| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Burglaries
4. Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): What measures he proposes to protect people from repeat burglaries. [69107]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced his intention to implement in December section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which provides for mandatory minimum sentences of three years' imprisonment for those convicted for a third time of committing domestic burglary. That supports the action that the Government are already taking to reduce and prevent burglary through the crime reduction programme and the work of the local crime and disorder partnerships.
Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Metropolitan police on the fact that levels of burglary in the capital are at their lowest since 1980? In particular, will he congratulate my local police service in Barnet, which has achieved a 26 per cent. reduction in burglary over two years through a multi-agency approach?
Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent survey by the Met, which showed that Londoners' No. 1 priority for policing is combating burglary? I welcome the Government's commitment to taking firm action against repeat burglars, who cause such misery when they prey on our constituents' homes, by giving the courts the powers that they need to deal with them.
Mr. Boateng:
I am happy to recognise and congratulate my hon. Friend's local police for their excellent work on
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Why does the Minister not recognise that the early release of prisoners on the home detention curfew scheme, many of whom are burglars, will make a mockery of the Government's attempts to convince the public that they are cracking down on serious burglars?
Mr. Boateng:
When will the hon. Gentleman learn not to try to score cheap party political points on a measure that enjoyed cross-party support on the Home Affairs Committee? After we discharge prisoners, we ensure that we retain the capacity to supervise them. They are punished in a condign way when they are caught. We are concentrating on making sure that there are programmes in prisons to prevent reoffending and on supervising prisoners on release. The Conservatives never did that when they had the stewardship of the criminal justice system.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton):
I thank my hon. Friend for his response on how burglars will be dealt with. The victims of crime are usually those who cannot afford the resources to protect their property. Are the Government able to help secure the homes of people on low incomes, old people in particular, to try to ensure that they are defended against burglars?
Mr. Boateng:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are applying about £50 million over three years to tackle burglary and to effect target hardening to ensure that older people, in particular, and all vulnerable victims of crime in high-burglary areas get the assistance that they need to deter and prevent burglary. That holds out the prospect of about 2 million households receiving help that they never would have got had that lot opposite returned to power at the general election.
5. Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
What assessment he has made of the adequacy of police numbers in Sussex. [69108]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng):
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no assessment of police numbers in Sussex. Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for the chief constable to determine the number of police officers in the force, within the resources available to him or her.
Mr. Baker:
I hear what the Minister says, but I hope that he shares my concern that a recent survey demonstrated that only 15 per cent. of people felt that there were enough police on the beat. I hope that he feels that he ought to do something about that. Before the general election, the Labour party was very keen to
Mr. Boateng:
The Lib Dems are trying to have it both ways, as usual. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the reality is that the number of police on the ground is an operational matter for the chief constable. The new Labour Government have provided an additional £1.24 billion for policing. We are also enabling the constabulary in Sussex to reinvest its 2 per cent. efficiency savings in front-line policing. That is warmly welcomed in Sussex. Is it too much to ask the Liberal Democrat party to recognise the good that is being done on the ground, rather than carping on and on about the number of police, which it knows is not the best criterion for reducing and preventing crime?
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex):
I thank the Minister for that thoroughly condign answer. Will he acknowledge that what he says is simply not true and that the news on numbers is not welcomed in Sussex? The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) is right to say that it is generally acknowledged in Sussex that there are not enough policemen on the beat, as the Minister himself would have said at the general election.
Will the Minister see to it that the rather exotic number of police required, rightly, to police Gatwick airport in north-west Sussex in no way impinges on the rightful need for more police in the ordinary Sussex police establishment?
Mr. Boateng:
I have never associated the hon. Gentleman with exoticism, but, as he raises the issue, I will of course take it up with the chief constable, who will be the first to recognise that it is an operational matter and not one on which it would be proper for me to comment.
6. Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South):
What plans he has for reform of police pensions. [69109]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey):
Following our consultation document of last year on police pensions, work is in hand on detailed proposals for the pension arrangements for new entrants to the service and for changes to the medical retirement procedures. We plan to publish our proposals in the spring. They will be published in advance of implementation to allow for full consultation with the interested parties.
Mr. Ottaway:
Does the Minister accept that the total size of the pension package expands year after year, and that it expands incrementally into a fixed budget? Is not the logical conclusion that there will be fewer policemen on the beat, in Sussex, Croydon or anywhere else?
Kate Hoey:
No, I do not accept that. As we have said all along, it is up to local police forces to use their resources as they think best to ensure that front-line policing is not affected. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the predicted need to spend on pensions has gone up from 13.2 to 14.5 per cent. It is up to the police forces
Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester):
Does the Minister agree that the current operation of police pensions has a direct bearing on front-line police services? Is she aware that, this afternoon, the Essex police authority is considering spending cuts of £7 million, partly brought about by the police pensions fund formula, which means that Essex will have 135 fewer police officers next year, the entire motor cycle fleet will be sold off, there will be less overtime for police officers to tackle crime and the mounted police section will be disbanded? Surely we need to tackle police pensions so that there is more money for front-line police services.
Kate Hoey:
We are all aware of the difficult position on the future of pensions. That is precisely why we are conducting a consultation exercise, why a document was published and why we shall consider the issue and make sensible, well-thought-out proposals that will take all those points into consideration. Although the hon. Gentleman believes that his force is particularly harshly affected, I do not accept that. There is a general problem that we need to tackle on a cross-party basis; police pensions are not a party political issue, but a problem that we all have to work towards solving.
Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield):
Is the hon. Lady aware that there are reports that the Home Office is considering punishing police officers who are convicted of serious disciplinary offences by cutting their pension by up to 75 per cent? I do not defend police officers who are found guilty of such offences, but can it be right to use their pension scheme as the penalty for a disciplinary offence?
Kate Hoey:
The right hon. Gentleman has been slightly badly briefed on this matter because that is the law at the moment, so exactly that action can be taken.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are concerned that sexist, racist behaviour does not, in many cases, lead to a loss of pension? If we are to strike out the cancer of racism in the police force, far more action is necessary, including cutting pensions.
Kate Hoey:
Clearly, every police officer has to be treated fairly. We are strengthening the position on discipline and the new arrangements from 1 April will take account of all that. The matter is on-going and some changes have already been made. I hope that my hon. Friend will wait to find out how those changes work in practice from 1 April.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
Does the hon. Lady agree that a pension is, in effect, pay deferred and that the question of punishing a police officer by removing his pension entitlement raises profound questions about the rights of property? Although that can be done now, will she inform the House that it will not be done?
Kate Hoey:
I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be equally badly briefed as his Front-Bench colleague,
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |