| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North): The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is slightly confusing. As I understand it, roughly three people from across all ethnic minorities for every one white person are stopped and searched. Logically, the arrest rate would have to be correspondingly higher to ensure that there was no discrimination. The fact that the arrest rates are within 0.4 per cent. of each other in the case of black and white Londoners destroys his argument.
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the point. She is wrong. We have to consider the proportion of the people in all communities who were subsequently arrested after having been stopped and searched. If the proportion of those who were subsequently arrested was significantly smaller in any community--it is slightly smaller for Asians--that would be a matter for concern. That is what ought to lead one to examine whether those powers are being exercised in a discriminatory way.
We must be careful not to allow simplistic inferences to be drawn from statistics that do not necessarily reflect the full complexity of the issue, but nor must we allow unsubstantiated perceptions to hamper the police's ability to do their job, and to undo all the good that has been achieved through targeted initiatives, such as Operation Eagle Eye.
I was particularly pleased that, in an interview in the Evening Standard on 13 May this year, the Minister of State, who has just joined us, affirmed his support for stop and search. He said:
My concern is that the Government's response to the Macpherson report should not undermine the ability of the police to carry out their duties. That must not be allowed to happen. There is much of merit in the Macpherson report, and I know that the Commissioner has responded
positively to the thrust of its recommendations. However, we must not throw out the baby with the bath water. In seeking to eradicate any traces of racism in the police service, and to ensure the fair policing of all communities, we must be careful not to inhibit the police in their use of the powers that they need to tackle crime effectively.
We should not allow the police to be burdened with spurious responsibilities, which may interfere with a sensible ordering of their priorities. To me, one of the most puzzling recommendations of the Macpherson report was that which suggested not only that the term "racist incident" must be understood to include both crimes and non-crimes--I understand that, and have no difficulty with it--but that both should be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.
If an activity has been defined by society and the law as a non-crime, it ought inevitably to follow that it is given less priority in an investigation than an activity that has been defined as criminal. There is a crucial distinction between the two. Aneurin Bevan famously said that socialism is the language of priorities. Policing, too, must have priorities, and it must give greater priority to the reporting, recording and investigation of crimes than it gives to the reporting, recording and investigation of non-crimes. That is a basic proposition of common sense, and I am puzzled that it was not shared by the Macpherson inquiry.
Mr. Stephen Twigg (Enfield, Southgate):
I am pleased to contribute to this important debate. As other hon. Members have said, policing our capital city poses enormous challenges for all of us. It is a busy, vibrant and diverse place. Many of the challenges posed to us here in London are the same as the challenges in any great town or city, but we face the extra challenge of the ever present threat of terrorism and terrorist violence.
It is almost three months since the three acts of terror in London--in Brixton, in Brick lane and in Soho. The threat of prejudice and bigotry tore at the heart of our capital city. It is important for us to learn the lessons of Brixton, Brick lane and Soho. All London Members will recall the days that followed the second bombing, when the capital city waited, expecting a third atrocity, and speculated about who would be targeted this time and where that third atrocity would take place.
I was very well briefed by the borough commander in Enfield, as I am sure other Members were by their local police, about possible targets in our community. Few of us thought at the time that the likeliest target was the lesbian and gay community, but we then witnessed that appalling atrocity in Soho, which, as the Home Secretary has said this morning, resulted not only in horrific injuries but in the deaths of three innocent people. We must learn lessons from that about how we can ensure that there is
trust between all sections of the community and the police, and ensure that we deliver equal access to our policing service here in London.
One of the issues addressed in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was that of racially motivated or racially aggravated crime. We are already beginning to see the impact of that new law in the increasing public and police awareness of the importance of dealing with racial aggravation. During the passage of the Act, a number of us drew attention to the need to address wider hate crimes as well. In Committee, it was pointed out that crimes committed on the grounds of religion or sexuality were not covered by the legislation. I ask Ministers to consider whether we need to look again at the law as it relates to hate crimes, especially in the light of what happened in Soho--or at least, to look again at the guidance issued by the Home Office. It must be recognised that a hate crime committed against someone because that person is gay is just as serious as a hate crime committed against people because they are black or Asian.
As others have said today, it is important for our police force in London to reflect the diversity of our community. We still have a long way to go, but I pay tribute to the outgoing Commissioner for his work, and to the various groups in the police force who have been prepared to tackle some of the prejudice that exists--in particular, the Black Police Officers Association, the Lesbian and Gay Police Officers Association and the Greek and Greek Cypriot Police Officers Association. My constituency contains a larger Greek Cypriot community than any other constituency in the country, and I was delighted to discover recently that that association had existed for years. Its aim is to ensure that an effective relationship exists between the Greek and Greek Cypriot community and the police.
As my constituency waited in fear of a possible third atrocity, I was well aware of its diversity, and of the possible targets: the Greek Cypriot community,the Turkish-speaking community--including Turkish Cypriots--and the Jewish community. There was a feeling of vigilance, which is still there, although there have been only those three atrocities. I hope that there will be no more.
We must make certain that those who died at the Admiral Duncan pub did not die in vain. I pay tribute to all who have sought to ensure that we remember those people and act in their memory. In particular, I pay tribute to the Stonewall group, and to the gay and lesbian policing project in London. As the Prime Minister said at the time, we must recognise that those crimes were committed against all of us, and against the values that we all hold dear; but we must also recognise that the impact of the crimes in Brixton, Brick lane and Soho was felt most powerfully in the communities that were specifically targeted.
Let me make a broader point about policing in London. I welcome the Government's current policy, which is to encourage the development of a multi-agency approach and break down some of the barriers between different organisations. That is probably the strongest theme of the new crime and disorder legislation. Having spoken to the police in my area over the past week, I know that they feel very positive about the impact of the Crime and Disorder Act, which they say has provided a catalyst for
agencies to come together to solve problems. It has brought about more coherence in the provision of services for the local community. They also say that they expect the new legislation to deliver cost savings, as different parts of the strategy are provided by the organisations with the most expertise and experience.
However, the police in Enfield have expressed concern about the fact that different agencies working together in crime and disorder partnerships have different priorities because they have different performance indicators. They have emphasised that it is important for all Departments and other agencies to pay regard to the Crime and Disorder Act when formulating performance indicators and deciding on priorities. They have also pointed out that funding remains a limiting factor--although, as has been said, it is hoped that some of it will be provided by the moneys that replace section 11 funding.
My constituency looks forward to having a single borough basis for the delivery of the police service, and the advantages of efficiency and representation that that will bring. The priorities of policing in my borough are much the same as those throughout the force: to increase security, to deal with young offenders speedily, to reduce the incidence of burglary and street crime, to deliver effective local partnerships to target crime and disorder, and, in particular, to increase the detection of drug offences in cases in which there is a link with violent crime.
The success that has been achieved in Enfield mirrors the national success of which the Home Secretary spoke--the success that has been achieved throughout the Metropolitan police area. Burglary rates have fallen throughout the borough over the past five years, and there was a 25 per cent. fall in 1997-98. Local businesses have been actively engaged in the attempt to tackle crime targeted on shopping centres, and, as others have said, we have seen the success of Operation Bumblebee and neighbourhood watch,
Enfield is taking a successful multi-agency approach to tackling racist crime. Some years ago the racial incidents action group was set up there, and the Home Office has commended it as an excellent example of good practice. Last year, I was delighted that the Home Secretary was able to visit the Oakwood area of my constituency, where there had been a particular problem of racist crime directed mostly at the Asian community, but also at the Jewish community. I am pleased to say that, thanks in large part to the work of the police, the local authority and the local community, there has been a significant fall in the number of reported incidents of racist crime in Oakwood.
Oakwood is a small area, part of a ward. In 1997, 48 cases of racist crime were reported there. I am told that since July 1998, only two cases have been reported. That is a very positive development. People are being encouraged to come forward and report crimes, and the police have been taking tough action. People have been taken to court and one or two of them have been sentenced. The local authority has made a strong commitment to work with the local community. I see that as a beacon of good practice, showing how partnership can be made a reality and people's lives can be dramatically improved.
As we have heard from other hon. Members, we still have a very long way to go. The borough-wide figures for racially aggravated offences in Enfield give a different
picture from the one that I have described for that small part of my constituency. In 1994 there were 75 reported cases. By 1998 that number had almost quadrupled, to 287. None the less, there is a lot that is positive and can be welcomed.
"Stop and search is there to be used as part of the police's armoury. We expect the police to use it. There's no softly, softly policy, there's no hands-off policy."
That is an important statement. It was reinforced by the Home Secretary in his remarks to us at the beginning of the debate. I hope that the Government stick to it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |