House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Oct 1993

Column 998

Health to make a statement regarding a rumour in my constituency that I have been trying to check out? The rumour is that one of the local hospitals is burning toxic waste commercially. Will the Government state whether there is any truth in the rumour that other hospitals in the country--either trust or national health service-- are using their incinerators to burn waste commercially?

Mr. Newton : I am not in a position to provide immediate substantive comment on that matter, as was the case with an earlier question. I will bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South) : When will the House have the promised debate and statement on the Minerals Planning Guidance No. 3 and its revision?

Mr. Newton : I cannot at present give the hon. Gentleman an exact date, but I will look into the matter for him.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Scrutiny by hon. Members of the actions by Ministers at meetings of the EC Council of Ministers is very important. Ministers must act on occasion upon the decisions of Standing Committee A and Standing Committee B, and upon decisions which have been passed by the House. For that hon. Members require information on what is happening in the Council of Ministers meetings.

At the Edinburgh summit of Heads of State it was said that a record of the votes at Council of Ministers meetings would become available, and some figures were starting to come through in parliamentary answers. There has now been a decision by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Council of Ministers that, in future, votes will be published only if a resolution has been tabled about a vote and if that resolution is not then blocked by a majority of the Ministers present.

Is not that a serious situation, and should not there be a statement from the Prime Minister about how that can be done in line with the decision taken at the Edinburgh summit?

Mr. Newton : For the second time in the exchanges today, I will say that the sensible course is to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be here next week to answer questions.

Column 999

Opposition Day

[20th Allotted Day]

Crime

Madam Speaker : I should tell the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

4.57 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I beg to move, That this House notes that the level of recorded crime has more than doubled since 1973, that only two per cent. of all crimes results in conviction and that the threat of punishment no longer constitutes a sufficient deterrent to offenders, and that amongst the young there is a growing experience of a culture of violence and drug use ; condemns the allocation by Her Majesty's Government of only one quarter of one per cent. of the criminal justice budget of £8,770 million in 1991-92 to specific crime prevention measures ; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to support, monitor and promote effective locally based preventative measures where they are required and to provide both resources and support to families and schools to educate young people in their personal duties to society in general. The very purpose of a civil society is to protect the individuals within it from unrestrained and harmful behaviour--in other words, from crime. Britain today is falling very far short of that aim. The problem is neither new nor is it confined to this country. However, it is causing increasing anxiety and, in some quarters, a sense of despair and helplessness.

The purpose of the debate is to propose practical policies to tackle crime around which the House could unite. It is to offer hope when previous policies have only induced cynicism, and even despair. I will not linger on the well-known evidence that crime, and violent crime in particular, is a growing scourge. However, falling crime rates as the proper measure of a successful law and order policy is not working. The public will not accept from us the alibi that crime is rising elsewhere in other countries ; nor will anxieties be allayed by the political competition for the title of "Official party of law and order".

Concern about crime will decline only when crime itself declines. This afternoon we heard from the Home Secretary about his proposals for police pay and responsibilities. It is always right to seek measures to increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of the police. I have been impressed by the evidence that police forces throughout the country have themselves been eager to innovate measures. For example, while the Home Office dithered, the Kent constabulary introduced an electronic fingerprint recognition scheme which reduced by 75 per cent. the time it took an officer to put a name to a fingerprint. The Thames Valley constabulary did not wait while the Government deliberated on the future structure of the police. The Thames Valley force slimmed down its own middle ranks on an experimental basis.

I hope that the Home Secretary will do nothing to detract from the valuable and innovative experimentation by the police. The last thing that we want in this country is a structure imposed from the centre. The debate on efficiency has been badly skewed by Sir Patrick Sheehy, who has been seeking to import commercial irrelevancies into a discussion on efficiency.

Column 1000

Despite that, one fact stands out. The police service in Britain is more efficient today than it has ever been. Twice as many crimes are cleared up today as were cleared up 20 years ago. However, even the most efficient police service will not be able to deal conclusively with the crime problem on its own. Half of all crime is not even reported to the police, according to Home Office figures. Even a "Robocop", as seen in the recent science fiction film, which was programmed to shoot anyone who refused to obey its commands within 20 seconds would still require to be informed of the crimes. Tackling crime must be a matter for every citizen, every community and every public body.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : On reflection, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the claim that half the crimes committed are not reported is a little spurious? Almost certainly, those figures must include minimal crimes such as minor scratches on cars, theft of milk bottles or whatever, which the ordinary citizen would not feel it worth reporting. Therefore, the matter has to be put in a different perspective from that in which the hon. Gentleman puts it.

Mr. Maclennan : I do not agree. The one aspect of the Home Office that stands almost beyond criticism is the research capability of its research unit. The unit does not produce such figures and facts without a good deal of careful reflection. The figures have been subjected to academic scrutiny by many institutes of criminology throughout the country. They are the most reliable figures that we have.

I take it that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) would not seek to diminish the importance of unreported or unrecorded crimes. It is a substantial problem and one of the matters which the police wish to have addressed.

Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton) : I hope that the hon. Gentleman can explain something to me. He will probably agree with me that the increase in the use of drugs is one of the most significant causes of crime. Can he explain how the Liberal Democrat policy of legalising cannabis, which would put far more people in touch with the drugs culture, could assist us in reducing crime?

Mr. Maclennan : That policy is supported in parts of the Liberal party. I understand that the party in Scotland recommended it. I notice that several journals, including The Economist , have long advocated legalisation of cannabis. The subject is worthy of debate, but it is certainly not the official policy of the party of which I am a spokesman.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Before we lose sight of the issue of unreported crime, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say what contribution he and his hon. Friends were making to the law and order debate in 1988 when they voted against legislation which gave the Attorney- General the ability to appeal against lenient sentences? Does he think that that sets a good example, or was it a good example of unreported crime?

Mr. Maclennan : Far from being unreported, the matter is recorded in Hansard . The reasons were well set out on that occasion. The need for crime prevention is unarguable. I am glad to say that my party and its predecessor party has placed

Column 1001

the prevention of crime at the heart of the debate on law and order for almost a decade. We recommended neighbourhood watch, crime prevention panels and local authority action as long ago as 1985, when those ideas were popularly regarded as marginal to the problem of crime. Indeed, to some extent, Home Office Ministers regard them as marginal even today.

The marginality in the Government's attitude was demonstrated even this afternoon by the Home Secretary in his remarks on Sheehy. In the last paragraph of his statement, when he was speaking about the possible benefits that would flow from more efficient structures, he said :

"That could mean more work on crime prevention."

That does not suggest that there is any serious commitment to use additional resources for what is plainly the most effective step that can be taken to tackle the problem.

I do not wish to be unfair to the Government. They have shown some recognition of the relevance and potential of crime prevention.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle) : I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman saya moment ago that he was against greater centralisation. Surely, then, it is up to chief officers to decide how to deploy their resources.

Mr. Maclennan : I am sure that when the Minister speaks in the debate he will tell us what the Government are doing. It is my purpose to show that they should be doing substantially more. No doubt the police will think it appropriate to deploy their resources effectively in crime prevention. But the success of crime prevention schemes depends on pulling together private voluntary agencies, local authorities and the police, and on the Government monitoring the work, promoting best practice and putting money into schemes in which they have seen value in the past yet to which they now show less commitment than they should.

I take one example. The safer cities programme was initiated in 1988. The locally managed schemes have had a good and successful run. I am sorry to see them progressively strangled by lack of funds. We have been told that the projects are temporary. I have to tell the Minister that crime, and crime under Conservative Governments, is not temporary. The need for crime prevention does not lessen simply because the Home Office has decided not to invest in it any further. I hope that the Minister will assure the House today that the safer cities programme will not only be continued indefinitely but be expanded. The Minister should not be too preoccupied with the balance sheet, because crime prevention is a blue-chip investment. The cost in policing, court time, legal aid and custodial and community sentencing incurred by a single crime far outweighs the cost of preventing that crime from occurring in the first place.

Despite initiatives such as the safer cities programme, the Government's commitment to crime prevention deserves only two cheers. Last year the Home Office spent £15.7 million on specific crime prevention measures out of a total criminal justice bill of some £8.7 billion. That imbalance reveals the Government's true priorities. Crime prevention remains at the bottom of the list. It is almost an afterthought.

Column 1002

Of course, crime prevention does not deliver the headlines that the Government wish to achieve. "Bang 'em up" is far more appealing than "Practical partnerships work".

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham) : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some crimes cannot be prevented and some criminals cannot be deterred? We have to do something with that residue of hard-core criminals. I put it to him that the only way to deal effectively with them is, as he puts it, to "bang them up".

Mr. Maclennan : I agree with the hon. Gentleman without cavil or qualification, as I shall make plain.

Mr. John Sykes (Scarborough) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan : No. This is a short debate and I have already given way many times.

The Home Office's own research has estimated that prison sentencing would need to increase by 25 per cent. to reduce crime by about 1 per cent. The cost involved in building and maintaining the new prisons that would be needed is out of all proportion to their value. To my mind, the public get the biggest bang for their buck from crime prevention. It is preferable to ever greater expenditure on prisons which have little discernible effect on the actual levels of crime.

Mr. John Ward (Poole) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan : I must make it plain to the hon. Gentleman and the House that I do not intend to give way again. This is a two-hour debate and it is a rare opportunity to discuss the issue. I do not wish to delay the House.

The Government give the appearance that they tailor their policy rather more to the needs of the party coen to every community, to curtail crime. One example will be well within the recollection of Conservative Members. The joyriders legislation was a crisis measure rushed through the House in a frenzy. It grabbed some headlines. In my discussions with the police they have told me that the legislation has been far from effective. I doubt whether a single joyrider has been deterred by it.

Crime Concern, a charitable body partly funded by the Home Office, has operated so-called motor projects for young people to divert them from joyriding and from crime. Crime Concern has claimed a 98 per cent. success rate in preventing joyriders from reoffending. The contrast between the two approaches of the Home Office--both are favoured by the Home Office--is striking.

I bow to no one in my determination to punish serious criminals with an appropriate time in prison. However, I will not be diverted from my belief that prevention is better and more reliable than cure. The Minister must accept the disproportion between the great costs and the small benefits of imprisoning even the most minor offenders. Is not it better and cheaper to keep people out when there are better ways to protect society from their crimes and, ideally, to prevent those crimes from being committed in the first place?

Column 1003

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan : I regret that the hon. Gentleman is deaf. Two specific types of crime in respect of which crime prevention has an important role to play are domestic violence and racial violence. Some people believe that crime prevention is little more than an attempt to put locks on doors and seek to elevate that into great public service. I admit that it can sometimes look like that. However, even if that were true, it would not be wholly unacceptable. Good locks can prevent crime and leave households intact and the police free to do other things.

I believe that crime prevention has great relevance to violent crime. The degree of violence in our society has risen steadily over several decades. Every year we expect the level of violent crime to remain at best static ; if it rises one year, we adjust ourselves to that level and expect it to do the same in future. As Edmund Burke once said,

"Custom reconciles us to everything."

We reserve the harshest penalties and the most condemnation for violent offenders, and that is right. However, the existence of such penalties and the high clear-up rates associated with violent crimes do not appear to me- -and, I suspect, to Conservative Members, some of whom have intervened today--to constitute a sufficient deterrent to potential offenders.

The commandment that is most observed in this matter is "Thou should not get caught." That is particularly true in cases of domestic violence. We have moved a long way with regard to our acceptance of the seriousness of domestic violence. Wife-beating remained legal until 100 years ago. However, we have not gone far enough. It may be a crime that takes place between intimates, but it is violence and it must be treated with the seriousness that it deserves.

Research conducted by a number of sources, most recently by Manchester university, revealed two significant facts about domestic and racial violence. The first was the extent to which they are under-reported. One in 35 domestic assaults and only six in 10 racial assaults are reported to the police ; even fewer are recorded as crimes and investigated further.

Mr. Streeter : What is the hon. Gentleman's policy?

Mr. Maclennan : I am coming to that. I want the House to accept the fact that both domestic and racial attacks tend to be repeated within short periods. The majority of recorded offences are associated with relatively few victims and offenders. That is where prevention has a role.

The evidence suggests that once an offence is reported to the police, another is likely to follow soon after. Our responsibility is to break that pattern. The Government have failed in their duty to support the victims of domestic and racial violence. As long ago as 1975, a Select Committee recommended that there should be three times as many women's refuges in this country as there are today. That is a manifest failure of commitment.

The Law Society has drafted a Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill which would allow the courts to make an ex parte exclusion order against a violent partner or ex-partner if that is in the interests of the victim. The Government have not yet stated their position on that and

Column 1004

I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate to tell us the direction in which his mind is moving. The law needs to be amended.

The police have an immensely important part to play in preventing crimes of violence, as in other respects. The police have made considerable strides in that regard. For example, a police officer in south Yorkshire constructed on his kitchen table devices for recording attacks in the home on video and audio tape. Those devices are installed at the invitation of a victim where a repeat offence is expected. The victim feels more secure as a result of those devices and the police can gather valuable first-hand evidence. Devices like that, and the devices which were used to catch people who abused the owner of a Chinese takeaway on an almost nightly basis, are immensely important to help prevent crimes of violence and other crimes. As I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion fairly speedily, I want now to consider racial violence. The Government have attempted a partnership approach. I believe that that is the key to preventing racial violence. There must be a good working relationship of mutual support and interest between the vulnerable communities, the police and the local authorities. The law provides for the eviction of council and housing association tenants who racially harass or attack their neighbours. However, it provides for such offences to be dealt with without reference to race as an aggravating factor. The law is not being enforced to its full potential because we do not have a systematic approach to the problem.

I put it to the Minister that there should be specialist officers in police stations with the sole responsibility for collating the details of every suspected racial incident in an area and for analysing those details and recommending a strategy to the senior commanding officer. That would enable the police to identify immediately the patterns of offending and allow them and the local community to be prepared for the next incident.

I am aware that many hon. Members want to participate in this short debate and that there are many aspects of the problems and possibilities in relation to crime prevention that I cannot possibly cover. If my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is fortunate enough to catch your eye at the end of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will address a number of the specific issues referred to in the motion on which I have not touched.

We all recognise that there are no easy answers to crime. The problem is complex and varied, and so must be our policies to tackle it. A policy of severe punishment has its place and is not incompatible with a policy of strong commitment to crime prevention ; indeed, the one can enhance the other. However, we are in danger--this point was brought home to us in the Home Secretary's speech to the Conservative party conference--of moving towards a more unbalanced, single-track policy. Crime prevention is not an additional or optional add-on. It is a vital component of a successful law and order policy.

5.17 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle) : I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof :

"commends the Government's determination to tackle crime through a broad range of measures aimed at preventing crime, punishing offenders and helping the victims of crime ; recognises

Column 1005

that government support of crime prevention takes many forms, including support of the police and support through the programmes of several government departments ; believes that the key to preventing crime lies in partnership between the police, other agencies and the public ; and applauds the work being done by this Government to promote and support partnership at both local and national levels." I welcome the opportunity of today's debate. There can be no doubt about the scale of the challenge that we face in tackling crime. Recorded crime has increased in every decade since the second world war. People are understandably concerned. That is why the Government's first duty is to protect the public and that is why law and order is at the top of our agenda.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised a number of points and I am pleased to say that I will be able to respond to several of them. However, I am bound to remind him that some of his statistics were wrong. The incidence of violent crime has remained at around 5 per cent. of the total of reported crimes for the best part of the past five years. I am sure that the House will recall that crimes involving firearms represent about one fifth of 1 per cent. of recorded crime.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to sentencing. Sentencing must be a matter for the courts and the courts must decide whether a custodial sentence is appropriate. He also referred to racial violence. He will recall from our long debates earlier this year in Standing Committee on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill that we agree that racial violence and racial prejudice are to be abhorred. However, I did not hear him say during those debates that it was important, as the Government believe it to be important, to maintain firm but fair immigration controls as a fundamental principle in ensuring good race relations in this country.

I cannot resist reminding the House that, in March, the hon. Gentleman issued a press release--he has claimed credit for his party on several crime prevention initiatives--about local authority crime prevention schemes. He also spoke of increased public awareness of crime prevention in Alnwick, but he omitted to mention that the lead in crime prevention in Alnwick came not from his party but from a £2.3 million Department of the Environment-funded renovation scheme.

Mr. Maclennan : I happen to have a copy of that press release with me. Nothing in it suggests that crime prevention schemes are being promulgated only by Liberal Democrat authorities. Happily, they are being pursued by several authorities in which the Liberal Democrats are represented. The impression was never given and it was certainly never intended that it was only Liberal Democrat authorities, although it is undoubtedly the case that they are taking a lead.

Mr. Wardle : The press release did not mention the Department of the Environment scheme, but the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification.

Last week, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a speech about law and order. That does not happen often, so I read his speech very carefully. It was flawed from start to finish. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that the criminal justice system was irrelevant in the fight against crime. That must be nonsense. We need action to make sure that all elements of the criminal justice system work better. That is why the Government are taking action to prevent crime, to do all that we can to help the police to catch more criminals--too

Column 1006

many criminals are never caught--to ensure that fewer criminals are cautioned--too many criminals are cautioned and not prosecuted--to ensure that criminals are tried fairly and quickly, and to ensure that those who are found guilty are punished appropriately. Those are exactly the powers that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is addressing. That is why we are taking action across the board. We intend to tilt the balance against the criminal and in favour of the victim.

Mr. Sykes : Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments about the Liberal Democrats, he might be interested to hear of a feature that I received from the Scarborough district housing forum. The politically correct and liberal tendency is well represented. The forum recently heard a lecture from the probation service and the minutes state : "The Probation Service explained that the Scarborough area was piloting a scheme for their clients which could hopefully be extended to include other vulnerable people."

Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in Scarborough would regard such people not as vulnerable, but, rather, the kind of people who would take a crowbar to an old lady's head in order to rob her of all her savings and all her life's treasures?

Mr. Wardle : My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make it clear that society should unequivocally condemn criminals. I am sure that he will agree that much hard work is done by many honourable members of the probation service.

The right hon. Member for Yeovil does not seem to understand that an efficient and effective system of criminal justice with tough punishments forms an essential part of preventing crime. No other Government have taken crime prevention more seriously. Listening to the Opposition parties and to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, one would think that they have been pushing us all the way. The hon. Gentleman talked of Crime Concern as though his party should claim credit for it. He talked in the same vein about neighbourhood watch.

Of course, the Government are the largest funder of Crime Concern. The Government set up Crime Concern and they continue to support it in that fashion. The Government backed the police with neighbourhood watch. When neighbourhood watch was set up, some Labour councils refused to co-operate. There are now 115,000 neighbourhood watch schemes throughout the country. We have had car crime prevention year, the safer cities programme, parish constables and the creation of the National Board for Crime Prevention. All those ideas were developed and taken forward by the Government.

The most telling feature of the hon. Gentleman's interest in crime prevention has been his party's voting record on law and order legislation. They voted against the Public Order Act 1986, against the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I believe that I am right in saying that, this year, only seven members of his party voted for the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale) : The Minister mentioned safer cities projects. Will he guarantee that no further funds will be cut from safer cities projects?

Mr. Wardle : The hon. Lady should realise--it is already in the public domain--that, in addition to the 20 safer cities projects that have already been run, we intend

Column 1007

to have a further 40 safer cities projects. It was made clear from the outset that those safer cities projects would run and that they would prompt and stimulate local investment, local partnerships and local involvement and would then move on. The hon. Lady talks as though one should continue to repeat the same investment. Does she expect us, having put locks on doors on an estate one year, to spend taxpayer's money, undo those locks and put them back again? I shall return to safer cities in a moment.

Partnership is fundamental to successful crime prevention. It involves all of us--that is, the Government, the police, local authorities, local groups, local businesses and the man or woman in the street--in the fight against crime. We all have a part to play in preventing crime from happening in the first place.

Mr. Ward : Does my hon. Friend agree that, in respect of crime prevention, it is what people do rather than what they say that matters? Does my hon. Friend agree also that television surveillance has a useful part to play in crime prevention? In Poole, backed by the police, the Conservative group wants television surveillance of an area in town to protect the lives and the property of people in Poole high street. The Liberal Democrat council is more concerned with a potential interference with civil liberties. It is ignoring the civil liberties of those who want to go about their work and their play in the centre of the town in safety. Is not that hypocrisy?

Mr. Wardle : My hon. Friend is absolutely right and Conservative councillors in his constituency are right. Throughout the country there is a growing number of examples of success with closed circuit television. That form of surveillance adds security and a feeling of safety and it also adds to watchfulness against crime.

I believe that the first duty of any Government is to protect the public and maintain law and order and to provide the police and the courts with the powers that they need to catch and punish offenders so that the public are protected. The Government have acted decisively to respond to concern about crime. This month, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced a comprehensive programme of action to crack down on crime and the criminal. As the House will be aware, he announced 27 new measures covering all aspects of the fight against crime.

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : If the Minister is going to refer to the empty promises that were made by the Home Secretary in his speech to the Conservative party conference, I should be grateful if he would give simple answers to questions which have not been answered. When will he keep those promises? How much money will be provided? Where is the detail? The Minister has answered none of those questions because the matter has not been thought out.

Mr. Wardle : The hon. Gentleman knows that we are approaching prorogation. He understands parliamentary procedure, he knows that the House will reconvene, he knows that there will be a state opening of Parliament, and he knows that there will be a Queen's Speech. My advice to him is to listen carefully to the Queen's Speech. No doubt he will learn more to his and to the country's advantage.

Column 1008

I shall briefly remind the House of some of the measures that we have announced.

Mr. Maclennan : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wardle : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little progress, but of course I give way. He knows that my good will is reasonably limitless. I shall give way to him once more and I hope that his colleagues will allow me to make progress.

Mr. Maclennan : I apprehended that the Minister was about to leave the subject of crime prevention. Does he really think that it is defensible that the Government should spend on specific crime prevention measures a mere £15.2 million out of a total criminal justice budget of £8.6 billion?

Mr. Wardle : I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter. I can assure him that I intend to explode that myth shortly-- nothing will give me greater satisfaction.

I have referred to further powers for the police and the courts to tackle offending on bail. We will impose tougher sentences for offenders. We will double the maximum sentence in young offenders institutions to two years. New guidelines will be provided to tighten the use of cautioning by the police. There will be acceptance of all the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which was directed at the Government to help victims of crime. We will abolish the right of silence. The Government are determined to help the police in their job of catching criminals.

This afternoon, the House heard my right hon. and learned Friend announce his decisions on the Sheehy report--a report to the Government, not a report by the Government. Those decisions are a demonstration of the Government's commitment to support the police in their vital work.

But that is by no means all that we are doing. As my right hon. and learned Friend announced this month, we are scrapping the restrictions on the use of DNA samples and reducing the paperwork burden on the police to free more officers for operational duty. The police need have no doubts about the continuing commitment of the Government to support their work.

We are determined to make life tougher for persistent offenders and hardened criminals. We make absolutely no apology for that. But it has been suggested by Liberal Democrat Members that, in doing so, we are neglecting or abandoning efforts to prevent crime and tackle criminality at its roots. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply do not agree that being tough on crime and preventing crime through partnership must in some way be regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives. They are not. The Government remain totally committed to crime prevention and partnership.

Before I outline the action that we are taking, I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is completely misleading to suggest that less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of expenditure on the criminal justice system goes on crime prevention. In 1991-92 public expenditure on the criminal justice system in England and Wales was £8,700 million. During that year, over £5,400 million of that sum--62 per cent.--was expenditure on the police.

Column 1009

What are the core functions of the police? We should look at the Police Service Statement of Common Purpose and Values. I quote the opening sentence :

"The purpose of the Police Service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly ; to prevent crime ; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law ;"

The prevention of crime is one of the key functions of the police. In 1992- 93, estimated expenditure on the police increased to £5,900 million. That is an increase in real terms of 83 per cent. since 1978-79. Therefore, it is nonsense to suggest that Government spending on crime prevention is insignificant. Nor does it make sense to look only at expenditure on the criminal justice system. We have estimated separately that other expenditure on crime prevention across Government Departments was £200 million in 1992-93, compared with £167 million in the previous year. That is an increase of about 20 per cent.

If we look at Government spending on the inner cities on a wider front, we find that, taken together, expenditure on the Government's city challenge and urban programmes will increase from £319 million in 1992-93 to £408 million in the current financial year. Those programmes include crime prevention and community safety elements and provide significant additional benefits for inner city residents. So the repeated suggestion by Liberal Democrat Members that Government expenditure on crime prevention amounts to less than £20 million is both inaccurate and misleading. It is irresponsible and alarmist to understate the real extent of Government expenditure on crime prevention. In doing so, hon. Members merely underline the paucity of their contribution to the challenge of tackling crime. I shall return to the subject of partnership and crime prevention. Our partnership strategy has many strands to it.

Next Section

Home Page