House of Commons
Monday 27 October 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT
Madam Speaker acquainted the House that she had issued, during the Adjournment, a warrant for a new writ for the borough constituency of Paisley, South in the room of Gordon McMaster, Esquire, deceased.
Oral Answers to Questions
HOME DEPARTMENT
The Secretary of State was asked--
Community Constables
1. Mr. Healey: What plans he has to increase the presence of community constables on the streets; and if he will make a statement. [11655]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): It is for individual chief constables and police authorities to determine the level of police presence on the streets in their area. The Government are working with the police to relieve them of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens, to allow chief constables to put more officers back on the beat. In the crime and disorder Bill, we shall give the police new powers to enable them to deal with street disorder.
Mr. Healey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he agree that beat bobbies are often a unique source of local intelligence and play a special part in practical, preventive policing? Does he further agree that, although they are very highly valued by the people they serve, they are sometimes not as highly valued by the forces that employ them? What specific steps does he plan to reinforce the role of community police officers?
Mr. Straw: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says. His point about the value of police officers on the beat was emphasised by the Audit Commission's report last year and, indeed, by evidence from the Police Federation. We are making quite clear to all police authorities and chief constables the emphasis that we place on the importance of community police officers, and in the crime and disorder Bill we shall give police and local authorities greater powers to deal with disorder generally.
Mrs. Laing: Will the Secretary of State join me in expressing the grief and sorrow of the House at the tragic
death of young WPC Nina Mackay, who lived in my constituency, and in sending her family the condolences of all hon. Members? Is the Secretary of State aware that the person charged with her murder was, at the time of the murder, out on bail? Given those circumstances, will he order a review of the conditions on which bail is granted by magistrates courts?
Mr. Straw: I will indeed join the hon. Lady, who speaks for the whole House, in expressing our total revulsion at that vile crime against an unarmed WPC, Nina Mackay, who lived in the hon. Lady's constituency, my home town. That makes it all the more poignant for me. Of course I join the hon. Lady in that. The whole country is revolted by this crime against her family and against her whole community.
The hon. Lady asked whether I will look at the availability of bail conditions to magistrates courts. I understand her point, but she will appreciate that, since a number of judicial and semi-judicial inquiries have to take place, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that until those have been completed; when they are, I shall certainly bear very thoroughly in mind the points that she made.
Mr. Sheerman:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could transform the situation in the community if we made better use of the special constable? Is it not about time that we took special constables seriously, and paid them a proper amount to do the valuable job that they do in helping the community? Will my right hon. Friend note the experiment which has been such a success in my constituency in improving law keeping on the inner-urban estates?
Mr. Straw:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of special constables. I know that his view is shared throughout the House. It is an open question whether paying special constables would increase their number or availability, but of course we keep the matter under review.
Mr. Maginnis:
May I, on behalf of my party, associate myself with what has been said about the death of the young police constable? We are fully aware of the dangers that our police face in carrying out their duties.
Is the Home Secretary not placing community constables at a disadvantage by expecting retailers--those who sell on the streets--to police the behaviour of young people, especially in connection with the sale of alcohol and cigarettes? Is it not time that he gave those retailers some statutory authority, for instance, by introducing identity cards, so that the community constable does not find himself at loggerheads with the retailer whom he is policing, unnecessarily and--it often seems to the retailer--unfairly?
Mr. Straw:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his question. No one knows better than someone who represents the north of Ireland the enormous danger in which police officers can be placed daily.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, we accept that retailers experience a severe problem when trying to check the ages of people attempting to buy drink or
cigarettes. That is one of the reasons why we are supporting the proposals of the Portman Group, which wants "proof of age" cards to be introduced.
3. Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith:
How many additional police constables were recruited in the year to April 1997. [11659]
Mr. Straw:
The number of police constables in England and Wales increased by 460 during 1996-97 to 98,132.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith:
I welcome the fact that the Sussex police have increased recruitment over the past two years. I am grateful to the last Government for that initiative.
Will the Home Secretary ensure that basic pay is increased to an adequate level, so that we can encourage more young people to join the police force--and not just more people, but people of adequate calibre?
Mr. Straw:
I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman is so generous in his gratitude to the last Administration, given that there were 11 fewer police officers in Sussex during the period in question than in the previous year. As for his second point, about pay, we intend to maintain the arrangements for police pay that were introduced following the Edmund-Davies report late in 1979.
Mr. Winnick:
Would there not be one more police constable alive today if the court concerned had not granted bail, in opposition to what the police and the Crown Prosecution Service said at the time in giving their reasons why bail should not be granted? Does not the foul and terrible murder of the WPC demonstrate the dangers that some police officers face day in, day out? The House should recognise those dangers, despite the criticisms--often justified--of one or two officers.
Mr. Straw:
As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), I entirely understand the point that has been made. I hope that the House will appreciate, however, that until various inquiries have been completed--including the inquest--it would be wrong for me to comment on the precise circumstances in which the court came to issue bail.
Mr. Greenway:
Does the Home Secretary agree with the police, who estimate that there were 3,000 more constables in post in spring this year than in 1992? Will he confirm to the House his intention to provide the funds for, and go ahead with, the recruitment of a further 2,000 police officers, as the previous Government planned?
Mr. Straw:
As the electorate found out, there was a huge difference between what the previous Government planned and what they were able to do. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was as unwise as that of the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). The simple truth is that, despite two successive promises to increase the number of police officers by 2,000 during the previous Parliament, the number in post fell by 469. That was the Conservative record.
4. Ms Beverley Hughes:
What progress has been made in implementing changes in the primary purpose rule. [11660]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien):
The primary purpose rule was abolished on 5 June. A review of outstanding appeal cases has now been completed, and those involved should have been informed. Some people will make applications in the light of the change to the rule, and they will be dealt with through the normal procedure.
Ms Hughes:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the primary purpose rule has removed a discriminatory practice that affected many genuinely married couples, and that its removal has meant a great deal to the people concerned? I congratulate my hon. Friend on the successful completion of the review. I am sure that he will agree that future applications must be dealt with fairly and swiftly. What steps has he taken to ensure that they will be dealt with within a reasonable time?
Mr. O'Brien:
A series of steps is in process that should ensure that cases are dealt with quickly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. The primary purpose rule was without a purpose, except to cause misery to many families. The mess that it caused to family life was deplorable. I am pleased that we were able to remove it and thereby show that we support families.
Mr. Hawkins:
Does the Minister realise that the abolition of the primary purpose rule and the other changes that the new Government have introduced have led to the problems that he has been trying to explain away on Czech television in the past couple of weeks? Is it not quite clear that the previous Government were absolutely right to have a sensible, firm and fair policy? The minute the new Government took office they started messing about and caused enormous strains on the system through illegal, bogus asylum seekers trying to come to this country. Is that not a recipe for disaster?
Mr. O'Brien:
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to know the difference between immigration controls and the asylum system. If this change in the primary purpose rule was so bad, why did the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) not pray against it, not seek to have a debate on it and not oppose it? The reason is that it was a fair change. It will ensure that the Government will do what they promised at the general election, which was to maintain firm and fair immigration and asylum controls.
Mr. Lock:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes that he has made to the immigration laws, although they may not have been accepted by Conservative Members, have been widely accepted by people in the country? Does he further agree that those who have lined up to condemn the changes, whether from the xenophobic or the homophobic tendency, are to be deplored?
Mr. O'Brien:
My hon. Friend is right, but he does a disservice to some Conservative Members, such as the
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |