| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.23 pm
Ms Ann Coffey (Stockport): I have a deep sense of anger and frustration at the problems experienced by many of my constituents every day of their lives. I will try to control myself and not use unparliamentary language--although I doubt that anything I might say could match the comments made to me every day of the week.
The Home Secretary did not address disorder--neighbour nuisance, harassment, abuse, anti-social behaviour in the street, vandalism and graffiti. I was looking forward to seeing whether "Protecting the Public" would address those problems. Paragraph 3.41 states:
Paragraph 3.42 states:
I was not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned a 12 per cent. rise in public disorder complaints. I receive letters and telephone calls every week from constituents in various states of depression, anxiety and frustration.
The Home Office has commented that public disorder leads to high levels of avoidance behaviour. People are afraid to go out at night. Pensioners remain in their homes, terrified. Women will not contemplate going out at night because they fear that the streets are unsafe. The term "avoidance behaviour" is a pretty way of describing the absolute terror felt by the people who adopt it. Initiatives such as Homewatch and Streetwatch are attempting to address public disorder, but they will not be successful unless such disorder and its causes are properly addressed.
After a surgery, I often have to write to the chief superintendent about matters raised by my constituents. That correspondence has increased over the past year. The Stockport police have always been responsive and helpful within the limits of their resources and existing law.
I will cite a typical, not abnormal case that came to my attention last Saturday. One of my constituents suffers from angina, spondylitis and epilepsy--and his wife suffers from cirrhosis and is taking anti-depressants. The couple's 12-year-old daughter and 11-year-old son are terrified of going out on the streets. That family live on a council estate, but they have no chance of being transferred, because the level of harassment that they are suffering--windows being smashed and targeted burglaries--is normal for that estate. That couple would have to suffer more to be placed on the transfer list.
The council does its best. The only power at its disposal is eviction, but that relies on evidence. People are unwilling to give evidence, because they will end up suffering more harassment without protection. It is not enough for the council to rely on civil remedies. The law should make it easier for the police to intervene and control the environment.
In another part of my constituency, a public meeting was held after several months of anti-social behaviour by youths on the street. It was attended by 150 residents and police representatives. The residents vociferously expressed their problems. Such public meetings are held all year round. As soon as one public meeting and a problem is sorted out in one part of the constituency, the problem moves to another part, and we then have to have another public meeting to sort it out. The police are very helpful with short-term strategies, but we cannot go on like this. We have to have a proper strategic view to deal with this type of disorder.
A strategic view seems to be missing. I am not surprised that such a view is missing, as the Government are not paying any serious attention to it. They have not even mentioned it in their document, "Protecting the Public".
Another document that perhaps illustrates the problem is the Greater Manchester policing plan. Under a heading of "Public Reassurance", they state that the national objective is
Greater Manchester police state that their target is:
The Greater Manchester police have recognised the their difficulties with the public over disorder and have set a local objective, which is
Mr. Howard:
Is the hon. Lady aware that we have increased spending on the police by 100 per cent. in real terms since 1979? Is she aware that the country is rapidly getting fed up of Labour Back Benchers giving speeches in every debate in the House and outside, in which they complain about resources and ask for more money, while the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary go round the country saying, "You don't need to worry about your taxes because Labour will not spend any more money on anything"?
Ms Coffey:
I am sorry that I annoyed the Home Secretary, but the truth is very painful. Whatever figure he gives about increasing police resources, ultimately the public are extremely fed up and very angry about the levels of disorder they have to put up with. The Home Secretary really should stop worrying about what Labour Back Benchers are telling him, and start worrying about and taking some note of what the public are trying to tell him.
The causes of disorder are very complex, and there are no simple solutions. We must have a short-term and a long-term strategy. We must ask what is the cause of disorder, particularly among young people. We must examine problems in the provision of leisure facilities and youth facilities, and listen to young people.
Perhaps there are other preventative measures that the Home Secretary could take. As he is probably aware, I am the co-chair of the British parliamentary lighting group. We have long been requesting the Home Office's acceptance that improved street lighting decreases crime levels and the fear of crime. That does not seem to have been accepted by the Home Secretary, although he accepts the effectiveness of closed-circuit television cameras in shopping centres--which are effective, but they are not appropriate for residential areas.
The Home Secretary must ensure that the police have the time to support crime prevention, such as the homewatch and streetwatch schemes. Many people are very willing to enter into partnerships and do what they can to make their neighbourhoods safe, but they need support. Police time is not available, because they have to deal with the enormous amount of crime.
Madam Speaker:
Order. I regret having to call the hon. Lady to order.
Sir Jim Spicer (West Dorset):
Madam Speaker, I gave you an undertaking that I shall be five minutes, and five minutes I will be--because I know that you will not allow me any longer.
I was delighted to hear the view of the Liberal party expressed so clearly by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I noted two points that he made: prison does not work; and we are looking for retribution. Yes, we are; and prison does work. Those are two points.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been under some attack. He has very broad shoulders. I should like to tell him: by all means listen to the public, and also listen to the police.
I should just like to read a letter sent to The Times last week by my chief constable, the chief constable of Dorset. He said:
"It is vital that the law should be adequate to enable the police to maintain public order."
Excellent--but the paragraph goes on to cite
"travellers who invade rural communities"
and
"illegal open air raves".
Neither applies to my urban constituency.
"The Government believes it is intolerable that trespassers should be allowed to ruin people's enjoyment of their own property or their legitimate business activity."
Although that is correct, do not the Government consider it intolerable that people should be allowed to ruin their neighbours' lives and to make life a misery for the public on the streets? If the Government think that, why are they not addressing those problems? At present, the only
redress is an injunction in the civil courts, but the cost is a deterrent. It is time the Government gave those problems more serious attention than does the White Paper.
"to provide high visibility policing so as to reassure the public."
That reassurance is exactly what the public are asking for, which is a reflection of the public's concern that no longer is there law and order on the streets.
"To achieve a 50 per cent. satisfaction level with levels of foot and mobile patrols."
A 50 per cent. satisfaction level would be an enormous rise in satisfaction, because currently there is no public satisfaction with police visibility. I do not blame the police for that, because they have to put their resources where the Home Office asks them to.
"to co-operate with young people, schools, parents and residents to promote community harmony."
That is an excellent objective, but I doubt whether the Home Office will give it any recognition or the necessary resources to accomplish it. There must be a great deal of resourcing if community policing is to be performed effectively. It takes up a lot of police time.
6.33 pm
"Dear Sir,
19 Jun 1996 : Column 928
"The Lord Chief Justice's condemnation of minimum sentencing (Times May 23rd) was a revealing insight into the workings of a very senior judicial mind.
"Having recognised the Home Secretary's determined attempt to respond to wide public concern for which the Lord Chief Justice acknowledged there is considerable support, he then goes on to state his preference for the allegedly unanimous, but opposite, views of those who 'work in the system' rather curiously omitting any reference to the police. We do have a little experience in these matters, but to ignore or dismiss the feelings and perceptions of the ordinary person in the street is much more serious.
"His comment that 'certainty in sentencing can only be achieved by sacrificing justice' is I believe altogether too sweeping. The new proposals are not aimed at first time offenders, crimes of passion or foolishness but to persistent offenders who are not being deterred by the criminal justice system at present. Anyone who has had 'cheek by jowl' contact with persistent criminals over the years knows that the one sentence they hate more than any other is prison. Despite their displays of bravado when questioned on the subject most would sell their grannies to avoid it. However the courts regularly save them that inconvenience by allowing them to 'beat the system' even when convicted.
"In my view unlimited judicial discretion in sentencing burglars in particular, is robbing the criminal justice system of its deterrent value and undermining the delivery of justice in the eyes of ordinary law abiding citizens. The Lord Chief Justice in defence of his sentencing discretion suggests that 'the value of the theft, the lapse of time between arrests, how many offences have been committed, whether it was drunken opportunism and the effect on the victim should all be considered'. This is precisely where the delivery of 'Justice' is going wrong, it is focusing too much on the circumstances of the offender and not enough on the victim.
"Who is to judge the 'value' of a theft? How many times is it suggested than 'drunken opportunism' be regarded as tolerable? Should the persistent offender benefit from some mitigation in sentence because he didn't manage to steal very much or because he has evaded arrest for months or years, or because the hapless victim has often bravely carried on their life without outward sign of injury? This just does not make sense, any more than the referral to the cliche 'that what really deters criminals is the certainty of arrest and detection'.
"Detection and arrest alone for the regulars are no more than a temporary irritation, without the certainty of a deterrent sentence and that means prison. If the American experience is that they are all pleading 'not guilty' then discount the sentence to encourage a 'guilty' plea but ensure that they still go to prison!
"Finally I am astonished at the way that his Lordship has misdirected himself in relation to the relevance of the burglary detection rate, which he quotes as 3 in 20, and then seeks to use as evidence to invalidate a 'minimum sentencing' policy because so few offences come to court. This is a complete misunderstanding of the crime figures.
That, Home Secretary, is the message from the people of this country. Ignore the waffling that we always get from the Opposition, which I have had to listen to for 24 years.
"It is now well established that a small percentage of persistent criminals commit a disproportionately large amount of crime. So reference to the number of offences that come to court completely misses the point. Modern police investigation techniques target known and active criminals and they are being caught and prosecuted over and over again, but for only a fraction of the offences they commit. Unlimited judicial discretion which is over-focused on the offender is not providing deterrent sentences. The system really must stop patronising criminals with misplaced sympathy and talk of rehabilitation when they chose to commit crime for greed, excitement and peer group status. Treat them as adults with minds of their own and make them, not the victims, understand the fear and consequences of crime.
"Yours faithfully,
"Chief Constable."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |