| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.52 pm
Miss Widdecombe: I should have liked to say that this has been an interesting debate, but what has been most interesting is that it has exposed the utter sham of Labour's policy. Labour Members have spent the entire debate criticising resources, yet, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) rightly pointed out, at the same time they admit that they would not make any extra money available.
Mr. Michael: The whole purpose of our remarks has been to expose the fact that the Government are pretending that they are providing resources to the police, but that they have not provided resources to the police,
29 Jan 1997 : Column 476
are not providing resources to the police and are not providing the increased police numbers promised by the Prime Minister. They are failing.
Miss Widdecombe: It is a fact of life that we now have 16,000 more officers than we had when the Labour party was in power. It is a fact of life that the Labour party, which criticises us for the resources we provide but which does not promise any more, in the last two years of its last term of office--which, I am sure, the entire nation remembers with horror--decreased spending on the police in real terms, first, by 5.5 per cent. and then by an additional 0.5 per cent. We need no lessons from the Labour party on resourcing the police.
Labour Members say, "It is unfair that the council tax payer is bearing some of the burden," but central Government bear between 80 and 85 per cent. Do we assume that the council tax payer would pay less towards the police in the highly unlikely event that there was ever a Labour Government?
Mr. Michael:
The hon. Lady is back in opposition mode, asking questions. I said that the Home Secretary has pretended to provide resources to the police but has not done so. He is providing an increase to the police that does not keep pace with inflation. He is making local authorities find the money for the police. Does she not understand the figures that she is speaking to?
Miss Widdecombe:
I fully understand the figures, but we do not appear to have heard, amidst the large amount of criticism, a clear statement of what the Labour party would do. We have no idea whether the council tax payer would pay less under Labour. [Interruption.] The problem with the Opposition is that they are deluding themselves that they will soon be sitting on the Government Benches, so they are afraid of putting flesh on the bones of what they say, but they cannot quite get out of the habit. They tell the people of Britain that we are not resourcing the police properly when they will not commit themselves to paying a penny more than us.
There have been many calls for this debate to be fairly reflected elsewhere. I hope that that point is made repeatedly, because it is high time that the people of Britain sussed out the con trick that Labour Members are playing.
Mr. Michael:
The con trick is the one that the hon. Lady is trying to play on the people of the country. The con trick, to use her term, is a Prime Minister who promises 1,000 extra police officers and does not deliver--who promises 5,000 extra police officers and does not provide the resources. That is the con trick that the Government are trying to play on the people of the country. It is a disgrace, and they have been nailed in the debate tonight.
Miss Widdecombe:
Far short of being nailed, I demonstrated clearly that we did provide the extra funding. I showed that the number of officers increased by 845 or so in that year. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman, wanting to complain about resources but being unable to promise extra resources, not knowing
29 Jan 1997 : Column 477
Miss Widdecombe:
I have heard enough nonsense. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I do not like nonsense, because I like sense to be talked in the House. The hon. Gentleman is right that I do not like the nonsense that he talks, and I do not intend to listen to much more of it tonight.
Miss Widdecombe:
I will not give way this time, but I may later. I want to make progress.
Mr. Michael:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for the hon. Lady to refer to Home Office figures for which she is responsible as "nonsense"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The Minister is responsible for her own speech, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
Miss Widdecombe:
The trouble is that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) cannot understand what he is being told. The nonsense that I was referring to was that which is being talked by the Opposition tonight, not by the Government.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth had the gall to say that violent crime was up. If Labour is so worried about violent crime, why did its Members abstain on the Crime (Sentences) Bill only a couple of weeks ago? Why did they vote against increasing penalties for taking a gun to the scene of a crime? If they are so worried about violent crime, given that much of it is drugs related, why did not they support the Bill's provisions on mandatory sentences for those peddling drugs?
Mr. Michael:
The hon. Lady is asking questions again. Why was there nothing about crime, violence or guns in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which was supposed to be a landmark Act, until Labour moved amendments to it? She is wrong. We have set the agenda on these issues. The Government have repeatedly voted down Labour proposals to deal with violent crime and these issues. The Minister just repeats the mantra, and she is wrong.
Miss Widdecombe:
The Labour agenda on crime is to say one thing and vote in the Lobby for something quite different. The only difference this time is that, instead of voting with their feet, Labour Members sat on their hands. They could not even make up their minds what they wanted to do. The hon. Gentleman knows that his party is all talk and no do when the time comes to deliver on the measures.
A number of interesting remarks were made in the debate, including several about Merseyside. Some of those were also made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and I answered them. Other interesting comments related to north Wales. It was pointed out that there is already a substantial increase in resources for
29 Jan 1997 : Column 478
I have heard nothing from the Opposition tonight that convinces me that they even understand the figures or the problems of crime, or that they have the will to do anything about it. Everything that Labour Front Benchers have said tonight, with the exception of one or two detailed points made by hon. Members behind the Front Bench, has been geared to one message: we do not like what the Government are doing, but we will do the same ourselves, although we will not vote that way in the meantime because we cannot make up our minds. Their approach is a shambles and a sham.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury):
I am grateful for the opportunity to present to the House a petition on behalf of Sharon Jackson of Thornhill Lees in Dewsbury and 1,700 other constituents of mine. The petition has been organised--very bravely--by Sharon Jackson, following the tragic death of her eight-year-old son David, who fell to his death from a local bridge over the River Calder.
We all sympathise with David's family and recognise the need to protect other families in Dewsbury from any unnecessary hardship or suffering of a similar nature. The purpose of the petition is to help to ensure that such accidents do not happen again. The petition declares:
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1997-98 (HC 208), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
With permission, I shall put together the following two motions relating to delegated legislation.
That the draft Executry Practitioners (Scotland) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.
Question agreed to.
That the draft Independent Qualified Conveyancers (Scotland) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.--[Mr. Carrington.]
That the draft Potato Industry Development Council Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.--[Mr. Carrington.]
Question agreed to.
PETITION
10.2 pm
That people in Dewsbury are concerned about the safety of bridges crossing the River Calder and that an eight-year-old boy, David Jackson, fell from one such bridge to his death in April 1994.
To lie upon the Table.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons request that the relevant Government Department ensures that the bridge is made safe or demolished, in order to prevent any further fatalities.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |