational policing matters in the area that we all represent. It is additional to the opportunity that all London Members have to serve actively on their police and community consultative committees.

I must express on behalf of my constituents their warmest thanks to the Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, and to the men and women of the Metropolitan police service, for the way in which they are policing London in 1992. They do so in the face of increasing criminal activity and of offences which were virtually unknown a decade, let alone a century, ago.

I join the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in paying tribute to the Metropolitan police and to the deputy commissioner, Mr. John Smith. I take this opportunity to welcome the appointment of Mr. Paul Condon, the chief constable of Kent, to succeed Sir Peter Imbert. Mr. Condon is a distinguished police officer, who will bring new vigour to London and to the job of Commissioner. It is one of the most difficult and challenging jobs that anyone could be asked to undertake, and I am sure that, at 45 years of age and with considerable experience of London, Mr. Condon will make a great success of it.

One of the most serious crimes that the Metropolitan police have to cope with--a crime which affects every citizen who lives in London and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions more who commute in to the capital every day--is Irish republican terrorism. Last year, London was the scene of 21 bombings by the Provisional IRA, including the first use of a mortar in our country when 10 Downing street was attacked. I am sure that the House will join me in paying a warm tribute to Commander George Churchill- Coleman for the outstand-ing service that he has rendered to the people of London as head of the anti-terrorist branch. His work places us all in his debt. He is also greatly admired by the Police Federation and its members in the Metropolitan area. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing him well.

The range of crime prevention operations and investigative activities described in the Commissioner's report places a heavy responsibility on the Home Secretary, as the police authority for London, and on the House to ensure that most up-to-date preventive measures are available to the police. Those include DNA testing, where evidence obtained from human body fluids could greatly assist in obtaining convictions for serious offences such as rape and murder.

I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that the police need the right to seek the authority of a magistrate or a judge for the compulsory taking of sample body fluids when a suspect refuses to supply them. There is a curious anomaly whereby a suspect believed to have an excess of alcohol in the blood, who refuses to supply a blood sample, can be charged with

Column 692

an offence as severe as not giving the blood sample in the first place. Why does that not apply in a rape case when the suspect refuses to give a sample to the police?

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : That is an important issue. My hon. Friend may recollect that during the previous Parliament the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended the creation of a DNA database, which is essential to the efficient working of the police service. There is one other important reason, with which my hon. Friend may wish to agree : in rape cases or other sex offences, DNA testing eliminates suspects and thus saves police time.

Mr. Shersby : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his important intervention and I entirely agree with his remarks. In serious cases, involving murder and rape for example, samples of body fluids can often prove the guilt or innocence of a suspect. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give further serious consideration to the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee and will consider amending the law on that matter.

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shersby : I shall not give way, as Mr. Deputy Speaker has urged hon. Members to be brief.

The Police Federation also believes that the law on recorded interviews should be changed. Audio-taped interviews have to be transcribed by the police and supplied to the Crown prosecution service and to the courts. I understand that they listen only to extracts from the transcribed tapes. That consumes large amounts of valuable police time. The police want video recordings of all interviews at police stations, which can be viewed by the Crown prosecution service and the courts. I was therefore glad when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in reply to my supplementary question yesterday that

"one day the courts will be able to see the relevant part of a video interview without any paperwork in between, but that depends as much on technology and on changes in court procedure as it does on progress on our front."--[ Official Report, 22 October 1992 ; Vol. 212, c. 552.]

I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give the House some idea of the time frame for making such progress and for equipping the courts with the necessary equipment.

The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I have long campaigned for action to deal with the serious problem of knives, which are all too frequently carried by many young people almost as a matter of course in London. Since I have been parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, I have become increasingly concious of the problems faced by officers in dealing with that problem and detecting those carrying knives. I call on my right hon. and learned Friend to set up a working party with the police staff associations to review stop-and-search powers.

Powers were conferred on the police by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which replaced powers under the Vagrancy Act 1824. In the eight years since those powers were replaced, they have proved to be inadequate. I wonder whether the House knows that the 1984 Act does not give a constable the power to search a person, vehicle or anything in or on a vehicle, unless he has reasonable grounds to believe that he will find a stolen or prohibited

Column 693

article. That restriction has resulted in police officers not being able to search a person or vehicle without firm grounds, which constitute a virtual certainty. It is frequently impossible for officers to be certain. If they search a person or a vehicle in the belief that a knife will be found and prove to be mistaken, increasingly they face civil action in the courts. So people who carry and use knives are free to slash, stab and kill without much risk of being detected or apprehended. The law should be carefully considered and we should obtain a better balance between the liberty of the citizen and that of those who seek to uphold the law on our behalf.

There is a piece of equipment that the police need in order to protect themselves and others from serious assault, whether from knives or other weapons--the side-handled baton, which is longer than the standard truncheon and thus has a greater range. It is available in a fixed version, worn externally, or a telescopic version, carried by a police officer in the standard truncheon pocket. It has a considerable advantage over the existing truncheon. The police need that equipment because the existing truncheon, which has been in service for many years, is so short. As a result, an officer using the standard truncheon has to get close to an assailant before the truncheon can be used. In those circumstances, the assailant is often able to grab the truncheon, and the officer can find him or herself being beaten with his or her own truncheon.

Trials of the side-handled baton have been postponed, following the unrelated but nevertheless sensitive events in Los Angeles last summer. There is concern that the adoption of a longer baton worn externally may have implications for the image of British policing. However, I know that the Police Federation and other staff associations are to give evidence to the Home Office on how trials might proceed. Whatever reservations my right hon. and learned Friend may understandably have about the introduction of the side-handled baton, I know that he does not have a closed mind on the subject. I hope that those on the Opposition Front-Bench team also have an open mind and will consider the matter most carefully.

Action must be taken to help the police to defend themselves from the frightful number of assaults on both men and women officers each year, which the hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned. Traditionally, police in Britain do not carry side arms. London, like the rest of Britain, is policed with the consent of the people. The Police Federation wants to keep it that way and does not want the British bobby to carry a pistol, but at the very least we should give our bobbies a baton more in keeping with the requirements of modern policing.

We owe it to those who protect the citizens of London, and other towns and cities throughout the country, to allow them to protect themselves. I know that only too well, because one of my duties as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation is to attend the funerals of officers who have given their lives serving the public. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred to Detective Constable Jim Morrison and Sergeant Alan King, who both lost their lives in the past year. I attended both funerals, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), and they were the most moving occasions that I have ever witnessed. Hon. Members should reflect that it is not only the life of a young police officer in his or her prime that is lost ; the death is a terrible tragedy for the officer's parents and families, who have lost

Column 694

everything for which they have worked throughout their lives. One has to attend one of those funerals to realise the tremendous sense of loss that is felt. I bring a message to the House from the parents and relatives of those officers. They ask, "Please do something more than you are doing now to protect our wives and husbands." It is a long time since the Metropolitan police were equipped with standard truncheons. It is time that the Government and the House took a grip of the situation and gave every police officer better protection. Only two weeks ago, the policing of the borough of Hillingdon in which my constituency of Uxbridge is located changed over to the new sector policing system. It is going very well : more officers are being seen, and both the public and the police seem satisfied that sector policing is bringing an improvement. There are eight sectors in my borough, and each team operating in those sectors comprises an inspector, six or seven sergeants, and 30 to 36 constables. Each sector is responsible for policing its own district 24 hours a day. The concept is that the inspector is the team leader. He or she attends residents' meetings and gets to know the people in the district being policed. I welcome that devolution of police powers and believe that it will help the police and the community to work together in a more focused manner. Two officers in the village of Harefield in my constituency have taken the initiative and are running youth activities in their spare time at no expense to the taxpayer. A women officer is running a disco and a male officer is running an angling club. I hope that other members of the community throughout Greater London will do likewise. If young people are not to engage in criminal activities, they must be given leadership and the opportunity to enjoy worthwhile leisure pursuits.

The media concentrate on the crime of rape in London--the hon. Member for Sedgefield cited a 66 per cent. increase--but the media do not always tell the public about police success in clearing up such cases, which deters others from offending. There were eight rapes in the Uxbridge division last year, all but one of which have been cleared up. At least two of the parties were known to each. This year there have been seven rapes, in which at least three of the parties were known to each other and all of which have been cleared up. That is what I call first-class policing. When considering rape, it is necessary for the House and the community to acknowledge that very often the parties are known to each other.

Ms. Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shersby : No, I shall not give way. I wish to finish my speech so as to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak. I have great confidence in the Metropolitan police. They are doing a first-class job in difficult circumstances and they deserve the confidence of all hon. Members. They certainly have my full support. 10.57 am

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : In the few minutes left, may I say how much the Opposition welcome the Home Secretary's apparent willingness to reconsider the issue of police accountability in London. He seems to be offering us a review. We must hope that it is full and open

Column 695

--a Clarke review rather than a Heseltine mark 1 review, although a Heseltine mark 4 might do in the circumstances.

It is important to win recognition of the fact that an elected police authority for London is a means of ensuring, first, that we have an effective system of crime prevention which involves local authorities and does not turn its back on them ; secondly, that because there is an accountable, democratically elected forum, the police and the community come together. That forum should be the police authority for London, elected by the people of London. It can tackle the problem of growing crime on the estates, and of racial and sexual harassment.

The authority can also make constructive proposals for police training. I say that because nothing is more important than ensuring that the constables on the beat--and we need more of them--are trained to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of the community. That is particularly important in respect of residential burglaries. There is increasingly a perception among those who have suffered the personal, emotional and psychological invasion of burglary that they do not enjoy the response that they need from the police officers who first come to the door.

Added resources are also required for the valuable victim support scheme, which often operates on a shoestring--its funding undercut by local authority restrictions on financing. Those involved in that scheme want to work with the police, and the police want to work with them, but neither is able to do so.

An elected police authority for London is long overdue. It would provide a forum for those issues, and the Opposition will press the Home Secretary to give London just that.

It being Eleven o'clock, Madam Speaker-- interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Column 696

Health Service (London)

11 am

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley) : With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the publication of Sir Bernard Tomlinson's advice on the future of London's health services.

The House will recall that a year ago the Government asked Sir Bernard and a small team of experts to carry out an inquiry into health services, medical education and research in London. The inquiry had a wide remit and addressed complex and long-standing issues. The central problem is that, over a period of decades, London's health service has become increasingly poorly matched to the needs of Londoners. The Government are determined to tackle that problem, and with that in mind we asked Sir Bernard to proceed. He was asked for a strategic view of London, working with the grain of the new NHS, and to look not only at the hospital service, but at primary health care and the organisation of medical teaching and research.

Sir Bernard has now submitted his report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and myself. We are publishing it today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and sent to health authorities, the university of London, and to the many professional and other bodies having an interest in its findings.

I place on record our thanks to Sir Bernard and his team for the very considerable effort that has gone into the inquiry and for producing so thorough and comprehensive a report.

The report does not offer any easy solutions to problems that have bedevilled policy makers and professionals for years. It is wide ranging and contains many detailed recommendations. Its key findings are that the current pattern of acute hospital provision in London is both undesirable and unsustainable and that it requires substantial modification to meet the current and future health needs of Londoners ; that medical education and research need to be organised along different lines, to maintain and to strengthen London's status as a major national and international medical centre ; that primary and community health services are comparatively poorly developed in London and that resources need to be reinvested from the hospital sector into these services to bring them up to the standards common in other places.

The Government welcome Sir Bernard's broad conclusions, which are in line with earlier reports--such as that from the King's Fund. I must stress, however, that his report is advice to the Government, not Government policy.

I am sure that the report will be widely and keenly debated. We welcome that. We will listen carefully to the views expressed. Indeed, I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to visit the institutions potentially most affected to discuss at first hand the ideas set out in the report.

When we are satisfied that we have heard all points of view, we shall respond by setting out our detailed proposals on changes in the NHS. I anticipate that that will be early in the new year. In bringing forward proposals, our prime consideration will be to safeguard

Column 697

and improve health care for Londoners.-- [Interruption.] These are important matters, and I shall be grateful if Labour Members will listen to the detail.

We shall ensure also that full account is taken of the implications for NHS staff working in London, and of the need for joint planning with education and research interests of NHS changes that affect them. I can assure the House that no major decisions will be taken without proper consultation using the well-established, existing NHS procedures. However, the Government accept the widely accepted view that London has too many hospitals and too many beds. Change is essential if we are to avoid the risks highlighted in the report of a spiral of decline in London's hospitals, and if we are to secure the benefits of a switch to more primary and community care.

There are, in addition, some immediate issues concerning the four trusts-- Bart's, King's, St. Mary's and St. Thomas's--which have already been constituted, but which do not come into full existence until April 1993. Sir Bernard's report makes specific recommendations about those trusts.

In order to put ourselves in a position to decide their future configuration in the new year, I propose that consultation in respect of the Bart's, King's and St. Thomas's trusts be initiated in line with Sir Bernard's recommendations. The report raises no major issues relating to St. Mary's, and that trust will proceed as planned from April 1993.

In the case of St. George's--an applicant for third wave trust status--we will initiate consultation on a revised configuration, separating acute and community services. Again, that is in line with Sir Bernard's recommendations. I stress that those will be consultations about the future configuration of the management of the hospitals. They do not imply prior acceptance of the report's recommendations about sites.

The report makes a number of important recommendations about medical education and research, and they centre on improving the quality of medical education and research by amalgamating London's medical schools and, in the longer term, postgraduate institutions into four multi-faculty colleges of London university.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and I believe that the broad principles underlying those recommendations will remain valid whatever detailed pattern of NHS change emerges after the statutory consultations. He has therefore written to the chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council for England indicating his broad support for the report's conclusions on medical education and research. My right hon. Friend has invited the HEFCE, working with the university of London and the other bodies concerned, to take forward implementation of the proposals.

The Government intend to act immediately on two of the report's other recommendations. First, we have decided to establish as soon as possible a special London implementation group to carry forward work arising from Sir Bernard's report. The group will be part of the NHS management executive and will involve the HEFCE. It will be chaired by Mr. Tim Chessells, who will, of course, give up his current post as chairman of North East Thames regional health authority. Mr. Chessells will co-operate closely with the four Thames regional chairmen. Further details of its remit and membership will be announced in due course.

Column 698

I stress that the group will be concerned with implementation of the policy, not policy-making. I decided that it would be wise to establish the group beforehand, so that it does not start cold from the date that I announce my decisions. There is work it needs to do before then-- [Interruption.] These are important issues and, although I hope that Opposition Members will be able to give their views, it will be helpful if I may be allowed to complete my statement.

We accept also the report's advice that urgent further work is needed to review the disposition of several specialist services across London. I shall be asking the implementation group to set in train those specialty reviews as its first priority. In carrying forward that work, we shall ensure that London's world-class centres of excellence in treatment, teaching and research are clearly identified and safeguarded.

It is perhaps inevitable that attention will focus on the report's recommendations about hospitals, but it would be wrong to concentrate on those to the exclusion of the recommendations about primary and community care, and about services for the mentally ill and those with learning disabilities. The decisions taken on Sir Bernard's report must be seen as a whole, as part of a new and better approach to the provision of health care for Londoners.

Many people, across political parties, and including the British Medical Association and the King's Fund, agree on the need to improve and restructure London's health services. Achieving the changes necessary will mean some difficult choices. The Government's overriding aim is to improve the health services in London and for Londoners. It is on that basis that, after careful consultation, decisions on Sir Bernard's report will be taken.

Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside) : First, let me thank the Secretary of State and her office for arranging for the statement to be transcribed into braille.

The statement represents a lost opportunity. It is the first real challenge that the Secretary of State has had to take on since she took office earlier this year, and I regret to say that it fails according to every criterion. Why does it contain no reference to paragraphs 30, 48 or 227 of Sir Bernard's report, which deal with the investment that is needed in London's health care--hospital and primary care--to bring it up to an acceptable standard? The report and the statement, by implication, accept that the present standard is unacceptable.

Why is there no reference to ring fencing the existing resources that are being spent in London? Why is there no commitment to protecting London's health care--London's investment--from the ravages of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement on 12 November? We can only assume from the statement that the Secretary of State has already given in on the question of resources, and that her proposals--her interpretation of Sir Bernard's report--will be an excuse for cuts, rather than for the future investment that is needed.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the reversal of the internal market and the commercialisation of the health service are a prerequisite for the ability to put London's health care back on its feet? Does she accept that the protection of the specialties mentioned in the report and the statement cannot be achieved by their integration in the internal market--that it can be achieved only by their integration in a planned and coherent health service for the future? Does she agree that the establishment of a

Next Section

Home Page