House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Jun 1993

Column 847

cities project. Twenty projects were set up and proved successful, but they will now have their funding withdrawn as the Government move on to another 20 cities, which will receive vastly reduced funding for the same work. The projects have proved successful, but they are short-termism of the worst type. We do not need endless projects ; we need a national approach and a national plan for tackling crime. The new clause would provide a mechanism for liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities to reduce crime and reduce reoffending. It deals not only with discussions on effective non-custodial sentences but with early informal intervention when young people start to go off the rails--and, my goodness, that certainly needs to be done with a greater sense of urgency and with greater Government support. I refer to, for example, the informal advice and help which can follow a caution, and bail support and enforcement, which we shall discuss. It is vital that steps are taken at that stage to stop reoffending.

I must point out to the Minister and to the House the degree of attrition in the criminal justice system. If one takes the figure of 100 to represent the number of crimes committed and then considers the number recorded before reaching the number of crimes that are before the courts and in which sentences are passed, one gets as low as 2 per cent.

Only 2 per cent. of offenders end up being sentenced in court. That figure is deteriorating--it is down from 3 per cent. last year, according to the Home Office's own figures and reports. The figures underline the need to consider not only what happens in court--sentences and punishment--but what happens in the community where most crime occurs.

It maddens me to hear the Home Secretary and junior Ministers talk about partnership, because they clearly do not believe in a partnership approach. If they do, the litmus test will be the vote on the new clause. The litmus test of the Government's sincerity will be their acceptance and support of new clause 1. I hope that they will support it, but I shall be surprised if they do.

The Morgan report was published in August 1991. It was followed by delay and procrastination. Labour Members, understanding the importance of preventing and reducing crime, continually demanded that the Government give their response to the report.

In December 1922, the then Home Secretary smuggled out his response, which was to reject "Safer Communities". I remind the House that that report is subtitled "The Local Delivery of Crime Prevention through the Partnership Approach". Ministers pay lip service to that approach, which is what the new clause is all about.

The Morgan report's recommendations are directly relevant to the new clause. The report stated :

"The lack of a clear statutory responsibility for local government to play its part fully in crime prevention has inhibited progress" in reducing crime. It continues :

"There is confusion at local level about the various centrally funded schemes with a crime prevention element, and concern about potential overlap and duplication of effort".

I confirm that that is the case, and it is, if anything, getting worse as time goes on.

The Morgan report then lists the advantages of local authority involvement. The local authority is responsible for so many services which impinge on crime prevention.

Column 848

It provides permanency and continuity, and it provides for the legitimate and productive involvement of local people. The report therefore concludes :

"Local authorities working with the police should have clear statutory responsibility for the development and stimulation of community safety and crime prevention programmes, and for progressing at local level a multi- agency approach to crime prevention." Sadly, that approach was rejected.

Although Ministers pay lip service to the concept of local partnership whenever they visit a project or local area and see success on the ground through the voluntary co-operation of agencies or a little seed money, they do not seek, and have not sought, to put in place the necessary nationwide framework to support and encourage the effectiveness of local initiatives. That is what the new clause seeks to provoke them into doing.

The new clause does not go all the way, but it would provide a starting point for effective crime prevention work. In the longer term, I hope that the modest proposal will in due course be followed by a statutory duty on local authorities. The then Home Secretary failed the litmus test in December 1992, when he rejected the Morgan report. Will the Minister fail today? Is the present Home Secretary serious about dealing with crime? The code of practice which we propose would enable him to implement a clear Labour policy. That might upset him, but it would not upset victims throughout the country who suffer because of lack of that type of policy. Nor would it upset the police, who see the value of it. It would certainly not upset local authorities, who have been crying out for it. That clear Labour policy says, in effect, that the Government should take responsibility for supporting a new dynamic partnership between the police, the local authorities and the community to tackle at a local level, where most crime takes place. The Minister must heed the warnings that have been flooding in from experts on every side in recent years. I refer to statements by experts that have led to headlines speaking of a

"nightmare scenario warning over inner cities."

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis said recently that, unless the Government took action to stem developments today, the police would be armed as a matter of course within 10 or 20 years. Such statements have led to headlines about a

"choice of gun law or regeneration."

The partnership approach that we seek has support locally in many communities. Local Labour councillors have increasingly sought to work with the police. The police have increasingly recognised the value of working closer with local authorities. We must make it clear that the police, local authorities and local communities are on the same side in the fight against crime. By dragging their feet, the Government are failing to provide the framework and structure to allow that to develop.

The new clause also calls on the Government to enable those local partnerships to make proper and effective use of non-custodial sentences. There are offenders for whom prison or secure accommodation at a younger age is the only option. But there are two problems. The first is that the right ones often do not seem to reach that point quickly enough, and serious concern is again being voiced about the work of the Crown Prosecution Service and its failure to prosecute effectively and successfully. Some hon. Members heard that very complaint today from representatives of the Police Federation.

Column 849

The second is that the lack of early intervention and a failure to achieve the full potential and effectiveness of community-based sentences leads to people returning after committing ever more serious offences.

If simple common sense does not dictate the need for a new initiative to make community-based sentences effective, we must consider the costs of imprisonment. Recent estimates--they have no doubt increased since they were prepared--put the cost at £386 per week per man in prison and £563 per week per woman. The figures are far higher for young offenders.

Save for those for whom there is no alternative, there should be a way of using the money more effectively. Making community-based sentences more effective, more challenging and more stringent must be good sense, and the Government should give that their full support. Many other aspects should be tied in with the initiative proposed in the new clause, one being to make cautioning more effective. There is concern that, after the first caution, it becomes of less meaning to some youngsters. The Government could do something about that, by accepting some of the practical suggestions that my hon. Friends and I made in Committee.

In relation to drugs--a major aspect of the Bill--cautioning-plus is needed for those who are cautioned for the possession of a small quantity of drugs. Immediate counselling is vital, as has been shown in experiments in south Wales. It is clear from those experiments that, in the normal course of events, many people starting to take drugs are not brought to the attention of voluntary organisations until a late stage.

Let us adopt a common-sense approach to the problem. We must make the system effective, by cutting crime and giving new confidence to the police, to the community in general and to every individual. That is the agenda of the Opposition, which we address in the new clause. My hon. Friends and I support the Government strongly in dealing with drug trafficking, just as we support them in the other issues that appeared in the Bill when it was first presented to us and in some of the provisions that have been added since, such as those relating to terrorism. But we have made it clear that what the Government propose is not enough. Crime must be tackled now, in the community, where most of it is committed.

The new clause would enable the Government to enhance that initiative and to do a little to change the Conservative party's well-deserved image of being soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. In that connection, Conservative Members may now be embarrassed about the fact that, on 1 June 1993, the Home Secretary stated in a departmental press release :

"It is time we changed the its-nothing-to-do-with-me' attitude which has crept into our communities. Crime is everyone's concern. We must involve the whole community in working with the police and the courts to face up to this challenge."

I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to put his money where his mouth is. We are beginning to believe that every incoming Conservative Minister receives an injection which enables him to grind out identikit phrases, criticisms of others and appeals for partnership.

We need to rewrite what the Home Secretary said on1 June. He should have said, "It is time we changed the it's-nothing-to-do-with-me' attitude which has crept into the present Government. Crime must be the concern of

Column 850

every Minister. The Government will back the whole community in working with the police and local authorities to face up to the challenge."

Had he said that, he would have been saying something sensible about the need to tackle and reduce crime. But having made such a statement, he would then have had to act on it. The way for the Government to show that they are serious in wanting to do that is for them to accept our new clause, which represents the litmus test of the Government's seriousness in wanting to tackle crime.

Mr. Mike O'Brien (Warwickshire, North) : I support the new clause. The Morgan report showed that we must have a partnership in the community with the police and local authorities if we are to achieve what we desperately need, which is to fight back against crime. Unfortunately, the Government have not been prepared to respond as positively to that need as we would have liked.

The Government seem not to appreciate that every individual in the land who pays taxes or buys goods in the shops, who is insured against anything or who pays charges to enter any public building, is likely to be paying towards the massive cost of the increasing crime rate in Britain.

We need more policing and more effective sentencing, and we must ensure that the criminal justice system operates more effectively, but we must also ensure that the whole community is involved in the fight against crime. Only by that means shall we succeed. Since the Conservatives came to power in 1979, when they claimed that they would be tough on law and order and would reduce the crime rate, crime in my county of Warwickshire has increased enormously. The rate of car thefts and household burglaries has not trebled but quadrupled, and it is clear--

Mr. Shersby : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been paying close attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I understood that the new clause was concerned with the establishment of a code of practice. We seem to be debating the whole question of criminal justice. Is that in order?

Madam Deputy Speaker : I had presumed that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) was giving some background in order to put forward his views in favour of the new clause, but it is always important that the background does not become the foreground.

Mr. O'Brien : I am conscious of what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. The new clause refers to local authorities. I am seeking to demonstrate the need for the whole community to work together, as the new clause suggests, with the police to ensure that crime is reduced and that crime prevention is enhanced. That is really what the new clause is all about.

5 pm

Since 1979, in my county of Warwickshire, car theft and burglary have quadrupled. Crime in Warwickshire has risen from 13,000 offences in 1979 to 45,000 in 1992. No doubt the 1993 figures will also show an increase. Rural areas in particular would benefit from such a new clause and a code of practice. In rural areas there is fear about the increasing crime rate. That fear is not readily recognised by the media. In the village of Arley in my constituency, we recently had severe problems with increasing crime. Various meetings have had to be held, bringing together

Column 851

not only the police, myself and the local authorities but the whole community in the effort that the new clause envisages. Various elements of the community understand the need to work together to ensure that a fight back against crime is conducted by a united community.

The public will not be deceived by calls for longer sentences or for more prisons to be built if the resources to implement what we are calling for in the new clause and in our policy are not forthcoming from the Treasury. The real fight back against crime requires that we put more funding into police forces in particular. If the police and the local community are to have a code of practice, that code of practice must include a police force which is able to play its full part in the fight back against crime and resources must be made available for it.

We know that the Government are not prepared to put resources into increasing the number of full-time police officers. We know that the Government propose that there should be a freeeze on spending on future police recruitment over the next few years. That will not enable the police to fulfil the role that we envisage in the new clause.

It is essential that the police are provided with resources to do what the local community wants, and the local community wants more police officers on the beat, dealing with crime in the community. Therefore, the community needs a Government who are prepared to back the police and provide the necessary resources for more police officers, for more equipment to be provided, and for local communities to be able to understand that they have the protection that they so desperately need and demand.

Unfortunately, the Government have decided that they will put their restrictions on spending before the fight back against crime. They do not seem to accept that we lose one way or the other. We lose if we do not put money into the fight back against crime. The community will end up having to spend more money on charges, insurance, prisons, and on providing resources to deal with the end result of crime rather than trying to deal with the crime problem at the start, as the new clause envisages, by encouraging the community and the police to work together and by providing the necessary resources to enable that to be done.

The Government are deluding themselves or providing themselves with a false economy by trying to restrict spending, whereas spending is very much needed

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going rather wide of the new clause, which incidentally makes no reference to communities.

Mr. O'Brien : It certainly refers to local authorities. I am trying to suggest that local authorities and communities are synonymous, but perhaps I am wrong to do so. I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Local authorities provide many of the facilities which support local communities, such as youth services and council housing, but much of the provision has been reduced by the Government's policies. We seek to ensure that we establish the necessary liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities. That liaison must be backed up by resources and provision for decent housing, job creation and, most important, youth services.

Over the past six years, the Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, has been investigating increasing juvenile crime. In my county we

Column 852

have seen severe cuts in the youth service. If the police, local authorities and the courts are to have the liaison that will ensure effective crime reduction and crime prevention policies, we need to put resources into youth services, effective housing and job creation. If we undermine that community provision and the community values upon which that provision is based, crime will fester and many of our young people will be alienated.

The writer Alan Massie once said :

"A civilisation in decline digs its grave with relentless consistency. The hallmark of such a decline is the selfish ego and a lack of concern and caring about community values."

The new clause is aimed at promoting those values and that co-ordination. The undermining of community values, community provision and community support has led to many of our young people living in an alienated sub- culture. Thankfully, few of them are turning to crime. They are told by the Government that they are supposed to stand on their own two feet without being given any opportunity to do so through the provision of accommodation, jobs, or any of the--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I have been very tolerant of the hon. Gentleman. He must not use this new clause, which, after all, advocates a code of practice, to make a general statement about the ills of the country.

Mr. O'Brien : The code of practice is part of the policy which is needed to provide back-up--community support--for what the Labour party calls its policy of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That phrase can be repeated time and again because it sums up what is needed in this country. A code of practice would embody what we want in terms of provisions to be tough on the causes of crime. It would emphasise that we cannot allow the individualism and lack of community spirit that the Government have allowed to develop to undermine the fight back against crime.

We on this side of the House are prepared to put our words and our support behind the need for a tougher policy of that kind, but we would also be prepared to put the resources behind it. The code of practice suggested in this new clause is the start of the basis of a policy of bringing together the police, the community and local authorities, and ensuring that the Morgan report is implemented, as it should have been implemented, by the Government, and ensuring also that there is recognition of the appalling problems which exist in my constituency and my county and are not being addressed by the Government. I call upon the House to support the new clause.

Mr. Shersby : This is an interesting new clause. The proposal has been discussed by the Police Federation from time to time. It has also come up in the Home Affairs Select Committee, and there has been a good deal of debate about the need for some sort of code of practice over the past couple of years.

This new clause, which calls upon my right hon. and learned Friend to produce a code of practice, is designed, it appears, to provide liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities concerning the use of non-custodial sentences, and other measures for the prevention of crime and reoffending. I wish to talk about some of those other measures, as well as the code of practice referred to specifically in the new clause.

Column 853

First, there is a need for more secure accommodation for juvenile offenders--a matter of great concern to local authorities. Unhappily, we do not have enough such accommodation in this country. That is a matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruchcliffe (Mr. Clarke) addressed his mind when he made his announcement a month or two ago about the new secure accommodation order that he was contemplating.

However, every hon. Member knows that there are great difficulties in finding suitable secure accommodation for juvenile offenders. It therefore behoves all local authorities to take very careful account of this, because it is one of the other measures that need to be addressed.

Mr. Michael : The hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) addressed his mind to these matters. I do not think that ho the conflict between the Home Office and other Government Departments. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a scandal that, after that length of time, the problem to which he has pointed, and on which I agree with him, has not been addressed?

Mr. Shersby : I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Two or three previous Home Secretaries have had representations from me on behalf of the police, as has the Secretary of State for Health. This is an area which is divided between the Secretary of State for Health, who is responsible for juveniles and for providing additional secure accommodation for youngsters who cannot be sent to prison, and the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the generality of secure accommodation.

My point--I do not make it in a party political spirit--is that there are some local authorities in this country who are not very keen on providing secure accommodation, whereas it is in the national interest that every local authority should address itself to the problem.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made some comments about the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute. This is a matter of considerable interest at the present time to magistrates courts in this country, and not least to the Uxbridge magistrates court, which has lobbied me recently about the lack of work and is puzzled by the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service is apparently not prosecuting as vigorously as it might. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies, will say a word or two about that.

We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate on this new clause, and I do not intend to go down the same road, but I want to pick up some of the points that have been made.

5.15 pm

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth quoted the remarks of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the carrying of firearms by police officers in 10 years' time. I want to place it on record that the Police Federation of England and Wales is strongly opposed to the carrying of firearms. That is why it welcomes very much indeed the prompt action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in authorising trials of the side-handled baton and other

Column 854

equipment which will enable police officers to defend themselves and to provide local communities and local authorities with the kind of policing that they require to deal with crime in 1993. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) referred to the problem of crime in rural areas. Local authorities, and indeed the local police, have a very considerable problem, because there are often only two police officers on duty in a rural area. If they suddenly receive a large visitation of individuals from an urban area, they may find themselves considerably extended in dealing with it. The new clause asks the Government to produce a code of practice that would involve the courts, the police and the local authorities in a combined effort. I have some sympathy with that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to tell the House what steps the Government intend to take to involve local people more widely.

My own feeling is that the police and community consultative councils have a valuable role to play in this process. I attend my local police and community consultative council whenever I am able to get away from the House--which has not been very often during the past year--and I believe that these councils play the kind of role that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North and his hon. Friends have in mind. They are groups of individuals drawn from the local authority, chaired by a local man or woman, and attended by senior officers, to discuss local policing matters and the way to tackle crime in the area concerned.

Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced his proposals for the new police authorities. They have one very considerable benefit : they will give local police commanders very much more say in the way resources are deployed in future, working together with the police authorities. They will give them the power to decide how the money allocated by the Home Office will be spent--whether on more manpower, or on a combination of manpower and equipment, and all the other things that the police need in order to do their job.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have something constructive to say on this new clause. It is an idea that has been mooted in the House by hon. Members on both sides, as well as in the Select Committee, over the past year, and I believe that it deserves serious consideration.

Mr. Maclean : I listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) with growing interest, and then amazement, as he introduced the new clause. I thought for a moment that I had perhaps been transported to Thursday's wide-ranging debate on all aspects of law and order, because we heard recounted--to borrow a phrase from you, Madam Deputy Speaker--all the ills of society. A strong impression was given that this new and wonderful Labour party clause would cure those ills.

Mr. Michael : I hope that, in responding, the Minister will take seriously what we said at the beginning, which was that the new clause would be merely a start. It is the best that we can get into the geography of the Bill, which, as the Minister knows, limits the possibility of putting amendments forward. It is therefore a starting point--not

Column 855

the solution to all the problems. I hope that the Minister will address it with that in mind and in the positive and helpful spirit in which the motion was moved.

Mr. Maclean : I shall address myself to the exact contents of the new clause but, in coming to that, I shall also attempt to deal with some of the wide-ranging issues on which Opposition Members touched and on which, in some cases, Madam Deputy Speaker, they were pulled up by you for wandering far and wide.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was trying to wear a cloak of the party that has suddenly discovered in the opinion polls that the public are worried about crime. In trying to wear the cloak of being tough on crime, the hon. Gentleman urged tougher community sentences. The Government have delivered those. He urged that we look at cautioning-plus. I said last week in Committee that I was attracted to that concept and that I wanted to see wider use of it. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. M. O'Brien) made pleas about housing and jobs. I thought that I must be missing something and I turned to see what this powerful new clause, which was going to lead the fight back against crime, was going to do. The new clause would introduce a code of practice. The agencies concerned, the courts, the police and the local authorities, would be obliged to comply with a prescribed Labour party code of practice, lifted from its manifesto, in pursuing their joint considerations in the use of non-custodial sentences.

I accept that that is perhaps just the start of that fight back against crime. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has assured me that the code of practice is just the start, and that the Labour party wants there to be a statutory duty. If the Labour party wants to begin the fight back against crime, I suggest that the starting point should have been some time ago.

Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984--that is a funny fight back. Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Public Order Act 1986--that is an odd way to fight back. Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1991. The fight back that the Labour party now wants to conduct against crime has been not a fight back against crime but a fight against every single measure that the Government have introduced to crack down harder on crime and criminals. The Labour party also said that it wanted to involve the whole community. That makes sense, but I do not see how the whole community can be involved, participating in a partnership, by ordering them to comply with a code of practice. The Government recognise the need for good liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities. We have been active in promoting good practice and encouraging the setting up of many liaison structures.

Following the Woolf report, 24 area committees were set up, which bring together under the chairmanship of a resident judge senior representatives of the various agencies involved in the criminal justice system. Those committees firmly placed the emphasis on the promotion of better understanding, better co-operation and co-ordination within the system. They held their first meeting in the autumn and need time to develop further. The Government would not wish to see those arrangements disturbed at such an early stage in their development.

Column 856

The Government also recognise the need to spread best practice on crime prevention to local practitioners. As part of the new phase in the Government's crime prevention strategy announced in January, we have commissioned Crime Concern, the independent crime prevention organisation, to produce a good practice guide. The guide will provide clear, practical advice on what works in crime prevention and how to make it work, as well as guidance on working in partnership. It will be distributed widely to local practitioners when it becomes available later this year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) will accept that that might satisfy the Police Federation's requests.

Mr. Shersby : My hon. Friend's announcement that he is to commission Crime Concern will be welcomed by the Police Federation, and I hope that it will be most welcome to many hon. Members who have sympathy with some of the concepts that we have debated. I congratulate him on making that important statement.

Mr. Maclean : I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I hope that the House will accept that a practical, best practice guide produced by Crime Concern may be better than lifting something from the Labour party manifesto, as I was urged to do.

The Government regard it as important to ensure that there are more local discussions so that local mechanisms are designed and developed to meet local needs. Discussions on the implementation of community penalties continue to take place in local liaison groups, such as court user groups and probation liaison committees, as appropriate to meet their local needs.

A code of practice produced by the Secretary of State which would impose a single solution throughout the country would not, in my view, be desirable. The Government accept the need for good liaison between the police, local authorities and other local agencies on crime prevention so that co- ordinated efforts are made to make towns and cities safer for the people who live and work in them. The Government applaud the police and community consultative councils, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.

Following guidance issued by the Home Office in 1990, taking forward the partnership approach to crime prevention, an increasing number of local authorities are developing their own crime prevention and community safety strategies in consultation with the police and others. Local strategies provide a framework for concerted action and for carrying forward the multi -agency approach to tackling local crime problems. The Government whole- heartedly welcome those developments at local level.

Mr. Shersby : Has the London borough of Lambeth agreed to participate in those measures?

Mr. Maclean : The honest answer is that I do not know. However, I should be very surprised if it had. I am willing to let the Opposition inform me if Lambeth council is participating in those measures. I assume that that council has so many internal problems with law and order that such measures are not high up on its agenda. The Opposition commented on resources. If people believed the Opposition, they would be led to believe that resources for all aspects of the criminal justice system were in decline. Between 1979 and 1992--the period of office of this Government-- resources for the criminal justice

Column 857

system increased by 105 per cent. in real terms, above the level of inflation. That is a considerable amount of resources for all aspects of law and order.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge raised a query about the Crown Prosecution Service. There has been some public concern recently, expressed by some bodies, about the number of cases that were not followed through to prosecution. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be considering the matter, with my colleagues, and we will want to discuss it with the Crown Prosecution Service in due course.

The Government are not convinced that the code of practice suggested by the Opposition for local government, the police and others in the area of crime prevention is necessary, desirable or would do any good. Local crime problems essentially require local solutions. A code of practice written by the Secretary of State would be prescriptive and would not allow for flexible, local responses. I urge the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to withdraw the motion and I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Boateng : The Opposition have no intention of withdrawing the motion ; on the contrary, we intend to push it to its very limit. For the Minister to have the nerve to point to a Labour local authority as having internal problems on law and order, when his Government are rotten with problems on law and order, is a diabolical liberty. He ought to address the Government's problem of the way in which the general public perceive their competence on law and order. The Government's competence on law and order, as on so much else, stands at an all-time low. It is to the Labour party that the country looks for a lead on law and order.

Mr. Maclean : Try to keep a straight face.

Mr. Boateng : The Minister asked me to keep a straight face. It is disturbing that we have no problem in keeping a straight face on the issue of law and order because we recognise that outside, in the big wide world, there is a problem about safety and security in communities.

Out there, in the big wide world, the general public thirst for and desire Ministers to give a lead. The general public want the Home Secretary to be prepared to put his authority behind a code of practice and to give that code of practice the force of statute. The general public look to the Government to give a lead. The Conservative Government and the Conservative party have failed time and time again to give such a lead.

5.30 pm

This small new clause would be a modest start for this notoriously reluctant Government. The Government should embark on the proposals in it as a response to the public's perception of their incompetence and to the public's demand that they be seen to take a lead. That is all that we seek through the new clause. We ask that the Home Secretary take on board the need for a code of practice and recognise the appropriateness of liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities to make the most effective use of non-custodial sentences and other measures for the prevention of crime and offending.

The new clause emphasises effectiveness because there is a widely felt and increasingly loudly expressed concern

Column 858

out there. I hope that the Minister will listen to the word that is coming back to the House from the communities most affected by crime. There is a widely held belief that the non- custodial option is not always utilised as effectively as possible.

The public want the reassurance that there are no soft options for those convicted of criminal offences. They want the reassurance that, when we talk about a non-custodial sentence, we mean something that tackles the issue of recidivism. Non-custodial sentences should also address the legitimate public demand for punishment and retribution. There is absolutely no reason why it should not be possible to deal with all those elements of the public's concern by way of a non-custodial sentence.

The only way to achieve that aim is to begin to address the content of a non-custodial sentence. Our concern, which is shared by others, is that, if local resources are not co-ordinated, if local authorities, social services, the probation service and the courts do not work in tandem, the quality of the content of non-custodial sentences will be inferior, will not provide a rigorous and disciplined framework for sentences and will not bear down on the dangers of recidivism--of slipping back into the criminal culture that led to the offending in the first place.

Through the new clause, we ask for the force of statute to be given to a code of practice issued by the Home Secretary, which requires appropriate liaison between the courts, the police and the local authorities. The code of practice should say, "You must talk to each other. You must talk to the Government about how the will and the resources will be applied to give the non-custodial option teeth and relevance." We are determined that non- custodial sentences should not be regarded as a soft option. They should have teeth and relevance, and they should have an impact on offenders to ensure that the opportunities for and likelihood of recidivism are reduced. The element of returning to society something that one has taken away from it by one's criminal action must be incorporated in the non-custodial option. I have nothing against Home Office projects. However, the important thing about projects is that they should be a pilot, a start and a model for something that is then to be extended. What we find so depressing is that, although good projects come out of Home Office initiatives and flower briefly, like a desert bloom, they are gone until the next thunderstorm.

That should not be the way in which we proceed. Thought should be given to the most effective manner in which to ensure that the non-custodial option has bite. The product of that thought, of experimentation and of the models tried in the course of projects should inform and direct the impact of a code of practice. That is a legitimate call for us to make through the new clause. It should not be sneered at or discounted, as the Minister has done this evening. I welcome the good practice guide. If the new clause has led to the announcement of the good practice guide, that is all to the good. However, that is no substitute for a code of practice. Good practice needs to begin at home. I make no apology for giving hon. Members a little homily about where they can begin in terms of good practice. I notice the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) in an unaccustomed seat at an unusual time of the afternoon.

Next Section

Home Page