| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Howard: We did indeed hear a powerful speech from the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), in which he said that the cause of the difficulties faced by his constituents was that no one was prepared to come forward to give evidence of those difficulties. How can anything that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) suggests have any effect in the absence of evidence? What is he suggesting? Is he suggesting some magical new change in the law that will enable people to be convicted without any evidence?
Mr. Straw: I am delighted that I gave way to the Home Secretary, because his question showed complete incomprehension of the scale of the problem.
The Home Secretary sought to condemn our proposals for dealing with the problem before reading a single word of those proposals. Of course persuading witnesses to give evidence is a major problem; that is why we have built on the way in which Labour-controlled Coventry city council handled that problem. Rather than relying on individual neighbours who have suffered or been intimidated in silence, we make use of professional witnesses employed by the local authority.[Interruption.]
The Home Secretary clearly considers this a laughing matter. The whole country will be delighted to learn that he believes that the problem of criminal, anti-social neighbours is a laughing matter. People do not consider it so in Coventry, Falkirk and Blackburn--and I bet that they do not in Folkestone, either. What they recognise is that the Home Secretary simply does not appreciate the scale of the problem that is affecting the country.
We have proposed a new community safety order with tough penalties for a breach of that order. We have proposed more effective witness protection, and special measures to deal with racial harassment. Labour's plans have been welcomed by local authorities, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Police Superintendents Association and many others, and a consensus could easily be reached on them. However, we have heard not a word of support or even comprehension from the Government; we have heard only complacent claims that existing law is adequate. That merely shows how detached from the reality of daily life the Government are.
Then there is the crisis in the court process. More and more is being spent on achieving less and less. The costs of criminal aid have rocketed; fewer cases are going to
court; the proportion of cases that are discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service has almost doubled; the number of prisoners awaiting trial accounts for a quarter of the prison population--there has been a 22 per cent. increase since 1992. Everyone knows that there is a problem, but the Gracious Speech is deafening in its silence about what is to be done.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard):
We have heard yet another preposterous, disgraceful speech from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It was disgraceful because of the racism that it introduced into discussion of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, and because of the way in which it sought to mislead people in regard to the real and certain problem of anti-social conduct, to which the hon. Gentleman and his party have no solution whatever.
The most significant feature of this debate is that it tells the nation loud and clear just how little prominence Labour gives to law and order. Three Home Office Bills are included in the Gracious Speech. They are at the forefront of our programme. We know how important the issues are to the everyday life of our citizens, but the Opposition have tried to hide them and have put them at the end of the debate. They have shown the country what they do not want to talk about. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
Order. We do not need mirth at this hour.
Mr. Howard:
The last thing that the Opposition want to talk about is the success of the police in the fight against crime. We congratulate the police on that success. The past two years have seen the biggest fall in recorded crime since records began in the middle of the last century. There have been 500,000 fewer crimes, fewer victims and less suffering. That is what is happening in the country, and it is the measure of the success of the police. We are determined to help them build on that success.
The measures in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are beginning to bite. The new provisions on bail, which the hon. Gentleman impliedly opposed in his speech, are helping to protect the public.
Mr. Howard:
The hon. Gentleman says, "Not at all." He complained about the number of people awaiting trial, so he cannot be in favour of measures that would tighten bail to ensure that more and more people are not released on bail to reoffend and terrorise the public. If people are refused bail, there will be more people in prison awaiting trial. Perhaps even the hon. Gentleman can grasp that elementary fact.
Mr. Straw:
The Secretary of State shows how misinformed he is about the problem in the Prison
Mr. Howard:
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, if bail is tightened and if it is refused to stop people reoffending, the number of people in prison awaiting trial is bound to increase.
The spread of closed circuit television is preventing crime, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). The extension of partnership across the country, which is mentioned in the Opposition amendment but which was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn, is creating an environment that is increasingly hostile to the criminal. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) for piloting through Parliament what is now the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995. It was strongly supported by the Government and it will enable the courts to confiscate the assets of persistent criminals--the professional burglars, the bank robbers and the pornographers.
Last month my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced important new backing for the police. We have recruited 16,000 more police officers since 1979--500 more in the current year alone. My right hon. Friend has promised to provide the money for another 5,000 over the next three years. In addition, he promised that resources would be made available to help to pay for 10,000 more closed circuit television cameras to help those police officers to prevent crime and bring more criminals to justice.
Those are the matters that Labour wants to keep hidden and to ignore. Labour Members do not want to talk about them, so they relegate the hon. Member for Blackburn to the tail end of the debate--out of sight, out of mind.
Mr. Howard:
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who made a notable and compelling speech on the drug problem in his constituency.
Mr. Campbell:
It is on that matter that I want to put a question to the Home Secretary. As I said in my speech, the biggest problem in my area is the supply of legal methadone to young children who are reaching the age of the criminal element. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to do about that?
Mr. Howard:
As I have said, the hon. Gentleman made a compelling speech, in which he described in vivid terms the drug problem in his constituency. He will know that, in pursuance of the strategy that we announced in our White Paper earlier this year, we are setting up across the country 100 drug action teams that are designed to ensure that all local agencies work together to deal with the problem. As his speech clearly showed, it cannot be dealt with by any one agency or one measure alone. Everyone must co-operate and work together. That is precisely the purpose of the drug action teams that we are setting up. I hope that they will contribute to the solution in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but so will the part played by the Security Service in the fight against serious and organised crime.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |