| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.44 pm
Mr. Michael: I congratulate all hon. Members who have participated in the debate on packing a great deal into a short space of time, and on raising many issues. It is impossible to answer all the questions, but I shall reply to specific points--particularly regarding local issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) was the first to make representations to me--so it was a first for us both. She pressed the case for Lincolnshire vigorously. The Lincolnshire force is caught by the inevitable consequences of the needs-based formula introduced by the previous Government, which, to be fair, commands general support among police and police authorities across the country.
The former Home Secretary made the mistake of awarding a grant that appeared to provide additional money over a period of years, but was intended to ease the situation for only a single year. As I said initially, we shall curtail the use of the special rules in order to remove that distortion. It is better to know exactly where one stands--even if that creates difficulties--so that one can predict future problems.
My hon. Friend referred to a nightmare family who have harassed a particular community for seven years. That is precisely why we are introducing the antisocial behaviour order in the Crime and Disorder Bill. One can imagine the amount of time and effort that police, local authorities, local councillors, Members of Parliament, and perhaps other agencies have devoted to that problem in the past seven years. The new order will give authorities the power to prevent a repetition of that sort of behaviour. That is important.
One may control the water level in a bath by turning off the tap as well as by pulling the plug--I hope hon. Members can follow my analogy. We must provide police with the resources and the tools to do the job in terms of legislation, powers to the courts and so on.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) acknowledged that we have increased the settlement to the Hampshire force by 3.8 per cent. I appreciate the
fact that specific events, such as finding asbestos in a police station, can cause unexpected problems--as do certain revenue pressures, such as a major incident, a new road or pursuing serious inquiries.
There is no way in which we can provide resources to deal with such problems without allowing for incredible variations in the settlement--not least because we would have to predict what might occur. We shall examine the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I cannot make any promises about what assistance we might provide. It is worth mentioning that we shall support four capital building projects in Hampshire in 1998-99.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, offered to provide a translation service. I was tempted to respond by saying that his comments should be translated as, "I was not in power then and I am not in power now, so don't take anything I say seriously." However, I do take the hon. Gentleman seriously, and he made some important points.
The hon. Gentleman described the criminal justice system as demand-led. One problem is that we have allowed the criminal justice system to be completely demand-led. It is a fact that incidents occur when they occur, and people commit crimes when they commit crimes.
However, we can do something about crime levels--for example, we can nip problems in the bud with young offenders. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I agree about that--as we discovered in a debate a few months ago. We are not only providing the police with the resources that enable them to do their job properly, but are creating an environment in which, with other partners, they can tackle crime and the causes of crime. We have introduced measures that enable the police to do their job much more efficiently.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) intervened briefly. It is worth pointing out that, up to now, any cuts have been the result of the previous Government's financial settlements. This year, we are giving the Greater Manchester police an increase of 3.8 per cent., slightly above the national average.
To the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) I would say that we would all like more, but 3.8 per cent. is the increase in spending power that we are giving the North Wales police. I visited the force recently, and a number of partnership developments are bearing fruit, such as the prevention of crime in Rhyl, or the work done with the local authority in Colwyn Bay and Llandudno. They are positive measures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) brought to bear his insight as an experienced chair of a police authority. He was right in what he said about the efficient use of money. That, rather than the distortion offered by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), was the point of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's comments in announcing the settlement. It is a general settlement, but we also need to consider the efficiency with which the police use the resources available to them. I urge the hon. Gentleman to re-read my right hon. Friend's press release.
Last year, for the 1997-98 financial year, there was a settlement of 3.7 per cent. This year, there is a settlement of 3.7 per cent. The difference is that last year's settlement was based on an inflation rate of 3.1 per cent., but this year's is based on an inflation rate of 2.7 per cent. That is the difference, and that shows the greater generosity of this Government compared with that of the previous Government.
The hon. Member for Ryedale said that the settlement will mean that council tax payers in London will have to pay more than in previous years. That is fair, given that the Government will still meet between 80 and 85 per cent. of police expenditure in the capital. The percentage of police spending raised from council tax in the Metropolitan Police district is estimated to be 12.9 per cent. in 1998-99. That is lower than the English average of 14.5 per cent., and a lot lower than that for any other force in the south-east of England.
Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should compare like with like, looking at fairness and not just where the increase applies. If he does so, he will see that the people of the Metropolitan Police area have received a fair settlement.
The hon. Gentleman said that criticism is easy, although he managed to make it sound difficult. We need only compare the previous Government's promise in 1992 to increase police numbers by 1,000--their choice, not ours--and their promise later to increase them by another 2,000, a total of 3,000, with their delivery of a cut of 469. The hon. Gentleman may say, by their deeds shall we know them, but we certainly know the Conservatives by their failure to deliver on their promises during the many years that they had the opportunity to deliver.
The Conservatives had the opportunity to put their money where their mouth was, and they failed. They failed to deliver their promises. They failed to be tough on crime and the causes of crime. They failed the British police and the British people. In contrast, this Government have made a good settlement, at a time of considerable financial restraint.
We are also taking other steps to work in partnership with the police, and to enable the police to work in partnership with local authorities and the community to deliver a high standard of policing and to improve it, so that we can see the problems of crime, which have bedevilled our communities for far too long, tackled efficiently by a partnership between Government and the police.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1998-99 (HC 492), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (Sittings)),
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.--[Janet Anderson.]
Question agreed to.
That the draft Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the Management of Crown Lands) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.--[Janet Anderson.]
Question agreed to.
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet on Monday 2nd March at half past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to take questions for oral answer pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 and to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 99.--[Janet Anderson.]
4 Feb 1998 : Column 1090
' .--(1) Where notice has been given under section 6 in relation to a public procession, a person proposing to organise a related protest meeting shall give notice of that proposal in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of sergeant by leaving the notice with him at the police station nearest to the place at which the meeting is to be held.
(2) Notice under this section shall be given--
(a) not later than 14 days before the date on which the meeting is to be held; or
(b) if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to give such notice.
(3) Notice under this section shall--
(a) be given in writing in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and
(b) be signed by the person giving the notice.
(4) The form prescribed under subsection (3)(a) shall require a person giving notice under this section to specify--
(a) the date and time when the meeting is to be held;
(b) the place at which it is to be held;
(c) the number of persons likely to take part in it;
(d) the arrangements for its control being made by the person proposing to organise it;
(e) the name and address of that person;
(f) where the notice is given as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), the reason why it was not reasonably practicable to give notice in accordance with paragraph (a) of that subsection; and
(g) such other matters as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary for, or appropriate for facilitating, the exercise by the Secretary of State or members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary of any function in relation to the meeting.
(5) The Chief Constable shall ensure that a copy of a notice given under this section is immediately sent to the Commission.
(6) A person who organises or takes part in a protest meeting--
(a) in respect of which the requirements of this section as to notice have not been satisfied; or
(b) which is held on a date or at a time or place which differs from the date, time or place specified in relation to it in the notice given under this section,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (6) it is a defence for the accused to prove that he did not know of, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, the failure to satisfy the requirements of this section or (as the case may be) the difference of date, time or place.
(8) To the extent that an alleged offence under subsection (6) turns on a difference of date, time or place it is a defence for the accused to prove that the difference arose from--
(a) circumstances beyond his control;
(b) something done in compliance with conditions imposed under Article 4(2) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; or
(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.'--[Mr. Ingram.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
5.55 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |