| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: In the spirit of openness and frankness, would the hon. Gentleman now like to put it on the record that under the previous Administration, whom he supported, crime doubled between 1979 and 1997?
Mr. Hawkins: The Home Secretary is well aware that the steepest decline since the war took place in the last three years of the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman wants to use his statistics selectively. He wants to use one period for one thing and another for another.
Mr. Straw: It is a simple question to answer. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that crime doubled between 1979 and 1997?
Mr. Hawkins: Will the Home Secretary agree that the police numbers have to be looked at over the whole period? That is the point that I am putting to him. He will not have one without the other--that reminds me of a song title.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey today attacked Labour for its policies in the Bill. I appreciate that his attacks on the Government may have cost him the leadership of his party, but I wonder whether tomorrow we shall find that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) support the Government on another Bill. We never know from day to day whether the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady will be consistent. We always get mixed messages. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the remarks of the outgoing chairman of the Prison Governors Association. I wonder whether the Minister of State will be prepared to talk in his reply about not only the remarks of the outgoing chairman but the recent press coverage of the misuse of drugs within Strangeways prison.
The hon. Member for Erdington and I have talked about some of the better prisons. The Minister seems to think that drugs in prisons are funny--I certainly do not. If he is listening, I ask him to deal seriously with the issue of drugs within Strangeways. The press coverage reinforces some of the concerns of the outgoing chairman of the PGA.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey rightly pointed out that, too often, we have from this Government legislation by spin and hype, with one-off press releases rather than thought. It is odd to have a Liberal Democrat spokesman talking about spin, hype and one-off press releases. That may be the pot calling the kettle black, but on this occasion at least the hon. Gentleman is right to attack the Government--if the cap fits, wear it.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the lifting of bans on those working with children. He made an important point with which I want to deal specifically. It may have been based on the Liberty brief from which a number of his subsequent points came. He said that when the risk had gone, the ban should perhaps be lifted. When it comes to those who commit offences against children, one can never say that the risk has gone. The immediate danger that that person may once have posed to children may have gone, but I am not sure that parents of either the original or future victims would be prepared to accept that the risk had ever gone. We shall have to debate that issue seriously in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman certainly spoke from the Liberty brief when he discussed the reverse burden of proof. He also raised questions about technology for electronic tagging, and we shall wish in Committee to press the Government hard on whether it is up and running. Too often during their time in power, technology has not been ready--the chaos caused by the new computer system in the Passport Agency was but one example.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) made a powerful contribution, based on his experience of criminal justice. He pointed out that the Government must be willing to deal with those who fail drug tests, and that they have not been terribly good at what they might call joined-up punishment.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) made an interesting speech. Leaving aside his totally specious figures on crime and the police since the Government came to power, I thought that he seemed extremely hesitant when challenged on the value of tinkering with the names of orders. Is there any point in changing the name of a probation order when Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers entirely rejects it? It is tinkering for no good purpose.
Mr. Gareth Thomas:
The hon. Gentleman has accused me of using specious statistics, but will he confirm that crime doubled between 1979 and 1997?
Mr. Hawkins:
If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends accept that overall police numbers rose by 16,000 over the whole period, we can agree. They cannot have one without the other.
Mr. Straw:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hawkins:
I have given way twice already to the Home Secretary on this point, but will again.
Mr. Straw:
I am happy to put on the record figures already in the public domain. Police numbers rose by 2,000 a year--by 10,000 in all--between 1974 and 1979 under Labour Governments. They rose by about 1,000 a year between 1979 and 1992, giving an increase of 16,000
Mr. Hawkins:
Yes, and the Home Secretary has finally accepted that we must consider police numbers over the whole period. The Home Secretary chose to talk about previous Labour Governments, but did not reveal that at the end of those Governments' period in office, police morale was so damaged that the police were threatening to strike. If police numbers are not turned round, he will again face real problems with morale.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
May I ask a much simpler question? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we clearly need a completely independent Office for National Statistics?
Mr. Hawkins:
Members of Parliament have the advantage of being able to have our figures checked by the House of Commons Library, but it is extraordinary that the Government often will not accept independent Library figures.
I shall finish on a point on which we shall press the Government hard. I have talked about problems with resources and technology. However, there is further concern about provisions that the Government have already introduced. I recently received a letter from the chairman of a youth panel--a bench of magistrates--about the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, from which the Bill follows, as the Home Secretary has said. The chairman pointed out that the youth panel had not had the training it needed to implement what the Government have already put into law. I shall send the letter to the Home Secretary because it outlines serious concerns.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng):
The Bill is about improving crime prevention and reduction and making it more effective. It is about reducing offending and improving public protection. It puts rehabilitation at the heart of the criminal justice system, and it protects children better. The Bill--improved, no doubt, in Committee--will ensure that the prison and probation services are able to work to reduce reoffending.
Our serious debate has been characterised by important speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who demonstrated from differing perspectives the importance of what we seek to do. There were also important speeches by the right hon. Member for Fareham
(Sir P. Lloyd), who brought his Home Office experience to bear, and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
The right hon. Member for Fareham made an important speech, not least when contrasted with that of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
Miss Widdecombe:
You surprise me.
Mr. Boateng:
I should be failing in my duty if I did not seek to surprise the right hon. Lady. She failed to grasp the seriousness of the occasion. She fell into a trap later identified by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who castigated the Liberal Democrats for succumbing to the dangers of one-off press releases as a substitute for thought. The right hon. Lady's whole speech was a one-off press release. It focused on home detention curfews and the supposed failure of the scheme, despite a success rate in excess of 90 per cent. Better public protection is at the heart of the scheme, and the right hon. Lady's Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, signed up to it at every stage. He failed to introduce any note of dissent when he had the opportunity to do so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |