| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I intend to be much more subtle, but I am grateful to the Home Secretary for being my straight man. My point is serious. The right hon. Gentleman's document makes it clear that at all levels the Metropolitan police want to enter partnership schemes. The Home Secretary tells us that 90 per cent. of local authorities recognise community safety as an area of work that is relevant to theft. He says that two thirds are already engaged in independent, multi-agency partnerships and two thirds undertook local crime pattern analysis.
In view of that background, I was surprised to read the Home Secretary's other comment in his consultation document. He states:
If the Home Secretary insists on taking the legislative route, he is likely to expose himself to a charge which for him would be unjustified although I do not think it would be unjustified in relation to the Government. It is that his intentions are driven more by the desire of Labour councillors for more power than by a desire for better policing in local areas. It is well known that Labour councillors reacted badly when the independent police authorities were set up. We are in danger of seeing a pay-off, resulting from the Home Secretary's legislation, of the old Labour instincts of centralisation, bureaucracy and demarcation which characterise Labour-controlled town halls throughout Britain.
Mr. Straw:
I shall put the right hon. Gentleman right before he digs himself in deeper. The Crime and Disorder Bill implements a central recommendation by the Morgan committee on partnerships against crime--and that committee was established by the previous Administration. If old Labour has anything to say about the matter, its criticism might be that we are implementing a recommendation that was made to the Conservative Administration. The right hon. Gentleman is completely off beam. The purpose of putting the duty of crime partnerships into law is to impose obligations on local authorities that are not working effectively with police forces. There are a few such authorities and in some areas police divisions are not working effectively with local authorities. The legislation will not make much difference to the best, but it will make a huge difference to local authorities that are not performing well.
Sir Brian Mawhinney:
I understand that that is the Home Secretary's objective and I am aware of the Morgan report of 1991. Perhaps I know more about the matter than the right hon. Gentleman gives me credit for. My point is about what has happened in the interim. Because we encouraged it, voluntary development has proceeded apace. I am unimpressed by the Home Secretary's argument that, through legislation, he will be able to force Labour councillors to do what by instinct they are not prepared to do now on behalf of those who elected them. They will create a bureaucratic nightmare. We shall return to this matter throughout this Parliament.
Mr. McDonnell:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Brian Mawhinney:
No, because there is to be a statement at 11 o'clock and I must finish before it.
I should like to comment on three of the Metropolitan police's objectives. First, I welcome the decrease in burglary--the figures are back to the 1989 level, although they are still too high. If the Home Secretary wants to be seen to be serious in his commitment to reduce burglary figures further, he has a simple way of going about it. He can give effect to existing legislation. Mandatory minimum sentences for repeat burglars would offer great encouragement to the people of London.
Secondly, I welcome the 26 per cent. increase in the detection of illegal production of, supply of and intent to supply controlled drugs. Drugs lie at the heart of too much crime and anything that the Government can do--I recognise that it is limited--particularly to create an environment that enables that menace, which destroys lives, families and communities, to be dealt with, will command widespread support in the House.
I commend to the Home Secretary taking time to return to the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where the first substance misuse task force in the country was set up voluntarily by the local authority and the police. The health information project in the north of the borough is supported by the council and police and provides voluntary sector input to the drugs referral scheme operated by the police. One of the good news aspects of the Commissioner's report is the increasing effectiveness of partnership. I do not want that to be put at risk. So much that is good and properly motivated is already in place.
Thirdly, 61 per cent. of constable time is spent on the beat. It is a cross-party view that people are reassured by the sight of a policeman or policewoman on the beat. Indeed, the comment, "You can never find a policeman when you want one" is an inverted compliment to the police as it shows that that is where we always start to look for help, so I commend the Commissioner for meeting that objective. I and, no doubt, other hon. Members hope that he will set an even higher objective for next year and meet that too.
I heard what the Home Secretary said about resources. I understand his problem in terms of the budget. Indeed, it must be uncomfortable for him to share his Home Office responsibilities with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as it is the Chancellor, a sort of Home Secretary manque, who is refusing to allow the Home Secretary to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for burglars and is encouraging him to take over the power of the courts and to tag prisoners and release them early.
We introduced tagging, and support it in the terms that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the previous Home Secretary, set out, but if the Home Secretary takes to himself powers that have traditionally been exercised only by the courts, he is going to get himself and the Government into serious difficulty as the public will understand that he and the Chancellor set more store by money than by policing and public protection.
If I were the Home Secretary, I would be suitably aggrieved at the Chancellor because his handling of the economy in the past six months has added 1 per cent. to inflation and I am sure that the Home Secretary knows that 1 per cent. added to inflation represents £17.5 million for the Metropolitan police budget. We do not have to have a big debate about resources. We will settle just for
the fact that, through inflation alone, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor have robbed the Metropolitan police of £17.5 million next year.
The Labour party's manifesto for London says:
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall):
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his commitment to the policing of London and particularly to my borough of Lambeth. I know that it was mentioned earlier, but it is
In welcoming the debate, which takes place every year--I know that it has been slightly more than a year since the previous one--I want to take stock of where we are and, in particular, to pay tribute to the work of the Metropolitan police throughout London, especially in my borough. We can be proud of the service. It is continuing to change, which it needs to do to serve the needs of London's diverse communities.
I am pleased that relations between the police, the community and my local authority continue to improve. A great deal of constructive work has been done over the past year or so. The community police consultative group continues to prosper--and I say that in the historical context of Lambeth not having had good relations with the police. The group is now under the chairmanship of Mike Franklin. He stepped naturally into the shoes of Nicholas Long, who chaired the group so well and for so long. Mike Franklin is very well respected and everyone is convinced that he will be a great leader for community- police relations in my borough. The future for the group looks very bright.
"It costs nothing for a local authority to make crime one of the many factors which is routinely considered when, say, new policies for the delivery of social services are planned,".
Later in the document, he states that in order to set the attitudinal framework within which such co-operation can take place he intends to legislate. I ask him to think again.
I have spoken about partnership so that he will not accuse me or any other Opposition Member of being against partnership. My point is different. It is that if there are excellent examples--I think that I am right in saying that there are more than 300--of co-operation between local authorities and police in which each is motivated to work with the other for the common good, what leads him to believe that the process is likely to be enhanced by legislation? Experience teaches us that it is more likely to be enhanced by encouragement, the spread of good practice, guidelines and politicians in all parts of the House throwing their weight behind the development of what has already taken place. We are not debating theory: we are discussing the fact that more than 300 first-class schemes are already in place.
"Labour fully supports the Metropolitan Police in their fight against crime . . . Those who assault and rob should be caught and punished".
But we are not going to have mandatory minimum sentences for burglars and I understand that we are going to let people out of prison early. I then read:
"many people in London don't feel safe when they are out".
But there is no CCTV commitment from the Government to do anything about it. Then I read:
"Labour boroughs have been at the forefront of partnerships against crime".
I look at the list of voluntary initiatives and do not see any reassurance to the public.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |