---

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I am, as ever, reluctant to strike any negative or sour note. However, I point out to the Home Secretary that there is a distinct possibility that Chislehurst police station in my constituency will close very soon. I am told by the assistant Commissioner that police may be forced directly by the Home Secretary's budget allocations to close that police station. Against the background of the Home Secretary's comments in this debate--on community involvement, strengthening police effectiveness and so on--will he tell me how I should explain to the people of Chislehurst that closing their police station will make policing in their community more effective?

Mr. Straw: I should expect nothing else but for the right hon. Gentleman to strike a discordant note--he did so with his own Front Benchers when they were in government, and he does so now. The first thing that I should expect him to say to his electors is that the current year's police budget and last year's, for 1997-98, were based on the budget set by the previous Administration--[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members groaning about it; it is true. The only change that I made to the Metropolitan police service was to give it a little more money than it anticipated receiving from my predecessor as Home Secretary. That is the truth of it.

As for this year's settlement, the precept for London has not yet been set. I therefore have no idea how the police service in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) can be speculating about the effects of budget changes that have been not been established. It is a fair settlement.

The other thing that the right hon. Gentleman should point out to his constituents is that the police settlement for London, and for all the United Kingdom, is far in excess of anything that would have been provided by a Government whom he would have supported. Of that there is absolutely no doubt. We know it to be the case, because the shadow Chancellor has damned our spending plans, including those for the police--not because we are spending too little, but because we are spending too much.

15 Dec 1998 : Column 789

The right hon. Gentleman should tell the people of Chislehurst that his shadow Chancellor said that our spending plans are reckless. Had the right hon. Gentleman's party been in power, it would not just have been the closure of Chislehurst police station, but the police service generally would have been denuded across London and throughout the country. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; it has made me feel a lot better.

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley): A calming question. The Home Secretary mentioned the precept. As I understand it, the inner-London magistrates courts probation services are covered by the precept, so there are numerous questions about what will happen under the Bill, as it makes no mention of them.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman need not worry; we intend to deal with that--[Hon. Members: "Ah."] This Bill is about changing the way that the police service is funded and controlled. We have other proposals for the future of the probation service--as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) will know, because he pays assiduous attention to these matters--which were included in a consultative document that I published in the summer, on 8 August. We are proposing changes in the way that that service operates in London. I made it clear that we are minded to move from five separate probation services to a single service to cover the Greater London area. It would therefore be coterminous with a court service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the MPA.

Other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate--

Sir Paul Beresford rose--

Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

I want to say something about the relationship between the GLA and the MPA. The existence of a mayor and an assembly adds a dimension to the policing of London which is not present elsewhere. We have modelled the MPA's membership and functions on those of police authorities outside London, and have remained faithful to the tripartite structure. However, it is also right that the MPA should reflect the existence of this pan-London structure of assembly. After all, it was the absence of a Londonwide local government body in 1829 that contributed to the otherwise anomalous policing arrangements we see in London today.

The mayor will be involved through his or her appointment of 12 assembly members, including the deputy mayor, to the police authority. He or she will also be able to make representations on the list of candidates put forward for the office of the Metropolitan Commissioner. Equally importantly, as two high-profile London figures, the mayor and Commissioner will want to establish an effective working relationship. As for the assembly, it will provide a majority of the MPA membership. It will also be required to hold meetings at which it can put questions to the MPA about the discharge of its functions.

15 Dec 1998 : Column 790

Jointly, the mayor and the assembly will set the budget of the MPA as part of the single financial structure created by the Bill. However, to ensure that the policing of London is not put at risk, the Home Secretary will have the explicit power--a wider power than that which exists in the Police Acts--to set a minimum budget, sufficient to provide an efficient and effective police force.

In summary, there will be two bodies--the GLA and the MPA--working together. The two bodies will be accountable to the people of London, and will deliver benefits on their behalf. The new arrangements should mean improved policing on the streets. By harnessing the views and ideas of local people, and working with Londoners to reduce crime, they should contribute to creating a safer and more secure environment for the people of London. I commend the Bill.

5.9 pm

Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): One of the interesting sub-plots of this debate so far has been the parade of potential candidates for mayor of London--a parade in which the Home Secretary and I are non-marchers.

In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said:

"I also hope that I can look forward to seeing the Deputy Prime Minister campaign at my side in my struggle to become the Labour party candidate."

I am not very good at judging body language, but the way that the Deputy Prime Minister went a dangerous colour of beetroot red and muttered audibly, "I'll campaign for the Labour party candidate," did not automatically lead us to the conclusion that the prospect filled him with enormous enthusiasm.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town): I do not have the same recollection of what happened last night. The Deputy Prime Minister's response was that he would campaign for the Labour candidate who would be the next mayor of London.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman ought to concentrate. That is exactly what I said.

Next, we had the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who said:

"I make it clear that I have a further interest in that I intend in the new year to put my name forward for selection, and possibly therefore election, to the Greater London authority."

Asked in what capacity, the hon. Gentleman replied:

"That is not a matter for today."--[Official Report, 14 December 1998; Vol. 322 , c.647, 651.]

I did not see the Deputy Prime Minister's reaction, but, as he winces every time the question of closer links between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats is raised, I would guess that he is not greatly in favour of that solution either.

The third potential candidate is still to come. According to Michael White in The Guardian, the Minister for London and Construction, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), has emerged as a "late runner for mayor". Mr. White also comments--quite unfairly--

"critics say the balding and bespectacled 53 year old lacks the charisma to be Mr. London".

15 Dec 1998 : Column 791

We all agree that that is unfair. Mr. White concedes, however, that the hon. Gentleman is


"very voter friendly on the doorstep".

We look forward to the hon. Gentleman's campaign speech.

There is a serious point to be made about the selection of candidates for mayor, and, indeed, for the assembly. In October 1997, the Government Office for London--that is, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions--asked Professor Dunleavy and Dr. Margetts to examine some of the issues involved in the election of the London mayor. One of their recommendations was central to this debate. They said:

"The responses of political parties to the new voting systems will greatly affect the legitimacy of the systems with the public. There is a case for Government intervention to guarantee the use of one member one vote procedures in the selection of party candidates".

Conservative Members would have no difficulty with that proposal; nor, I think, would the Liberal Democrats. The system proposed by the Government, however, seems so designed to prevent the candidacy of the hon. Member for Brent, East that he has warned the Prime Minister that he will organise an American-style write-in campaign if the party hierarchy in the capital keeps his name off the short list. As for the system that I think the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was defending, the hon. Member for Brent, East has said--this did not strike me as a complete endorsement of his policy, although he may think differently--

"They have ignored the mandate of their own membership. I hope no one is going to need hospitalisation. One was aware at the weekend of bone-crunching pressures being applied to people".

I feel that, to put it at its mildest, the Labour party still has some way to go to meet the spirit of the report that the Government themselves commissioned. Doubtless, when he sums up the debate, the Minister will wish to emphasise his determination that a "one member, one vote" system should obtain, so that obvious candidates are not excluded from the selection. [Interruption.] I am an enthusiastic friend of my noble Friend Lord Archer, and it would be quite improper to say that he is here.

Two important points arise from the Home Secretary's speech. One relates to the policing of London. The right hon. Gentleman went into the history of the Metropolitan police in some detail, and he was right to do so. The force was first organised in 1829, which is a tribute to Robert Peel. The Home Secretary should also have told us:

"At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the very word 'police' was virtually unknown in England; a position which led one French visitor to complain: 'How can one expect order among these people who have not such a word as police in their language?'"

All that is set out in an excellent book that I wrote on the history of the police.

The Home Secretary proposes that he should cease to be the police authority for the Metropolitan police and that he should be replaced by a new police authority that would include 12 assembly members. So about half the assembly members will sit on the police authority.

As the Home Secretary said, in 1993 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) expressed some reservations about that proposal when he said:

"It is not proposed that there should be a police authority in the same way as for other forces because of the special national interest in the work of the Metropolitan police."

15 Dec 1998 : Column 792

I shall not repeat the arguments, as the Home Secretary knows them well.

We shall consider the proposal in depth in Committee, so I shall concentrate on one or two fundamental issues that surround the change. The first question should be: what do the public want of their police? Of course they want a force that is close to them and good relations to exist between police and public--that is, with all groups in the population. Good community relations always have been an integral part of policing.

In terms of international comparisons, no one can seriously accuse the Metropolitan police of falling down on that duty. Of course there are exceptions where cases have been handled badly and individuals have been unfairly treated, but in my view they are very much the exception. In other police forces around the world and certainly in Europe, the Metropolitan police is held up as an example of a force with good public relations.

The Home Secretary is always rather churlish about my books--

---