| Home Page |
Column 327
Points of Order
3.30 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for the Environment launched a consultation document about the future of London, entitled "Making the Best Better". As a London Member whose constituents have suffered, and continue to suffer, from the Government's inability to create a present for this capital city, with rates of unemployment higher than the national and European average, 9,000 small businesses failing last year and crime and homelessness rates increasing, I awaited my copy of the document with no small interest. I have not received such a copy.
Is it not disgraceful that, yet again, the Executive announce their decision to the press but fail to inform the House?
Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker : Does it relate to this point of order?
Madam Speaker : In that case, let me answer the hon. Lady's point of order. So far as I am aware, no new policy has been announced to the public. [ Hon. Members :-- "Oh."] Order. The hon. Lady has asked me for a response to this. No new policy has been announced. It is, I believe, as she says herself, a consultation document. Perhaps the hon. Lady would ask the Secretary of State--it will no doubt be relayed to him--for copies of his document, or perhaps he could make it available in the Library so that we might all see what he has to say.
Mr. Riddick : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I imagine that you will be aware that, last night, the Liberal Democrats used a device in the House to stop my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales from making his speech at the end of the debate on local government in Wales and Scotland. That follows hard on the heels of similar--indeed, worse--tactics of disruption that were perpetrated by the official Labour Opposition three weeks ago, at the tail end of the last Session of Parliament.
Is there anything that you can do to put a stop to those tactics of disruption? Are you able to tell us the outcome of the inquiry that you carried out into those tactics of three weeks ago?
Madam Speaker : I was certainly aware of what happened last night. Indeed, I have gone through Hansard, and I found that yesterday, a number of Members who
Column 328
wished to speak were disappointed because speeches took so long. Therefore, I was not able to call a number of Members who had a right to speak. The tactic, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, of last night, of saying, "I spy strangers," is perfectly legitimate. The hon. Gentleman may not like it--some other Members may not like it--but it is a perfectly legitimate procedure. I must say that I was disappointed myself, because I know that the House had been waiting for the Secretary of State's statement, and he had, in one minute, to rush it through very rapidly--a statement for which the House had been waiting for quite some time.Mr. David Shaw (Dover) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been suggested that the House survives on a degree of hot air. Can you use your good offices to discover why there is no hot air wafting its way to the Norman Shaw buildings, where our staff are suffering considerable cold? In September, the heating system is not turned on and it is extremely cold ; in October, the heating is turned on and it is too hot ; now, in November, our staff are suffering from inadequate heating in the building.
Madam Speaker : I take my job very seriously, but the hon. Gentleman need not have wasted time on the Floor of the House with such a matter ; he could have gone directly to the relevant committee. However, I take my job as porter, caretaker, or whatever it may be, seriously, and I shall make the inquiries for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In connection with your inquiry into disturbances in the House, will you tell us whether you are considering the appointment of lady Serjeants at Arms, who would be able to root out the Opposition lady Members who hide in the gentlemen's lavatories in order to disrupt the proceedings of the Chamber?
Madam Speaker : So far as I am aware, there are no vacancies in the Serjeant at Arms' Department at the moment.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you tell us when we are likely to learn the outcome of your inquiry into the tactics used by the Opposition in the House three weeks ago?
Madam Speaker : If the hon. Gentleman reads carefully the Hansard report of that day, he will see that I said that I was making my own inquiries. I have done that, and I have received the necessary assurances for which I asked at the time. I shall take matters into my own hands in future.
Column 329
Orders of the Day
Debate on the Address
[Fourth Day]
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows :-- Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.-- [Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.]
Question again proposed.
Home Affairs and Education
3.36 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard) : The Gracious Speech includes three Home Office Bills. Two--the Police Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill--will play a key role in our fight against crime. The third measure--the Sunday Trading Bill--is intended to clear up once and for all the question of Sunday opening. I hope that the House will have an early opportunity to debate that measure in full and to reach a decision that will put the law on a satisfactory basis.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Has my right hon. and learned Friend had an opportunity to see the item in today's Financial Times , in which it is made clear that Sainsbury's link promotion to the willingness of staff to work on Sundays? Does that not negate the Government's promise to shop workers that working on Sundays will continue to be voluntary for all staff, both those already employed and those who will be employed in the future? Mr. Howard rose --
Madam Speaker : If the Secretary of State will forgive me, I should like to make a short announcement that I had forgotten to make. So many Members seek to speak today that I have had to limit speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock to 10 minutes. I hope that those speaking outside those limits will also consider the other hon. Members who wish to speak and will make short speeches if possible. That did not happen yesterday.
Mr. Howard : If my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) studies schedule 4 to the Bill with great care, as I know she will, she will find that it provides the answer to the question that she asked on the basis of the report.
When I became Home Secretary, I said that we must reject the view that we are helpless in the face of rising crime. In October, I set out the most comprehensive law and order package ever announced by a Home Secretary. Today, I want to explain how the measures that I propose fit into our overall strategy to fight crime.
I have always said that we need to take action right across the board. It is no good simply concentrating on one area alone. We must do all we can to prevent crime, to
Column 330
catch criminals, to ensure fair justice and to give courts the power they need to pass appropriate sentences. The measures in the Police Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill will help us in all four respects.The police response to my proposals has been very encouraging. The Association of Chief Police Officers has said that the proposals would
"help to redress the balance in favour of justice for victims, witnesses and the mass of law-abiding citizens".
The Police Federation said unequivocally that my proposals would "help tremendously in the fight against crime".
What a contrast is the reaction of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has, characteristically, uttered a torrent of words but, equally characteristically, his words are totally hollow. The hon. Gentleman is prepared to pronounce on everything except my proposals, ducking and weaving as he attempts to avoid committing himself to being in favour or not in favour of any of my 27 points. Finding the Labour party's policies is as difficult as finding Michael Jackson, but I can say that it will take a good deal longer to detoxify Labour's policies when and if they are ever found.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield seems bent on squeezing every ounce of advantage from the right to silence before we finally deal with it, but I must caution him. Everything that he says will be used in evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming that the hon. Gentleman has not the faintest idea of what he would or would not do if he had any responsibility for these matters.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)-- [Interruption.] One cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to be present for a debate on a subject as unimportant as law and order. The right hon. Gentleman said that reforming the criminal justice system was irrelevant to tackling crime. What on earth does he mean--tackling offending on bail ; ending cautions as a substitute for prosecution for serious offences ; dealing with the so- called right to silence that is abused by terrorists and hardened criminals?
The right hon. Gentleman may think that those matters are irrelevant, but I can tell him that the police and the victims of crime do not agree with him, and nor do we. Yet again, when it comes to the vital national debate about crime, the Liberal Democrats remain true to their long tradition of utter irrelevance.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that whether the reform of the criminal justice system is relevant depends upon the content of the reforms? The 64 Bills already passed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government have shown them to be singularly inept.
Mr. Howard : I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to pay rather closer attention to the words of the leader of his party. The press release on 25 October by the right hon. Member for Yeovil made the point that any reform of the criminal justice system was irrelevant. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the press releases emanating from his party, he will see that my comments were entirely justified.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : We are all trying to understand the Home Secretary's thinking. Would he
Column 331
regard it as a reasonable defence if some thug explained in court that his crime of violence was caused because his grandmother was lonely during the war?Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman seems determined to trivialise a serious debate. I do not propose to descend to his level of triviality : I propose to deal with the real issues as they arise. I shall take the main elements of my strategy in turn. The first of them is preventing crime, and this Government put crime prevention on the map. We set up and funded Crime Concern, which levers in private sector money for crime prevention schemes. We encouraged neighbourhood watch schemes, which now cover more than 5 million households. We are doubling the number of safer city projects, providing better security for housing estates, improved street lighting and more secure car parks.
There are many things that can be done, and under the Government they are being done. We are spending £200 million across Whitehall on all aspects of crime prevention, and that figure excludes what the police spend. Crime prevention, is a natural and continuing ingredient in the work of almost every police officer, whatever else the police are engaged in. The patrolling officer who tests the lock on a door is engaged as much on crime prevention as on anything else, and let us not forget the money that the private sector invests in crime prevention. That runs to billions of pounds.
We must also tackle the menace of drugs, which is a factor in a great deal of crime. That is why we have 20 drugs prevention teams across the country to prevent the spread of drugs misuse, and why we have legislated to seize the profits of the drugs barons.
Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : On the question of drugs, has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the report in today's issue of The Sun that yet another major prosecution for drugs offences has collapsed because the defence wished to know the names of the informants? What action does my right hon. and learned Friend propose to deal with that?
Mr. Howard : My hon. Friend identifies a very serious problem, which was carefully considered by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The commission made certain proposals, and we are considering them very carefully. I assure my hon. Friend that I am entirely sympathetic to the point he raises, and I am determined to take action to deal with it.
We will do everything we can to prevent crime, but no society has ever managed to eradicate it. That is why we need to do more to catch and punish criminals. The main responsibility for crime detention will always lie with the police.
One of my recent critics had some interesting things to say about that. He said that the police should be weaned off the silly, old-fashioned idea that their main job was detecting crime and catching criminals--"the canteen culture", he called it derisively. Now, apparently, I have come along and ruined everything. The boys in blue are starting to go back to the bad old days, when they enjoyed nothing so much as feeling collars. To those coppers in their canteens who see their main job as clearing villains off the street, I have a simple message : "Carry on, constable : I will back you all the way."
Column 332
My job is to sweep away the obstacles that stop the police getting on with the job of clearing up crimes and arresting criminals. That is why, under our Police Bill, I will set key objectives for the police service. I want to give the police a clearer focus for their work. That is why I have accepted all the proposals of the inquiry to cut police paperwork, which will free as many as 2,300 police officers for front-line work. That is why we must give the police the modern equipment and technology that they need to beat the modern criminal.Next year, the national collection of criminal records will be computerised, and the police national network will also be in place, saving up to £100 million over 10 years. Next year too, if Parliament approves, wider DNA profiling will be available to help the police to catch criminals.
The police do a difficult and dangerous job, frequently putting their own lives at risk to help others. We need to make sure that they have all the protection that we can give them. When I became Home Secretary, the police asked to undertake trials of a new expandable side-handled baton, which could give police officers better protection. I said that they could go ahead, subject to scientific evaluation. I can announce today that that evaluation has now been successfully completed, and that trials of the side -handled baton will go ahead as soon as possible in many parts of the country, including London.
We also need to make sure that the police service is managed efficiently, and that police officers are rewarded properly. That is why my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, set up the Sheehy inquiry. The reaction of the hon. Member for Sedgefield to the Sheehy report told us a lot about Labour Members. It would not be quite right to say they do not have a policy towards the Sheehy report ; in fact, they have four.
When the Sheehy inquiry was announced, the hon. Member for Sedgefield welcomed it, saying that it
"may come out with sensible reforms".
When it was published, he said that it was entirely right for me to consult about its contents. No sooner had I started consulted and listening than he said we should scrap it altogether. Writing in the Daily Express, as he frequently does, he said that the slate should be
"cleaned of these unnecessary matters".
Then, when I announced my conclusions, he simply could not bring himself to say whether he agreed with them or not.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield's counterpart in another place had no such difficulty. At the very moment when the hon. Gentleman was engaging in one of his rambling responses in this House, the noble Lord McIntosh took quite a different line :
"our fundamental reaction it is in fact a very welcome basis for future discussion of the way forward for the police service."--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 1993 ; Vol. 549, c. 943-4.]
The hon. Gentleman could not bring himself to say that. We know what happened to one Labour spokesman--Lord Desai--when he disagreed with his party's policy on value added tax. When the Leader of the Opposition finally noticed what had happened, Lord Desai got the sack. On this occasion, if there were any justice in the world, it would not be Lord McIntosh who got the sack but the hon. Member for Sedgefield.
Column 333
The fact is that Lord McIntosh was right to welcome my statement. It was good for the police, good for the taxpayer and good for the public. They want the most effective police force possible, and that is exactly what they will get.Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : In the spirit of not adding to the burdens of the police, will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider the proposal in the Queen's Speech to make ticket touting a crime? Does he agree that we are in danger of scapegoating touts for more serious crimes, such as ticket forgery or failing to manage football grounds properly, which are not rightly the responsibility of people who happen to be selling a few tickets outside the grounds?
Mr. Howard : It pains me to disagree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps her disappointment will be lessened when I assure her that the police have supported the proposal to which she takes exception. I do not think that she need worry too much about additional police burdens in that context.
The Police Bill will also help to build the close partnership between police and public that we need to fight crime effectively. It will give us strengthened police authorities, working with their local police to respond to local needs. All our police reforms are directed towards one goal : ensuring that we have the most professional and effective police service possible. The British police are the best in the world, and I want things to stay that way.
Nothing saps police morale and public confidence more than breakdowns in the criminal justice system. The need for reform is widely accepted. Our approach to the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice is to follow up its 352 recommendations as quickly and carefully as we can. We are looking at the report as a whole, but some proposals can be taken forward sooner than others. I intend to deal with those matters--including almost all the proposals that I announced in Blackpool on 6 October--in the legislation planned for the current Session.
Some action does not need legislation--for instance, cautioning. At present, there is too much of it. A recent survey commissioned by General Accident found that 60 per cent. of those aged between 13 and 17 thought that offenders committed crime because they believed that they could get off with a caution. It take that very seriously ; we need to put a stop to cautioning for serious offenders and repeat cautions, save in the most exceptional circumstances. That is what the new guidance will achieve.
Of the 27 measures that I announced in Blackpool, 18 that require legislation will be dealt with in the Criminal Justice Bill. We will take action to crack down on the widespread abuse of bail. About 50, 000 offences are committed by people on bail every year, and more than 40,000 people breach police bail. We will reform juries by banning those on bail from serving on them : no one wants someone on a jury one week and in the dock the next. We will introduce a new offence of witness intimidation, and allow retrials to take place if juries have been nobbled.
We will also deal with the so-called right to silence. That does not mean that those cautioned by the police must answer questions, but it does mean that their refusal to do so can be taken into account in a court of law. When the commission's report was published, the hon. Member for Sedgefield said that he supported retaining the right to silence. Why? After all :
"No one has anything to fear from being asked reasonable questions about where they were."
Column 334
Those are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), a shadow Cabinet colleague of the hon. Member for Sedgefield.Does the hon. Member for Sedgefield agree with his colleague? I think it is about time we were told. I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to lay any doubts to rest. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is continuing to take advantage of the right to silence ; we will let him do so for as long as he can.
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) rose--
Mr. Howard : I see that there is a bolder spirit on the Opposition Back Benches.
Mr. Grocott : Perhaps, during the few remaining minutes in which the Home Secretary's words are transmitted live on television, he will answer the question that the public outside are asking. It is not the question with which he has been dealing so far : as usual, his speech has simply been part of his leadership bid.
Will the Home Secretary answer a very simple question? Why has crime rocketed under his Government, and why have all his attempts--and those of his predecessors--to reduce the level of crime been so hopelessly inadequate?
Mr. Howard : The House will have noticed that even the prospect of television could not bring the hon. Member for Sedgefield to his feet to address the question of the right to silence.
The hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) asks about the measures that have been taken by the Government over the past 14 years. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman about the past 14 years. The Government have been passing measures to increase the powers of the courts and the police, and the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have voted against every one. We shall not take any cackle from Opposition Members, because during the past 14 years they have attempted to thwart every measure that we have taken to deal with those matters.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Has the Home Secretary considered getting rid of remission, rehabilitation and parole? If somebody is sentenced to ten years imprisonment, let them serve it. If they misbehave, give them extra years, and if there is no room in the prisons, why not open up the army camps to keep prisoners under lock and key so that they cannot burgle our homes and break into our cars? Then we shall begin getting to grips with law and order.
Mr. Howard : My hon. Friend's point chimes perfectly with that of the hon. Member for the Wrekin. One of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which the Labour party voted against, was to increase the proportion of the prison sentence that the people detained there served. We wanted to increase the time spent by people in prison, and the Labour party voted against it and have voted against every measure that we have taken over the past 14 years. Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) rose--
Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman who rises to ask a question was present during the entire 14-year period and went into the division Lobby on every occasion to vote against those measures.
Column 335
Mr. Soley : That is precisely the point that I wanted to put to the Home Secretary. In answering my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, he still has not told us why all the policies have failed, which is why we voted against them.
More importantly, why is the Home Secretary now bringing forward legislation that asks us to overturn many of the Acts that the Government have introduced, such as parts of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which I and other Opposition Members warned him would be bad for police efficiency, without doing anything to improve the accountability of the police, as the Government said that they wanted to do? Why throw that Government Act out now?
Mr. Howard : I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to misrepresent matters by suggesting that he was in favour of any of the tough measures we took, or that he voted against any of the measures that we have again considered.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. It does not amount to opposition to those measures, to say as the hon. Gentleman has consistently said, that the police should be under the control of local authorities. If he thinks that that would have produced more effective policing, he stands alone in the country on that issue. Mr. Don Foster (Bath) rose --
Mr. Howard : I am coming to the Liberal Democrats, and shall give way when I have said a word or two about them.
We should be told about the attitude of the Liberal Democrats to the proposal to deal with the right to silence. Last week on Channel 4 news, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) took the place of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who was not allowed out on that day. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye affected outrage that I was not proposing to follow instantly and unquestioningly the majority recommendation of the royal commission. "What an outrageous way" for a Home Secretary to behave, he said.
What a revealing comment. The Liberal Democrats have joined The Guardian in the anti-democratic league. How outrageous, they say, for democratically elected politicians to take decisions. They urge that the responsibility should be given to others such as the royal commissioners and civil servants--to anyone but those who stand directly accountabe to the people.
We will have no truck with such drivel. We shall listen, but in the end it is for Ministers accountable to this House and to the people of this country to decide.
Mr. Don Foster : A minute ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to misrepresentation. Will he confirm that he referred earlier to a press release issued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and, in effect, claimed that my right hon. Friend had said that the reform of the criminal justice system was an irrelevance in the fight against crime? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirms that, will he tell the House to which press release he was referring?
Will he now reflect on the words actually used by my right hon. Friend :
"the criminal justice system is quite clearly not reducing crime--and it has not been reducing crime for the last twenty years"?
Column 336
In particular, my right hon. Friend was referring to the rise of 120 per cent. in the level of crime during this Government's administration.Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman should have turned over the page of his leader's press release. He would then have seen the words : "The extent of crime completely dwarfs the capacity of the criminal justice system to deal with it."
If that is not saying that the criminal justice system is irrelevant in dealing with crime, I do not know what is. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at the whole of his right hon. Friend's press release, he would realise that it entirely supports my point.
Mr. Foster : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to mislead the House as he has just done?
Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman should understand that the Secretary of State is not deliberately misleading the House. All hon. Members, Ministers and Secretaries of State are responsible for the comments they make. That is part of what robust debate is about. I hope that there will be an opportunity to call the hon. Gentleman or his party's spokesman, who can then rebut remarks as he wishes. d I am sure that it will not be the last.
It is not enough to catch criminals if the courts do not have the powers they need to punish them effectively. Many of my measures will help the police to catch more criminals. I hope that they will have the support of everyone in the House. Other measures will enable the courts to convict more criminals, and I hope that they, too, will have the support of every hon. Member.
Some of those caught and convicted will be sent to prison--not by me, not by the Government, but by the judges and magistrates whose task it is to pass the appropriate sentence upon them. That is why I said in my speech at Blackpool that I am not prepared to judge the success of our policies by how much the prison population falls.
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) : My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that for too long there has been a presumption that magistrates will not send people to prison. Will he assure the House that that presumption is now for the birds, and that in future magistrates will be allowed to use their powers rather than have them constrained?
| Next Section
| Home Page |