| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South): The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, realise that the Metropolitan police district extends a long way beyond the proposed Greater London authority boundaries and includes Broxbourne, Elmbridge, Epping Forest, Epsom and Ewell, Hertsmere, Reigate, Banstead and Spelthorne. That is a considerable expansion of the area. As he is probably well aware, it is proposed that the new police committee will have a representative from those districts. Does he think, however, that that is a correct balance?
After all, it is a significant expansion of the Metropolitan area and, with one representative, it would seem to be a little out of kilter.
Mr. Straw: I do indeed know that the Metropolitan police area stretches far into the suburban home counties, because I was brought up in Epping Forest within that area, even though that part of Epping Forest has always proudly remained part of Essex for all other purposes.
We propose a police authority of 21 members, and it is proportionate to have one representative from the outer areas. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), met representatives from the outer areas this week and, I understand, had satisfactory discussions with them. We remain open to representations about the exact balance of elected members. However, as we have found in other areas--for example, in the Thames Valley, which combines three counties--there are always pressures to increase the total number of members. That desire must be balanced against the need to create a body that is small enough to work efficiently and effectively.
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington):
Will the Home Secretary contrast his proposal to offer the outer London districts representation on the authority with the current arrangements whereby, at best, outer London district representatives receive half an hour with the Home Secretary perhaps once a year?
Mr. Straw:
My hon. Friend puts it better than I. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for anticipating large parts of my speech and for phrasing their remarks more elegantly than I ever could. My hon. Friend is exactly right.
As with police authorities outside London, the majority of members will be elected and will come from the Greater London assembly, with the exception of the representative from outside the Metropolitan area. The other members will be magistrates and independents, and will be selected in similar proportions to those in other police authorities.
Today's debate is a vivid reminder that the Metropolitan police force is different: London policing has many special features. The Met has some unique responsibilities and an international reputation in many areas--and that may require some unique approaches and solutions. We are committed to ensuring that any new structure will preserve the Met's ability to continue that work while maintaining its fine record of achievements.
In 1979-80, I introduced two Bills on the accountability of the police. In the second Bill, I proposed a mainly elected police authority for London, recognising that there would have to be special arrangements to cover the national and capital functions of the police that would continue to involve the Home Secretary to a greater degree than applies to police services outside London. I am pleased to say that the overall idea of a police authority for London was picked up at one stage by the previous Government.
On 23 March 1993, the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), told the House that the Government's police reform programme would include creating a new police authority for the Metropolitan police in line with the new national pattern. Like so many policies of the
previous Administration, that lasted only a brief time before it was reversed. Indeed, the policy lasted fewer than 100 days before the then new Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), told the House that the Home Secretary--which, by strange chance, was him--would remain the police authority for London.
Having reached that position, the previous Government then created the Metropolitan police committee, which was appointed to advise the Home Secretary on his role as police authority. We were critical of those arrangements in opposition, and we are committed to changing them now. However, it would not be in the interests of the people of London simply to abolish the committee and leave me as police authority for the Met with no independent advice until a proper police authority is established.
I met the Metropolitan police committee recently, and I am impressed by the way in which it is carrying out its task. In advance of the proposed change to a police authority for London--and, of course, subject to the outcome of next year's referendum on a London authority--we plan to introduce transitional arrangements for the Metropolitan police committee to combine existing members with what would effectively be a shadow police authority for the following two years.
Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking):
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and I am grateful for his remarks about transitional arrangements, which I hope will be an improvement. Will those transitional arrangements ensure more openness in the deliberations of the Metropolitan police committee so that there can be some accountability to Londoners regarding what is discussed and what advice the committee gives to the Home Secretary?
Mr. Straw:
I want to see the committee operating more openly. I stress that there is no suggestion from committee members or from the chairman, Sir John Quinton, that they would want to do it any other way. I am happy to pursue that suggestion further with my hon. Friend.
I turn now to the performance of the Metropolitan police in 1996-97, which is the focus of the debate. The report shows that the Met achieved its targets for robbery in that year, with a detection rate of 19 per cent. for street crimes and 24 per cent. for robberies of business properties. As a result of Operation Eagle Eye, the rising trend of street robbery has been stemmed. To bring hon. Members up to date, in the year to March 1997, the number of burglaries in the Metropolitan police area fell by more than 5 per cent., and a detection rate of 22 per cent. was achieved. Operation Bumblebee--conducted London wide since June 1993--continues to impact on burglary in the capital.
Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East):
A fear of crime has emerged on the streets of Beckenham in the past week or so in terms of burglary and street crime. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give the people of Beckenham on that score?
Mr. Straw:
My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that, despite the success of the Metropolitan police, crime and the fear of crime remain very high in London and elsewhere. The simple explanation is that, as a result of
We must not only back Metropolitan police efforts in Beckenham and elsewhere, but put our community safety proposals on to the statute book very quickly. They are designed to ensure that local authorities and the police can work together much more effectively--as in the London borough of Bromley--to secure safety on the streets and in people's homes.
Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central):
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable initiatives undertaken in Croydon involving the local authority and the local police force? They have combined to reduce the level of crime significantly and to increase the level of detection. Will he comment on the relationship between increasing police effectiveness and resources? There is a slight concern that, where local authorities and police work very well together to reduce crime, the net result may be a reduction in the number of police officers: if the level of crime is reduced in an area, the resources are switched to areas with a higher propensity for crime. How is my right hon. Friend confronting that difficult issue?
Mr. Straw:
I know a good deal about what has happened in Croydon, where there has been a long-standing excellent partnership between police and local authorities. Our policies will build on successful activities throughout the country and strengthen the relationship between police and local authorities.
The question of police deployment in any police area is ultimately a matter for the chief officer. That is entirely right. An area should not be penalised for its success in reducing crime. On the other hand, if an area has been successful and the threat of crime has been reduced, it is appropriate that officers should be moved to other areas in order to follow a similar recipe for success there.
The police operation Crackdown on Drugs has also been successful. The campaign was launched in May 1996, with the aim of getting drug dealers off our streets and educating young people against using drugs. As a result of the campaign, the number of drug trafficking offences detected in London increased by 26 per cent.--nearly three times the target--and the number of drug possession offences detected rose by 6 per cent.
It is right that the Metropolitan police should direct resources to the key areas of concern: robbery, burglary and drugs. However, there is no doubt that people also seek the reassurance of a visible police presence alongside an intelligence-led policing policy. The Metropolitan police have continued to ensure that uniformed operational constables spend significant time on such visible duties. The public also look to the police to provide a high standard of emergency service. The Met now answers 90 per cent. of 999 calls within 15 seconds, despite an increase of more than 5 per cent. in the number of calls received.
I could not talk about policing in London without referring to the work undertaken by the capital's police officers in combating the threat to London from terrorism--work which continues today. As the House
well knows, we face terrorist threats from many quarters--international as well as domestic. We owe a great deal to the police for their vigilance and commitment. I am happy to pay particular tribute today to officers who deal with anti-terrorist measures.
It is a testament to the Metropolitan police service that it was able to cope so magnificently with the two biggest public events in the country within a matter of weeks. It had only days to organise policing of the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, one of the largest public events in living memory. A huge and largely unseen effort went into making that event safe and orderly. That was only a few weeks after its successful policing of the Notting Hill carnival.
The Government and I pay tribute--to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman)--to the men and women of the Metropolitan police, to all the officers and civilian staff, but especially the 3,000 injured as a result of being assaulted on duty. I remain very concerned about the high level of such injuries--with 1,800 officers forced to take sick leave as a result of injuries sustained on duty.
One thing that makes policing different from almost any other civilian job is that police officers face the ever-present danger of harm against them caused not accidentally but quite deliberately by those with whom they are trying to deal. That danger exists wherever and whenever police officers carry out their duties. There can be little doubt that there are particular dangers and pressures in policing the metropolis. Quantifying the difference is difficult, but it is there. I am struck, when talking to police officers in forces outside London, who may have served in the Met, how often they refer to that difference.
Wherever officers serve, we have to ensure that they are given proper protection against physical harm. The recent killing of Nina Mackay tragically reminded us of the dangers that police officers have to confront. That should have brought home to everyone the importance of giving officers the best possible protection. I share the Commissioner's determination to ensure that his officers are indeed properly protected. Since January 1997, a total of nearly 18,500 Metvests--the Met's protective body armour, have been issued.
The recent inquest into the death of Mr. Ibrahima Sey raised issues about the use CS spray by the police. I know that before CS spray was chosen, the police service looked very carefully at expert advice and at the result of a six-month operational trial. After the inquest, I read all the pathologists' reports and other medical and toxicological evidence that was submitted to it. There was nothing in the evidence to suggest that CS or the solvent MIBK, separately or in combination, present any significant threat to human health. I was--and remain--satisfied that there was no reason to suspend the use of CS spray. I strongly support the use of this equipment, which I believe is helping to protect the lives of police officers as they go about their duties.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |