| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Crime (West Yorkshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Knapman.]
10.16 pm
Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley): As we all know, Adjournment debates provide hon. Members with excellent opportunities to raise matters of local concern. The fight against crime is a national problem, but it emphasises the everyday concerns of many of my constituents. Only yesterday, I received a report from the co-ordinator of the neighbourhood watch scheme in Golcar, detailing a catalogue of burglaries, car thefts and other crimes in the village in recent months. Crime and the fear of crime probably feature in my constituency post bag more than any other issue. Tonight, I want to talk about what can be done to make my constituents feel safer in their homes and neighbourhoods.
I am delighted that the Minister who is to respond is my close neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). He is an assiduous constituency Member as well as a first-class Minister, and, like me, he wants firm action to be taken against crime.
It is not inevitable that crime will increase. Indeed, we should take some encouragement from the fact that, over the past two to three years, crime has been falling.My constituency is in the Huddersfield division of the West Yorkshire police area. The total number of crimes committed in that division fell from 25,435 in 1993 to 22,014 in 1995; that is a decrease of 13.4 per cent., and compares to a 10 per cent. fall across the country in the same period and an 8 per cent. fall in West Yorkshire as a whole.
Huddersfield's reduction in crime has been better than that in the rest of the country. One reason for that could be the success of the so-called Biting Back campaign, in which the police have targeted individuals in households who have already been victims of crime and who, according to research, are much more likely to be victims in future. During the trial's first nine months, the targeting of repeat crime led to a fall in domestic burglaries of24 per cent. compared with a fall in West Yorkshire of only 4 per cent. Clearly, therefore, the scheme needs to be extended throughout the county and the country.
Since 1979, the Government have increased spending on the police enormously so that, today, national expenditure is £6.8 billion. Spending on the police in West Yorkshire has increased by 98 per cent. in real terms after inflation during that period. Much of that extra money has resulted in more officers being available at the sharp end. Considering the coming financial year, I am especially pleased that, in a tight spending round, the Government have been able to make an extra £9 million available for West Yorkshire police. In a press release last Friday, West Yorkshire police authority said that the force intended to deploy an extra 50 police officers in the coming financial year. That comes on top of an increase of more than 100 officers in 1995.
I pay tribute to the chief constable of West Yorkshire, Mr. Keith Hellawell, whose excellent management of the force has made it possible to appoint more police officers. That has been achieved by reducing the number of
retirements on the ground of ill health, by lower sickness levels and by a reduction in the number of middle-management posts.
In January 1992, there were 90 West Yorkshire officers holding the ranks of superintendent and chief superintendent. Today, there are only 50. That has saved more than £2 million annually in salary alone. Those savings have been used to appoint extra police officers. That is an excellent example for all forces to follow.
I quote with total approval the comments of the Labour chairman of West Yorkshire police authority, councillor Tom Brennan. In last Friday's press release, he said:
The chief constable deserves the plaudits but so do the Government, to whom I am most grateful for making more money available for the police. The authority'spress release also pointed out that the on-going civilianisation programme could ultimately release another 100 experienced officers on to the streets.
I wish even greater efforts to be made in the recruitment of special constables in particular. Their use is a relatively inexpensive but extremely effective way of increasing police presence and of helping to deter crime. I have one excellent example in my constituency. In the village of Meltham, which is right in the centre of constituency,a small number of special constables, under the excellent leadership of community constable Ian Oxley, has helped to reduce crime and vandalism levels by 50 per cent.
I should dearly love more specials to undertake similar work in other villages in my constituency where we have difficulties with youngsters involved in vandalism, burglary and car theft. I hope that the Government and the West Yorkshire force will redouble their efforts on that front so that more special constables are recruited.I put to my hon. Friend the Minister the thought that it may be sensible to pay more meaningful allowances to attract more candidates.
My hon. Friend might be interested to know that closed circuit television has played a role in the reduction of crime in Meltham. Last Friday, I attended a meeting in the village of Slaithwaite, from where I frequently receive complaints about vandalism and more serious crime, and where some people want to explore the possibility of having CCTV installed. There are numerous examples of places where CCTV has had a beneficial effect, and chief constables all over the country have been singing its praises. I am delighted that the Government have made available £15 million for CCTV schemes in the coming year. I should like to register at this early stage in the bidding process my support for proposed schemes in the Holme and Colne valleys in my constituency which I am sure will be submitted to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
Only so much can be done at a local level to fight crime. It is crucial that the Government's policies help the police to fight crime and give the courts the powers to deal with criminals properly. I am therefore extremely pleased that at long last, after 30 years of liberal penal policy, we have a Home Secretary who is giving the police the tools that they need to fight crime, who is tough on crime, and, most importantly, who is tough on criminals.
We have changed the law to stop suspects abusing the right to silence. The over-emphasis on the use of cautions has been stopped and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has taken action to reduce the level of offending by those out on bail.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen):
My hon. Friend will be aware of the great welcome that has been given in the whole of West Yorkshire, especially in his area and in constituencies such as mine, to the fact that we have at last a tough Home Secretary who is encouraging everyone to be tough on criminals. We all believe that that is the best way forward. My postbag certainly tells me that that is what the great majority of the public in West Yorkshire want.
Mr. Riddick:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is no surprise that our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is the subject of so many attacks from people in the liberal establishment. They know that he is at long last turning the tide and having an effect. We must give him our full support in his battles.
The new national DNA database is a world first and will prove a formidable extra weapon in the fight against crime. Since 1979, the Government have given the courts powers to hand out tougher sentences to a range of criminals. It is more than two years since a police officer in my constituency told me that he had noticed that the courts were handing out stiffer sentences to criminals in response to the then new Home Secretary's tougher rhetoric. That has undoubtedly played its part in the reduction in crime, because while those who commit burglary and other crimes are in prison, they cannot go about their dastardly deeds at the expense of our constituents.
More needs to be done, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have my full support for their proposals to toughen up and modernise sentences available to courts. It seems absolutely right that persistent burglars and drug dealers should face stiff minimum prison sentences if they continue offending. I have no doubt that my constituents, unlike some judges, will welcome the proposal that those convicted for a second time of a serious, violent or sexual offence should receive an automatic life sentence. They would then be released only when they no longer posed a risk to the public. I hope that the Government will stand resolute in the face of criticism from the liberal legal establishment.
However, the Government need to do more in one respect. The lives of many of my constituents are made a misery by the actions of a number of disrespectful, out of control teenagers who commit a range of crimes from petty vandalism to burglary. The police feel powerless to take action and if such people go before the courts,the courts often do very little. Even if the youngsters are sent to local authority secure units, in practice they can walk out almost at will and return to causing mayhem. Something must be done about it. It is time that secure units meant exactly that. The security should be such that youngsters cannot escape from where the courts want them to be.
When youngsters initially get into trouble, the system should do what it can to ensure that those people do not re-offend, and we should take an understanding approach.
As we know, 85 per cent. of those who receive a first caution do not come to the attention of the police again. However, we should come down like a ton of bricks on those who offend persistently.
I have two things to say about the Crown Prosecution Service. First, I find it difficult to understand why it takes so long for the CPS to bring cases to court, and I believe that the police should be allowed to bring straightforward minor offences to court as soon as possible--in some cases, if the defendant pleads guilty, the day after the offence was committed.
Secondly, I am not happy about certain prosecutions that have been brought against people who have simply been defending themselves against the perpetrators of criminal acts. I can think of one particular incident in my constituency, but I believe that it may be sub judice at the moment, so I would be out of order if I referred to it or mentioned any names. I believe that in such cases the benefit of the doubt should be given to those who are being threatened or attacked.
I have said nothing about Labour's approach to law and order, because Labour is an irrelevance in the fight against crime, having no concrete proposals of its own. Or at least, Labour would be an irrelevance, were it not for the fact that it aspires to form the next Government. So it is necessary to remind our constituents that Labour failed to support us when we introduced the tough, hard-hitting measures of recent years.
Labour voted against the Public Order Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1991. Labour votes against the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act every time, and, during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Labour refused to support us on several of its key elements. The truth is that Labour is soft on crime, and makes excuses for the causes of crime. As for the Liberals, they usually traipse into the same Lobby as the Labour party.
"The public is constantly telling us that they want to see more police on our streets--we can promise them that. We have sufficient funds this year to let the Chief Constable continue the substantial recruitment programme. It is the best news that I have been able to give to West Yorkshire on the policing front since I became Chairman six years ago."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |