---

Mr. Straw: I have not read that one.

Sir Norman Fowler: Then there is a treat in store for him. In one, I compared the British police--particularly the Metropolitan police--with police forces in other European countries.

Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: Let me finish citing the example.

The result was that the London police were seen as the model of how a police force should be organised. That is not by any means a case for being complacent, but it serves to put the issue in some context.

As well as good relations, the public want effective policing. They want crimes investigated, crime prevention undertaken and burglars, robbers and muggers detected and convicted. The Home Secretary is the police authority for just one force--the Metropolitan police--but what happens in that force has a pervasive effect on every police force in the country. The advantage of having the Home Secretary as police authority is that there is no one else to blame when the objectives of tackling crime are not achieved. The buck stops with him.

Irrespective of whether or not we have a new police authority, the financial levers of power remain with the Home Secretary. Of course they are crucial in achieving an effective police service. That is not the case in other countries.

In New York, which has roughly the same population as London, a proactive policing policy has reduced crime dramatically--in the past four years, it has fallen by 40 per cent. A few weeks ago, I visited the New York police, and, while I was in the city, the New York Times carried a survey showing that 60 per cent. of the public believed that life in the city had improved thanks almost exclusively to more effective policing.

In the past five years, the incidence of crime in London has also fallen. The Metropolitan police and, indeed, the Home Secretary's predecessor deserve credit for that. What is fundamentally different between the two cities is that, as a prelude to New York's attack on crime, the

15 Dec 1998 : Column 793

mayor ordered the recruitment of 7,000 more police officers. Without that, it would have been impossible to implement the so-called zero tolerance policy.

In London, the contrast could not have been greater. The strength of the Metropolitan police has increased since 1979, when the force numbered 22,000; when the Conservative Government left office, it numbered 26,700. However, numbers are now falling. Indeed, many people predict that, over the next three years, the numbers in the Metropolitan police could fall to 24,000, 23,000 or even 22,000, which was the number in 1979.

We listened with some care to what the Home Secretary said about finances. In fact, between 1979 and 1997, resources for the police service increased by more than 70 per cent. in real terms; as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, that was what made the growth of the police service possible. Now, however, although there is an increase in cash terms, there is no real increase whatever.

Despite the fact that there will be a new police authority, responsibility for what happens in London will continue to rest heavily with the Home Office and the Home Secretary. In Committee, we shall have to consider carefully what improvement the change will make. The acid test will be what best serves the public interest. We are prepared to suspend judgment on that, but we reserve the right to reconsider the matter.

On constitutional change--

Mr. Wilshire: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the police, will he assure me that, when he seeks the support of Conservative Members for the changes that he wants to make to the Bill, he will not ask us to oppose the proposals to make the Metropolitan police boundary the same as that for Greater London?

Sir Norman Fowler: I give my hon. Friend a categorical undertaking on that.

On constitutional change, the position is much clearer. Neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the Home Secretary seems to have examined the subject in much detail. One of the main themes in the debate about London has been the make-up of the new assembly, and the role of the new mayor. Labour Members have suggested that our proposal for an assembly made up of borough leaders is unworkable. It is odd that, when we consider the make-up of a new second Chamber--the Chamber to replace the House of Lords--one of the favourite proposals is that a substantial number of its members should come from the regional assemblies. On 12 December, The Herald of Glasgow reported that the Lord Chancellor had said:

"The Scottish Parliament could be given the task of electing Scottish members of the reformed House of Lords".

The argument is that such a system would provide a form of unity and avoid the creation of unconnected layer after unconnected layer of government. It is the same argument that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) advanced yesterday.

Mr. Straw: I had the experience--I make this point in the most non-partisan way I can--of serving on the old

15 Dec 1998 : Column 794

Inner London education authority, which was partly made up in the way that the right hon. Gentleman proposes: it comprised the Greater London members for the inner London boroughs, plus one borough representative from each of the 12 boroughs.

ILEA was set up by the London Government Act 1963, and both major parties tried to make it work. However, as a borough representative, I thought that the system was inherently unsatisfactory; we were not clear to whom we were accountable. The same would be true even if borough leaders were put on a Greater London authority. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals would not create a sense of unity; the experiences of people of both parties who served on ILEA suggest that the new body should be directly elected.

Sir Norman Fowler: I hear what the Home Secretary says, but I do not agree. The Government's approach illustrates one of the difficulties inherent in the debate; their plans for constitutional change are not joined up. Different electoral systems and different kinds of constituencies are proposed--party lists are taking the place of named-candidate lists in some elections, and there are enormous gaps in the constitutional plan. For example, no one knows how the second Chamber will be constituted--for the very good reason that the Government do not know. We heard vague words yesterday about regional assemblies but, in practice, we know that the only change outside London will be the introduction of unelected regional development agencies. On the basis of the Bill, our proposals for London seem to be looking stronger and stronger by the minute.

For the assembly, according to the White Paper, the Government are working on the premise that

"assembly members will be required to think and act strategically, looking at London-wide issues in the round and at the long-term interests of the capital. They do not nor should they duplicate the local representational roles of borough councillors, MPs and MEPs."

Let us be clear--we can now eliminate Members of the European Parliament from that list. No one pretends that the party list system that the Government have chosen for the European elections will provide truly local representation at that level. The loyalty of the Member of the European Parliament will be to the party, not to the local public. That is the basic argument that we have made, and will continue to make.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Before the right hon. Gentleman digs himself further into a hole, will he reflect on the views of the London boroughs? Is he aware that the Association of London Government has stated clearly that it does not share the Opposition's view that the assembly should be made up of London borough leaders? The chairman of the ALG has said that the role of the assembly should not be confused with the local role of London borough councillors. Is not that a clear example of what London boroughs think? Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is wrong?

Sir Norman Fowler: No, I will not. The Minister is always guided by such representational views. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] In an Evening Standard survey of the boroughs to which he referred, only five of the 19 Labour council leaders gave their enthusiastic backing to the Prime Minister's idea. Four refused to comment, or said

15 Dec 1998 : Column 795

that they had not made up their minds. Ten were against the proposals. That was in 1997. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) will deal with parts of the letter to which the Minister referred.

I wish that the Minister would deal with the argument, and not for ever seek to quote people as if that settled the matter. It does not. The argument is flawed in the first place. Duplication takes place only if functions are duplicated; that must be the case, surely. The Government, however, say that that is not the case, and that functions are different. Why have the Government adopted different systems in Scotland and Wales? In Scotland and Wales, those who represent assembly constituencies will be the same as those representing parliamentary constituencies. Why are not the Government adopting that system for the elected assembly for London?

Mr. Raynsford: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have adopted exactly the same electoral system in London as in Scotland and Wales--the additional member system, with some members elected for constituencies and some from a party list. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman is not terribly well versed in those constitutional matters, which are all completely consistent.

---