| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean: I will give the hon. Gentleman some simple arithmetic. Uniformed police pay is going up 3 per cent.; civilian police pay is going up 2.5 per cent. The total amount of money being made available to the police next year will be 4 per cent. That is new money.
Mr. Michael: The Minister still does not answer the question on capital spending. Nor does he deal with the reduction in real figures in Home Office allocations shown in the Home Secretary's own hand-out on the day of the Budget. It is interesting that some Departments produced a complete breakdown of how that money was to be spent: not the Home Secretary, not the Home Office.
The Labour party has been in the forefront of promoting closed circuit television as an instrument in the fight against crime. Partnerships between Labour local authorities, the police and local business communities have shown the way forward. I am glad that the Home Secretary has joined us in promoting such schemes. I have helped to promote some of them myself. I must sound a note of caution. CCTV schemes work only if they are well designed, utilise the right equipment installed in the right locations and if monitoring is well planned and each partner feels that he has some ownership of the scheme.
I warn the Minister that the public's continued support is essential. The Government's commitment to CCTV is weakened by their failure to support Labour proposals for statutory regulation to monitor its use. In that, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in his earlier intervention. If CCTV schemes are to be effective, the public must be confident that they are used honestly and effectively. Last week, I offered the Minister the chance of a Bill to pass through the House quickly, to outlaw the sale of video tapes from surveillance operations of any sort undertaken by the police, local authorities, private companies or individuals--unless the Home Secretary decided that their publication was in the public interest. After the sale of video tapes offering cheap gratification--whether through scenes of violence, sexual passion in a lift or thrilling car chases--who doubts that control is needed? Nobody outside the Home Office. I repeat our offer, for the day that the Minister catches up with the rest of us on that particular issue.
The need for legislation to regulate the private security industry falls into the same category. The Minister has promised to allow access by employers to police records, so that staff can be vetted. What about the employers themselves? I am not talking about decent firms in the private security industry, because they share our concerns; they want statutory regulation as much as we do. Police officers at every level have told me of their concerns. Crooks with records of violent crime, having partners
whose record of fraud is as long as your arm, are running private security companies. Not only does the Home Secretary refuse to take a grip on that scandal but he wants to give those crooks ready access to police computer records, which is insane. Is that what the Conservative party means by a policy against crime?
Conservative dogma has overruled public safety. Home Office ideas about regulating the private security industry and the recommendations of the Opposition and of the Select Committee have been overruled by the Department of Trade and Industry on the ground that regulation would constitute a restraint on trade. I have news for the Home Secretary. If regulation is needed to protect the British public against crooks and rip-off merchants, the British public would rather have regulation than Conservative dogma that protects people who live off violence, bullying, burglary and theft.
Most offenders remain in the community. This week, the House of Lords condemned the Home Secretary's bid to end all training requirements for probation officers. I am not surprised that the Minister went through his lengthy speech without mentioning that fact, but it is one of this week's scandals. The Government suffered a humiliating defeat in the other place. Former Home Secretaries, Labour and Conservative, joined to tell the Home Secretary that he was wrong. A former permanent secretary at the Home Office, a former senior police officer, the chairman of the Royal Commission on criminal justice and many other peers emphasised the need for high-quality training and for the Home Secretary to change his policy. Fifteen speeches were made against the abolition of probation service training requirements. Only the lonely, battered Minister spoke in favour of that crazy change.
The Minister, for failing to provide relevant professional qualifications and training for probation officers, has rightly been attacked by Labour and all the relevant professional bodies, which recognise the need for specialist training. Entrants to the probation service from the police or armed services are the first to recognise that they need specialist training, and they want a proper qualification in their new profession. Each year, the probation service deals with offenders who are more difficult, damaged and dangerous. Failing to ensure adequate training and qualifications for new entrants through a national scheme means that the Home Secretary is putting at risk the safety of the public and of new probation officers.
Today, the Minister had a chance to present new ideas and positive policies, but where are the real measures to combat crime? The Government have little to say. They are not implementing the proposals that we have made over the years or measures to tackle disorder on our streets, criminal neighbours, delay at every stage of the criminal justice process or the delays that bedevil our court system.
Where in the Minister's speech were the measures to tackle youth crime? We have made proposal after proposal to nip offending in the bud and to prevent young offenders from becoming repeat offenders. The Government have rejected them all. In recent years, the Government have cut the youth service, which a report produced by Coopers and Lybrand last year showed is cost-effective in preventing crime.
Where are the proposals to regulate the private security industry? Where are the measures to help victims of crime? We have heard a whimper of future proposals from
the Minister today, but little of the Government's record on crime. It is not surprising that the Government withdrew their original proposal to debate their record on combating crime. That record is dire. The Home Secretary has lost sight of his duty to protect the public in a desperate attempt to protect his own job. His only strategic aim is wrong-footing the Labour party. The Government are practising for opposition as enthusiastically as the Labour party is preparing for government.
Mr. David Evans (Welwyn Hatfield):
The people of Welwyn Hatfield have the same needs and aspirations as people in the rest of the United Kingdom and throughout the world. People need to feel secure, which means that the primary duty of the Government is to provide security. The people of Welwyn Hatfield work hard to support their families. They want to feel safe and that they can walk the streets without being threatened. They want to feel confident about leaving their homes and cars.
The Government's role is to provide a framework of law and order so that law-abiding taxpayers feel safe. The Government are providing that safety. Unfortunately, crime has risen constantly since the second world war, in times both of boom and of bust. The reason is a succession of liberal, socialist-minded judges and magistrates who have lacked the nerve to impose sentences that fit the crime. They have failed the Government and the police. Most of all, they have failed the citizens of this country. They have succumbed to flashy terminology, complex theories and soft options. We have crossed our wires and lost our way. They criticise the victim for not taking enough precautions, and counsel and cosset the villains. Villains have been put on community sentences. They have even been sent on holidays. We have tried all of that and it is not surprising that it has failed.
The result is that my constituents feel far from secure. They are scared to walk the streets for fear of violence, and they are scared to leave their homes for fear of burglary. My constituents feel frustrated because, when crimes are committed, the criminals do not receive a suitable punishment. With such soft punishments, which are offered again and again, criminals have nothing to lose.
In these dark days of liberal fudge, however, there is a glimmer of hope. At last we have a Home Secretary who has begun to understand the concerns of my constituents. He knows that they are sick and tired of laws that pander to the villain and frustrate the victim. The Conservative party is the party of law and order. That means that victims must always come first. Criminals must be punished, and the police need our backing.
Mr. Alex Carlile:
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on just two points: first, that from 1991 until 1994 it was a great frustration to judges that they were not able to send
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |