| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jacques Arnold: They do not have one.
Mrs. Knight: We are the party which did a competitiveness audit, not last week or last month, but some time ago. We are the ones who have put in place measures such as those in the Budget, to ensure that our companies can compete better, that we get people back into work and that more people enjoy the fruits of their labour. However, when one considers the league table that the Labour party has been running round with, it is evident that it is one small corner of a much larger picture.
I return to the OECD report. It says that the UK's economic performance in 1994 was impressive. It says that our economy has been made more flexible and competitive and less inflation prone. It goes on to say that monetary policy is working well. It says that economic prospects are good.
If we are to continue discussing league tables, let us draw attention to the following facts. We are at the top of the G7 growth league table. We are at the top of the EU job creation league table. We are at the top of the European productivity league table. We are at the top of the European league table for exports. We are at the top of the European employment league table. That is where we are. When will the Labour party stop running the country down?
It is always interesting to note that, whenever we ask the Labour party what its policies are, we get no answers. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham reminded us of some of the questions that we asked yesterday and to which there was no reply.
Let us have another go now. When will Labour Members give us their inflation target? When will they decide what they will support in the Budget? When will they decide whether they support a 20p tax on savings?
When will they finally confess that adoption of the minimum wage and the social chapter would destroy jobs and investment?
The Opposition are sitting tight today, exactly as they have sat day after day when we have asked them questions. Either they do not reply because they do not know, or they do not reply because they will not reply.
In a letter that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), sent to his colleagues, which was reported in the newspapers today, he told them that they must not imply that they will
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said:
While the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) was studying for his law degree and lecturing in universities, I was working in industry. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I worked in industry throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and during the 1970s Britain had a record that reads as follows. British industry was underinvested; we had an appalling strike record; we sold goods that no one wanted to buy at prices that rose weekly; the British Leyland work force was not buying the cars that it was making; inflation was rampant; in exports, we were losing our share of the world market. That was Labour's record. I say, "Never again!"
Interestingly, at that time when everything was wrong with the British economy, the political platitudes from the Labour party were exactly the same as they are today. That is the reality: it is an empty shell. As for the "7p up, 1p down" slogan, what nonsense! Not prepared to make difficult decisions--
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Monday 4 December.
Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool):
I beg leave to present a petition signed by 25,000 of my constituents, requesting urgent action to curb the crime of taking and using cars without the owners' consent, which has resulted in injury and death in our town. It states that the petitioners are
The law in general must be reassessed. I hope that urgent consideration will be given to the petition.
To lie upon the Table.
Police (Information Technology)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Burns.]
Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan):
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about this subject.
Since 1979, the Conservative Government have increased the number of police by 13,000, and have substantially improved police pay, conditions and equipment. Despite that, crime has risen--seemingly inexorably--for most of that time. The public say, "We want to see more police on the beat." Despite the best efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that is still the cry today.
I warmly welcome the Government's commitment to providing a further 5,000 police officers over the next three years. That will help to sustain the reduction in crime that has taken place over the past two years. We shall never be able to afford a police constable on every street corner, but the more that our police are visible to the public, the more the criminal will be deterred by the prospect of being caught and the more the public will be reassured.
In an age when criminals are equipped with fast stolen cars and mobile telephones, the police must spend much of their time in cars so that they can respond quickly. Each time that an arrest is made, the suspect must be taken to the police station and must then be laboriously processed in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which takes at least one extra officer off patrol or the beat for a long time. It is vital to the efficiency of the police that we make full use of information technology to improve detection and the rate of conviction and to reduce the amount of time spent on administration. That will reassure the public, deter the criminal and help to prevent crime.
Of course, the Government and the police are to be congratulated on many new initiatives. The first national computerised DNA data-base went live in Birmingham on 10 April this year, and represents a huge step forward. Phoenix, the criminal justice records service, will enable the police to enter directly on the police national computer the criminal record information that is currently provided on paper forms. The new Holmes system for the administration of major crime investigations should be available next year, and various other exciting information technology applications are undergoing trials in various police forces.
Less successful has been the attempt to achieve a national computerised fingerprint service. I shall not detail the problems that have arisen, particularly as litigation is still in progress, but it is important for those problems to be overcome so that a truly effective, easily accessible national fingerprint service can be provided for every police force.
The introduction of closed circuit television in many areas has been a great step forward, and I welcome the Government's commitment to increasing the number of CCTV schemes. In my constituency, the town of Barry benefits from a CCTV system, covering much of Holton road and Broad street. The system was purchased by
Vale of Glamorgan borough council with the help of a grant from the Welsh Office. It is operated by civilians at the civic offices.
Ideally, such systems should be bought and operated by police forces, not local authorities. That would have two advantages. First, the public would be reassured that there would be no abuse of their civil liberties. I understand that in the recent well-publicised case of a CCTV video being marketed and then withdrawn from sale the material used was from a private system operating in a shop, not from a public system. Still, it is important that the doubts of people who are genuinely concerned about an invasion of civil liberties be allayed. I therefore believe that CCTV should be under the exclusive control of the police, who must be responsible for storing and eventually erasing the tapes.
The second advantage of the police controlling the cameras would be ensuring minimum delay and avoiding any breakdown of communications in transmitting information from the person viewing the screen to the police officers required to attend the scene. Police officers, police cars and police stations need to be equipped with the latest technology.
Last year in the United States of America I was lucky enough to go out on patrol with a police officer in Seattle. His on-board computer system was linked to a national database covering all 51 states. He could instantly call up full details of a suspect vehicle, including where and when purchased, whether subject to hire purchase--and if so, how much--and who the registered owner was. That information made it easy to check whether the driver was the registered owner or was driving with his consent. The police officer could also call up details of any previous convictions of the registered owner and information about whether he was in breach of bail in any of the 51 states.
In our own comparatively small country our police patrol drivers should be given similar ready access to information. Furthermore, improved personal and vehicle radios should be introduced as standard equipment, with encryption systems in control rooms and individual sets so that criminals cannot listen in to police messages.
The equipment for processing suspects at most of our police stations is poor. At present, when a suspect is interviewed and charged, much valuable police time is wasted. In my experience as duty solicitor at Barry police station before I was elected to this House, I saw experienced police officers typing out charge sheets with two fingers on ancient manual typewriters. I understand that the system has slightly improved since my day, with word processors now in operation.
What is really needed is a national computer network. Standard software should be stipulated by the Home Office to enable an officer to retrieve a particular section of the Theft Act and then simply type in the relevant details, before producing a perfect and legible charge sheet every time. That would not only save the officer time; it would reduce subsequent problems and delays in amending charges. Information such as charge sheets, lists of previous convictions and advance disclosure could be transmitted to the court, the Crown Prosecution Service, the defence solicitors and the
probation service--as necessary--electronically and at the touch of a button, thereby avoiding delays and reducing the need for court adjournments.
A great deal of time is currently spent by police officers and typists transcribing the relevant sections of recorded interviews. Entire interviews could be transcribed automatically using voice recognition systems, and then checked for accuracy against the tape. That would stop disputes about whether all the relevant sections of a tape had been transcribed; and it would usually avoid the need to bring tapes to court.
Computerised charge sheets and transcription facilities would help to put the interviewing officer back on the beat or on motorised patrol more quickly. The Home Office should also liaise with the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that court lists, warrants, witness summonses and production orders relating to prisoners are electronically transmitted and accessible to all who need them. The days of a prisoner not being produced at court at the right time because a production order has gone astray, or of a prisoner being bailed when he is already in breach of bail at another court, should be over.
My last and most important point is that the Home Office should take action to ensure that all police forces adopt the same computer system for the retrieval of central criminal records and the collection of local data. I am a strong supporter of local police forces rather than a national police force. However, it is plain crazy to allow forces to operate different computer systems which may be incompatible with those of neighbouring forces. In a huge murder hunt such as that for the Yorkshire Ripper, data collected in crimes in one area should be equally accessible by all police forces in case a pattern emerges that hastens the apprehension of the criminal.
Thanks to improved roads and cars, the criminal is more mobile than ever before. Much has been done to meet the increased threat. On 1 November last year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary launched the first national blueprint for police use of computer technology, which stressed that police forces must act in partnership with each other and with other parts of the criminal justice system when using and buying new technology. That was certainly a big step in the right direction, but I would like the Home Secretary to go further.
The Home Office needs to consult all police forces, evaluate all the available equipment, commission new equipment where necessary and then initiate a central, standardised purchasing policy for all the equipment that I have mentioned. That would be expensive initially, but would save many hours of police and civilian time thereafter. It would lead to much greater efficiency and enable the police to spend more time out catching criminals, deterring crime and reassuring the public.
"manipulate public spending rules to smuggle through extra spending".
"Gordon can say anything he likes if he thinks it is going to win the Election . . . when Labour is in power"
it
"will be looking for other priorities"
apart
"from tax cuts."
There we have it. Labour smuggles through public expenditure, but does not tell anyone about it. In reality, Labour Back Benchers know what they want, and that is more spending, which means more taxation.
"outraged by the death of Neil Wright caused by joyriders and youths who take vehicles without the owners' consent."
They feel that tougher penalties must be introduced
"to prevent further death and tragedy."
10.1 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |