TUESDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr Robin Corbett, in the Chair
Mr Ian Cawsey
Mr Gerald Howarth
Mr Martin Linton
Mr Humfrey Malins
Mr Bob Russell
Mr Marsha Singh
Mr David Winnick
_________
THE RT HON MR JACK STRAW, a Member of the House, Secretary of State for
the Home Department, examined.
Chairman
1. Good morning. In many of our questions we shall try to link the
settlements of the spending review to service delivery agreements; in other
words, what we receive for what we give. In July you told us of major
increases in Home Office spending for the next year. When do you expect to
be able to give us a more detailed breakdown of those spending allocations?
(Mr Straw) The spending allocations for the police, the major proportion
of the figures, for the next financial year will be announced shortly, along
with the announcements in relation to the revenue support grants for local
authorities generally. That will certainly happen before the end of this
parliamentary session; ie, before Queen's Speech. Much of the other detail
has already been announced - that related to two years. As you know on asylum
seekers, roughly speaking there has been a œ600 million increase in
expenditure. That has already been announced.
2. Are there any areas of Home Office spending that will face
reductions or lower inflation increases in spending? Priorities change so why
should they not?
(Mr Straw) I shall double check, but in terms of all the major heads of
spending, no. Within individual heads there may be some reductions but, as
you will be aware, overall expenditure on the police next year is due to rise
in real terms by 7.4 per cent which, as I pointed out yesterday in the House,
is more than double the increase in real terms that took place in the past
four years of settlements for which the previous government were responsible.
They will rise by three and a half per cent the following year. You are aware
that on asylum and immigration there has been a significant increase in
expenditure. On the constitutional area of the Home Office, the numbers are
much smaller in absolute terms, but there are significant increases to pay
for, for example, what we are doing on race relations, the implementation of
the Representation of the People Act, which is already law, and the Political
Parties and Elections Bill that we hope will become law quickly and also the
Human Rights Act which goes across government. Active communities have an
increase in funding against relatively small numbers. So overall, all areas
have received an increase although within individual areas there may be some
reductions. We are also requiring all the services to make efficiency
savings. At a time of increasing real budgets, it is important that the money
goes into clear outputs and that it is not just absorbed by the system. The
capacity of any public system service, after a fairly tight period of
spending, to absorb additional spending is well known and we wish to avoid
that.
3. With the caution which you will understand, when we saw the
National Criminal Intelligence Service last week, they told us of an
aspirational bid that they had made to double nearly their funding, from œ47.5
million to œ90 million to reflect the critical importance of the work that
they carry out, not least in trying to combat organised and international
crime. What kind of priority do you attach to increasing the budget
performance?
(Mr Straw) I attach particular importance to increasing the budget of
NCIS and the National Crime Squad. It increased for this year by low double
digits. I can supply the detailed figures to the Committee. That was a
greater increase than the police service generally received and was subject
to some criticism by the police service because inevitably it comes out of the
same pot. It is important. If I were in the position of the service
authority and the directors general of NCIS and NCS, I would also make large
bids but I think that they will be satisfied with the money that they are
receiving. Money has been earmarked in the settlement for further investment
to deal with international and organised crime.
Mr Singh
4. Home Secretary, with reference to the joint criminal justice
system reserve, in July you said that, "The reserve will provide us with much
greater flexibility and will mean that we will be able to respond effectively
to new pressures on the system as they arise". How do you envisage that that
reserve will be used? What new pressures do you envisage will arise?
(Mr Straw) Aside from providing additional funding, the purpose of the
reserve is to ensure that there is better joined-up decision making working
between the three main justice departments than there has been in the past.
I chair a ministerial committee which includes the Lord Chancellor, the
Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary of the Treasury. That has been going
for about three years and has carried out a good deal of work in bringing
together the departments. Now we have a joint budget. Therefore, it provides
both an incentive and an imperative on the three justice departments to work
together and to recognise that they share common problems. Each department
has made bids. I had a meeting at the Home Office to go through the bids with
my own officials. Inevitably, the bids come to more than the money that is
available. As far as I am concerned, that is fine, because we can make
priorities. We are looking at some aspects of assisting victims, which is
extremely important and, for example, there is victim's statement initiative,
that I announced in June I think, by which there would be a statement of the
impact that a crime had had on a victim made available to the prosecution and
then to the court. Obviously, that has implications in terms of expenditure
for the police, for the Crown Prosecution Service and to some extent for the
court. That is a good example of how we are looking at the costs of that and
its input. We want to see whether that is flagged up in the Chancellor's
statement in July. We want to see an increase in the number of offenders
brought to justice. That is to be achieved partly by reducing the
discontinuance or down-grading rate of charges brought by the Crown
Prosecution Service which are too high and by seeing more people brought to
justice. That has implications for the police and it plainly has implications
for the Crown Prosecution Service as well as for the courts. On the Crown
Prosecution Service, I am concerned to ensure that some of the money is used
to make good the under-investment in the prosecution system that has been
inherent in the CPS ever since it was established in 1985. If I am asked to
give an explanation as to why in the 1980s the system of prosecution, and
bringing offenders to justice, was degraded, and in the mid-1980s went into
free-fall, so that we ended up with a situation in which the chance of a
burglar being brought to justice was one in ten in the late 1970s and when we
came into office it was down to one in 25, the single most important factor
is the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service was established and the fact
that the government of the day failed to recognise that the new service
required significant investment.
5. Investment in terms of people?
(Mr Straw) In terms of people, IT facilities and organisation. I have
gone into this matter in great detail. Your Committee, Mr Chairman, will be
aware that before the Prosecution of Offenders Act came into force,
prosecution was a matter for the police and it was handled in the magistrates'
courts, typically by a police inspector, although sometimes by junior counsel.
I certainly cut my teeth in that way and I believe there are one or two
Members of the Committee who may have done that. For some cases there were
inhouse solicitors' departments, as there were in the Metropolitan Police
Service and in Lancashire, to take two examples, and in other cases, for
example in Surrey, the whole of the prosecution arrangements were farmed out
to a private firm of solicitors. The Royal Commission at the end of the
1970s, the Phillips Royal Commission, recommended the establishment of a Crown
prosecution service. It went into how it should be established, for example,
on a police force area basis and that there should be police and prosecuting
authorities set up for each area. It went into whether there should be a
national system and said that they knew of no common law jurisdiction of the
size and complexity of England and Wales and it did not think that it would
work as it would be too bureaucratic and so on. So what happened? At the
time, Mrs Thatcher gibbed at any idea of giving local authorities additional
responsibilities and the system was nationalised. It got off to a poor start.
There was under-investment by 50 per cent, and they were running fast to stand
still and in some cases went backwards for many years. When we came into
office, we said that, first, we would establish the CPS on a police force area
basis and Crown prosecutors for each area have been established. We also said
that we would undertake a major study of the needs of the service. That was
carried out by Sir Iain Glidewell, a retired High Court judge, with two other
distinguished people alongside him. That is being implemented. More
resources have gone into the CPS, as announced in July. We are also looking
at whether to put additional resources into the CPS to upgrade the way in
which it operates. Obviously, it is of critical importance.
6. What you have said sounds marvellous.
(Mr Straw) I would not call it marvellous, but it is better.
7. It begs the question why these things cannot be built into normal
spending plans? Why do you need a special reserve?
(Mr Straw) Really it is for the reasons that I have given. We want to
achieve better joined-up working between the three criminal justice
departments. In my judgment it is very important that decisions about the
appointment and supervision of the judiciary are entirely separate from the
prosecution decisions and certainly from supervision of the police and the
area for which the Home Secretary is responsible. That is not something that
I ever interfere with, and nor should any Home Secretary. It is equally
important that decisions about prosecutions are handled by the Attorney and
the Solicitor in a separate and quasi-judicial way. What those two
imperatives have led to in the past is separation in terms of any kind of
joined-up working of the budget, administration and so on. We are trying to
get away from that. All three of the key Ministers, along with Andrew Smith,
the Chief Secretary, are enthusiastic for that kind of joined-up working. We
believe it is a far better way of allocating additional funds than the
traditional way. Each of the departments - the Home Office, the LCD and the
Law Office Department - have received increases in their funds in any event
for court services, the CPS and related matters. This is in addition.
8. Cynics may suggest that this is the Home Secretary's slush fund?
(Mr Straw) I wish it were, is the answer. There is every ground for
being sceptical with regard to the Home Secretary, but no ground whatever for
being cynical.
9. Who makes the spending decisions?
(Mr Straw) The spending decisions will be made by the ministerial
committee and, of course, will be announced in Parliament.
10. I understand that an extra million pounds is being spent on IT
equipment.
(Mr Straw) It is a lot more than a million pounds; it is millions more
than a million.
11. given our experiences with IT equipment in the Home Office and
the Passport Office, what steps have been taken to ensure that we do not end
up in similar situations again?
(Mr Straw) A lot is being done, not least because of the experience that
I have had over the past three and a half years. On large scale IT projects,
problems of them not coming up to specification, not being delivered on time
are common not just to the public sector but also to the private sector. They
are widespread and inherent in the way that the systems are sold, with a sort
of mystery that still surrounds much IT. That is, as it were, a unique
selling point for many of the people whose business it is to sell the systems,
often on a wing and a prayer. It is important to make it clear that it is an
endemic problem across the whole of our modern life. Colleagues think of the
catastrophe of the Stock Exchange's Taurus system which cost about œ600
million some years ago and that went down the drain. If you talk to the heads
of any large industrial commercial company they will tell you all sorts of IT
horrors. The only difference between theirs and ours is that ours are very
well publicised, and rightly so, because it is public money. There are some
IT systems within the Home Office beat that work extremely well. The best one
is that run by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. There is an interesting
story to that. The reason that that has gone well is significantly to do with
the fact that Sir Fred Crawford, chairman of the CCRC, understands IT and
because they decided that, instead of re-inventing the wheel and ordering
bespoke software, that they would use commercial software and put it together.
The advantages of that are obvious. When it is upgraded you can buy it off-
the-shelf. There have been many problems in the IT systems in the criminal
justice world. The inherent problem is that each agency, each police service,
was left to its own devices for many years, so police services' IT systems did
not necessarily talk to each other. Some of the systems have worked. The
police national computer has been a relative success. The previous
administration set up the Police Information and Technology Organisation,
which co-ordinates matters and we are seeking to strengthen that organisation,
not least by the appointment of a full-time chairman.
12. It is estimated that the Mode of Trial Bill will achieve savings
of œ128 million. However, in view of the problems in relation to the Bill at
the moment, and as it will be delayed while we await the Auld report on the
criminal justice system, will you have to find the savings elsewhere?
(Mr Straw) They will not have to be found elsewhere. We have made
provision. That was factored in at the time of the SR2000.
13. So there is no œ128 million black hole?
(Mr Straw) No, the money is to be spent. There is no black hole. This
is straightforward cash that is a major investment that we are providing on
SR2000 for the criminal justice services.
Mr Russell
14. Home Secretary, on the confiscation of assets by the national
confiscation agency, you will be aware that the Police Foundation Report on
Drugs and the Law has suggested that insufficient was being done to confiscate
the assets of drug dealers. Do you have any projections of the value of
assets likely to be confiscated in the coming year?
(Mr Straw) We do not have projections. The Police Foundation is quite
right about that. The confiscation system does not work properly at the
moment. For that reason two years ago we proposed that we should change the
way in which the confiscation system operates and draw on the best experience
of other countries. That best experience happens to be found in the United
States, in the Republic of Ireland and in some other countries. There was
then a PIU report, published and made available to the House about how that
should operate. We are taking that forward in terms of legislation. I cannot
say exactly when that legislation will come before the House. We have also
provided in the settlement - this comes back to a question asked by the
Chairman - œ54 million, comprising œ15 million, œ18 million and œ21 million
over three years, for the establishment and running of a dedicated national
confiscation agency. We are also hoping to use additional funds for organised
crime. We want to see an agency established and the agency will pursue
serious organised criminals and their assets through the courts. We want to
upgrade the confiscation orders and their enforcement made following
conviction, and as colleagues will know, we are also providing for there to
be civil proceedings against known criminals where there is every evidence
that their assets have been derived through criminal activities but they have
been able to avoid criminal convictions because they have detached themselves
from the immediate involvement in the commission of a single crime.
15. You do not have in mind an objective figure?
(Mr Straw) We want to increase the money significantly. We are not
setting an initial target. In due course, that will be done. At the moment
we are collecting less than œ17 million against an estimate of criminal funds
circulating in the UK of approximately œ18 billion. It says here: "So
clearly there is scope for improvement", which is certainly the case.
16. Assuming sufficient funds are gathered in in this way, what will
happen to them? Will they be redirected into the criminal justice system or
will they go straight to the Treasury?
(Mr Straw) No. The idea is that they will be redirected into the
criminal justice system. Already we are finding at a more prosaic level that
where police forces are able to retain the proceeds of speed camera
enforcement, that that greatly improves enforcement and, as I understand from
yesterday's newspapers, as hoped it is leading to lower speeds and improved
road safety.
17. Can you give an assurance that that will be new money and that
the Treasury will not use it as replacement money to make reductions in the
monies available?
(Mr Straw) I cannot speak about forever and a day. However, the
settlement provides for this œ54 million, which is new money, to get a
confiscation agency going. Once it is going, we hope that it will be self-
financing. If it raises less than it costs it would not be doing its job.
Mr Howarth
18. Home Secretary, you will be aware that in Scotland a court
recently came to a rather bizarre judgment, whereby a convicted criminal was
claiming that his human rights were being infringed by his assets being seized
in the manner provided for by law and enacted by this place. I shall not ask
you to comment on that particular individual's case, because you would not do
so. But if that case were to run its full course and the judgement were
upheld, would you bring forward legislation to ensure that the will, as
expressed by Parliament, was enforced by the courts at least as concerns
England and Wales?
(Mr Straw) My understanding is that that decision is subject to appeal
to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is my understanding.
We are obviously taking note of it in the drafting of legislation and of other
aspects of the Human Rights Act. So far as decisions of the courts on such
issues are concerned, ultimately it is for Parliament to decide. The Human
Rights Act was phrased so that it took full account of the sovereignty of
Parliament. I would not have been party to it personally if it had not done
so. It does so in two respects. One is that where there is a declaration of
incompatibility made by the highest courts in the land, the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council or the House of Lords' Judicial Committee, which roughly
speaking is the same thing, and where there is a declaration of
incompatibility, Section 4 of the Act provides that notwithstanding the
declaration, the particular legislation continues in force unless and until
Parliament changes it. The second point is that I do not think that that will
happen, but if it were the case that the courts made decisions about the
interpretation of the law which could not be subject to declarations of
incompatibility, it would be open to Parliament to change the law and, if
necessary, to amend the Human Rights Act. That is entirely a matter for
Parliament. It would remain the case, as long as we were Members of the
Council of Europe, that we would still be subject to decisions in the
Strasbourg court. It has been a matter of practice of successive governments
over the past 50 years that where that court comes to a judgement adverse to
the UK government that the law is then changed. Again, if Parliament wanted
to, it could decide to withdraw from the convention. Indeed, over the
Prevention of Terrorism Act it did derogate from and put in a reservation
relating to some aspects of it.
19. Would you regard it as bizarre if the European Court of Human
Rights sought to overturn what, quite clearly, is the expressed will not only
of this Government, but also that of the previous government?
(Mr Straw) Although you say you do not want me to comment, you are
asking me to comment on the details of the case.
20. I do not want you to comment on the details of the case, but on
the principle if it were to go against us.
(Mr Straw) I shall not use that adjective about our courts. Sometimes
judges at first or second instance come out with decisions that are
controversial, and the judiciary are well aware of the fact that the European
Convention on Human Rights is a convention that gives rights to everybody.
It gives rights to defendants, which is extremely important, and to the
victims and the community. It is very interesting that when the Association
of Chief Police Officers drew up a leaflet that it was handing out to those
who thought that they would take part in a convoy to London, it was the police
themselves who quoted their obligations under Article II in favour of the way
in which they were policing the matter. So it is a very balanced convention.
You will be aware that one of its chief draftsmen was David Maxwell Fife, who
later became Conservative Lord Chancellor. It is not exactly a revolutionary
document.
21. You will be aware that the European Convention on Human Rights
was drawn up in the aftermath of the Second World War and was designed to deal
with the holocaust and not the rights of criminals to be able to enjoy their
ill-gotten gains at the expense of the rest of the public, nor was it designed
to give school girls the right to wear trousers to school. It was designed
as a serious attempt to stop a repeat of the holocaust in Europe and not the
bizarre examples that we have had brought before us.
(Mr Straw) Referring to the history connection, certainly it was drawn
up in the aftermath of the Second World War. That is a matter of historical
fact. It was drawn up to be a living instrument. In that respect it is no
different from the way in which the Commons operates, as a living instrument.
Defendants have rights. If you do not ensure that defendants have rights, you
end up with the wrong people being convicted and that is a desperate injustice
for such people.
22. Surely, it is the job of Parliament to deal with that?
(Mr Straw) You end up with the wrong people being convicted, leading to
a huge loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system. The
Committee will be well aware of some of the most celebrated and notorious
miscarriages of justice. Many of those go back to the time when Parliament
was remiss. Through not ensuring that defendants have proper rights, for
example, over the taking of confession statements and things like that, the
wrong people were convicted. It is in the interest of the public, as well as
that of the defendants, to ensure that the system is rigorous in protecting
the rights of the innocent and that, as far as is humanly possible, it
convicts only the guilty. I want to see those who benefit financially in a
significant way from their criminal activities losing those assets. I am
determined that that shall happen.
Mr Russell
23. Home Secretary, I turn to safe custody cells in prisons and in
police stations. You will be aware of my deep concern about the number of
people who commit suicide while in custody from parliamentary questions that
I have tabled on this subject and from an Adjournment Debate in July. There
are almost two a week. You are also aware, of course, of something known as
a "safe cell".
(Mr Straw) Yes.
24. Given the high rate of suicides in prison, do you agree with me
that the installation of safe cells, particularly for prisoners on remand,
would see a reduction of almost two-thirds in prison suicides?
(Mr Straw) I cannot be certain about the number of suicides that would
be saved. However, there is little doubt that introducing safe cells would
make a significant difference to the number of suicides. I am deeply
concerned about the suicide rate in prisons, as indeed is the Director-General
of the prison service. A great deal of work is now being undertaken to
improve the way in which the service deals with suicides. At the weekend I
read a detailed report on this that I had asked for. One problem is that many
of those who commit suicide have not been identified in advance as being a
suicide risk. The prison service may save a lot by prior identification. It
is an immense problem. Sometimes international comparisons are made. They
need to be looked at in the round, with the overall issue of safety of
prisoners in prisons. I am told that suicide rates in United States' jails
is typically much lower than that inside British prisons. One of the main
reasons for that is that prisoners in the United States' jails are typically
held either in dormitories or in open cellular accommodation, with bars rather
than walls and doors. That means that suicide rates are less, but the
violence rate against prisoners is significantly higher and the murder rate,
one prisoner against another, is much higher in the United States.
25. We know that two-thirds of prisoner suicides are committed by
remand prisoners. By putting remand prisoners in safe cells you would reduce
it by two-thirds. What is the Home Office doing about that?
(Mr Straw) I agree with that entirely. The answer is that we are
identifying the prisoners. The programme that I was looking at at the weekend
seeks to work with the local prisons to improve the way in which they handle
all risks, particularly those of remand prisoners. Most of the local prisons,
as you will be aware, Mr Russell, are old prisons. It is not possible to wave
a wand and produce safe cells in all those prisons very quickly. We are
increasing the number of safe cells. But it is not just about that; it is
also about improving the monitoring in prisons. Being on remand is a critical
time for prisoners. Often they are plunged into serious depression; they may
have healthcare needs that have not been spotted. One thing that has come out
of the study that I was reading is the need to co-ordinate better the
assessment made by the healthcare centres in prisons with the assessments made
by ordinary prison officers.
26. Can you confirm that so far nobody has committed suicide in a
safe cell?
(Mr Straw) I think that is right. It is palpable that safe cells are
safer than ordinary cells and we want to introduce them as quickly as
possible.
27. Is the Home Office putting in the real safe cell or is it putting
in its own version? If so, what is the difference in cost and why should the
Home Office install a lesser scheme than the one put forward, for example, by
a company called Belstone(?)?
(Mr Straw) I cannot answer that particular question. It is always the
case that companies that have a genuine interest in the issue, but also the
financial interest, will seek to advance their own products. You know that
as well as I do.
28. I am putting to you everything that I put in my Adjournment
Debate. We are now in November; we have moved on a few months.
(Mr Straw) We are increasing the number of safe cells. In the newly
designed DCMF prisons at Dovegate and Ryehill, there will be 1,353 cells which
reflect aspects of the new design requirement. I am happy to provide further
details to you, Mr Russell.
29. Can we look forward to safe cells in Chelmsford Prison for remand
prisoners in light of the events of last week?
(Mr Straw) I hope we can look forward to improvements in the way in
which local prisons, including Chelmsford, deal with potential suicide risks.
Obviously, it is desperate for prisoners, their families and for the prison
staff as well. It does not follow that suicides take place in prisons that
are regarded as less good than others. Suicides can occur in the best run
prisons, where they have the best screening. That is one of the problems.
We are trying to get at the risk factors of prisoners who commit suicide. It
is obvious that at the moment we have not fully identified them.
Mr Linton
30. In your spending review the extra money was tied to the
achievement of particular targets for service delivery agreements. I invite
you to say whether you feel confident of achieving all those targets. My
colleagues may go into some of them in greater detail, but as I understand it,
on matters such as the number of days from arrest to sentence, prisoners into
jobs, asylum decisions and removals and police recruitment, do you feel
confident that you can deal with all those? Or to put it another way, which
of those do you think will be the most difficult to achieve?
(Mr Straw) I think they are realistic; they are challenging. As you
know, Mr Linton, Robert Browning said that "a man's reach should exceed his
grasp, or what's a heaven for?" It is important that such targets are set,
and I believe that most of them will be achieved. We have set targets, for
example, in prime areas to get vehicle crime down by 30 per cent by 2004,
domestic burglary down by 25 per cent, no local authority having a rate of
more than three times the national average by 2005 and robbery to be reduced
in our principal cities by 14 per cent by 2005. We are already on target to
achieve those aims for vehicle crime and domestic burglary. The target for
robbery was produced later. You will be aware of the results, over the past
three and a half years, both from the recorded crime statistics and from the
more recent British crime survey, showing very significant falls in vehicle
crime and domestic burglary. This comes back to the point that I made to the
Chairman at the beginning: there is no point putting in the money - it is the
public's money - unless the public see improved outputs from that money and
see that it is used to improve output overall, but also used to flush out
those parts of public services for which I am responsible which are under-
performing. If you take the area of police performance, look at the police
service as a whole, and look particularly at the basic command units, you will
find significant differences in the performance of otherwise similar basic
command units. The recorded crime statistics published in July, for the basic
command unit and the crime and disorder partnership, are more or less the same
but in some cases they are different. The crime and disorder partnership data
is separated into what we call statistical families so that there are big city
divisions, medium-sized industrial towns, rural areas and so on. There are
about 14 separate crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Within each
partnership, where you are comparing like with like, there are significant
variations. I can think of one town in the same CDRP partnership with
burglary rates twice or three times higher than another town. There may be
explanations for that, but if you tie that in to the work that the
inspectorate of constabularies are doing in developing inspection systems for
the basic command units of these divisions, what emerges is that the key
factors are quality of leadership, management of new services, how the staff
are deployed and not overall numbers. With optimum efficiency, overall
numbers make a difference. Perhaps I can deal with the other point that you
raised about asylum. Our objective is to ensure that by 2004, 75 per cent,
a substantial number of asylum applications, are decided within two months -
that is PSA 15 - and number 16 is to enforce immigration laws more effectively
by removing a great proportion of failed asylum seekers. I shall just deal
with that. We are on track to meet both of those. I am pleased to tell the
Committee that last week for the first time the Immigration and Nationality
Directorate dealt with over 3,000 asylum applications in a single week, which
is an extraordinary achievement and shows already the value of the investment
that we are making in IND. That compares - I can give the exact figure - with
about 30,000 application decisions made in the whole of the year in 1998. It
is a major achievement. The backlog is already down to 72,000 and with asylum
applications at or around 6,300 or 6,400 a month, we shall be able to make
significant inroads into that backlog. We are already meeting the two-month
and four-month targets for families with children. In terms of removals, a
lot of investment is now going on - it has not yet produced fruit - into what
is called the enforcement directorate of IND to increase the number of staff.
We have already increased their powers.
31. Another of my colleagues will refer to the asylum issue. On
crime, you mentioned the national targets for auto crime and you said that you
have left it to local crime reduction partnerships to set targets for other
types of crime. Do you not think that there are national crime reduction
targets but that they have just not been topped up? Do you see any difficulty
in setting targets?
(Mr Straw) There is always a balance and tension between what you set
nationally by way of targets and what you leave to local discretion. I
believe we have probably got the balance about right. We have set national
targets for arrest for domestic burglary, vehicle crime and robbery in the
main cities. Domestic burglary and vehicle crime are problems across the
country. They worry people in similar ways across the country and it is
important that we are able to see progress made nationally on those targets.
Robbery is of particular concern. It is a horrible crime when it happens, but
the risk of it happening outside big cities is very low. We are putting a lot
of money into the vehicle crime programme, burglary reduction and the
reduction of robbery. Subject to that, I think it is for each area crime and
disorder partnership to decide its own targets. In rural areas they may have
the theft of farm vehicles and in urban areas there may be graffiti, criminal
damage and matters of that kind and the particular problems of juvenile
nuisance. We want to see the crime and disorder partnerships using the powers
that they have under the Crime and Disorder Act, Section 17, to get ahead and
reduce crime.
Mr Winnick
32. Home Secretary, is there a target in relation to reducing the
average time for arrest of persistent young offenders from 142 days to 94?
Do you have a further aim for 2002?
(Mr Straw) The overall aim by 2002 is to halve the time that it takes to
get a persistent young offender through, from 142 days, which it was in 1996,
to 71 days - not 94 days. It was down to an estimated 92 days in the second
quarter in 2000. That is very significant.
33. Ninety-two and not 94?
(Mr Straw) My understanding is 92. That is a significant reduction of
50 days, which is seven weeks and one day, for the time that it takes to get
young offenders through the courts. We want to see further progress being
made. It is no surprise that the bulk of persistent young offenders, and
therefore the bulk of the people behind these statistics, are in ten major
urban areas. We are concentrating work on improvement there. Some areas have
already come down. A quarter of all areas are now below 80 days and five have
been better or have improved on the target rate. They are Cumbria, Devon and
Cornwall, Dyfed, Powys and North Wales. People may say that those are rural
areas. That is true. However, Hampshire contains suburban areas and two very
big urban areas, Portsmouth and Southampton, but it has reduced its figure.
Why has Hampshire done that while others have not? There is no magic. The
criminal justice agencies have got together and recognised the importance of
getting these persistent young offenders through the court system. They have
been assisted by a good police service. The justices' clerk, Jonathan Black,
in North Hampshire, who is now on the Youth Justice Board, has taken a major
role in this. Everybody has got together and put their shoulders to the
wheel. We want the other areas to do that.
34. So you are continuing to try to reduce the number of days?
(Mr Straw) Yes. At the moment colleague ministers and myself have had
meetings with the ten major areas concerned. I have done that for the
metropolitan area. Last Thursday I was in Manchester talking to the criminal
justice agencies there. It is an important exercise in its own right. It was
preposterous that the persistent young offenders were without a sanction of
the court for up to five months, which gave them the message that the system
was not too bothered about them. This is also important in terms of flushing
out inefficiencies and a lack of connection between the different agencies.
It is all prosaic stuff. How are papers sent from one agency to another? How
do the police know that the warrant for the arrest of an offender who has
skipped bail is for a persistent young offender and not for someone else? Are
the custody officers literally flagging up on the police national computer the
fact that someone is a persistent young offender at the point of arrest,
rather than subsequently? Those are very simple things. If they are done the
targets can be achieved as in Hampshire; if they are not done, the targets
are not met.
35. That is all very welcome. There has been a lot of disquiet about
what goes on in young offenders' institutions. One place that has received
a good deal of concern is Feltham, where a murder took place that is being
dealt with by the courts. But there is also Brinsford in Wolverhampton and
Stoke Heath in Shropshire. I am sure that you are aware of what the chief
inspector of prisons has said. Of three places he said, "They are little more
than barbaric warehouses". What is your view of what is going on in some of
these places?
(Mr Straw) I am not in the least complacent.
36. No one could be complacent. It is a matter of great concern.
(Mr Straw) Of course, I am concerned about this. First, we must put
into context who is received at the young offenders' institutions. Those who
are sent to custody, before they are formally adults, or in practice adults,
are the most persistent young offenders, young criminals in our society. They
are youngsters who typically have years of offending behind them; typically,
they have very low educational qualifications, not least because they have for
years been truanting; typically, they have drugs problems; a high proportion
of them have been in the institutional care of a local authority before; and
many of them lack a proper family structure. They are among the most
difficult criminally-minded and also needy youngsters in our society. They
represent a serious problem for society and, also, a serious problem for those
whose job it is both to implement the order of the court and to do their best
for those youngsters. What is striking about the YOIs is the range of
performance. There are quite a number of good performing YOIs, some of which
will be made well-known to this Committee. There are three I can mention:
Lancaster Farms, which has done consistently well - I know, because I have
visited it in my area - Huntercombe and Thorn Cross; and there are many others
as well which are doing a very good job with these difficult youngsters.
There are then a number which we know - and we are indebted to the Chief
Inspector - are doing less well or badly. We are concerned to raise ----
37. Badly or poorly?
(Mr Straw) In some cases some aspects are very poor but they are doing
badly. What we are concerned about is to improve the overall standard inside
these YOIs, recognising, however, the difficult nature of the inmates
concerned. The fact that some do well means that there is no reason why ----
Chairman
38. What makes the difference?
(Mr Straw) Mr Chairman, part of the difference is that some of the YOIs
are handling slightly easier prisoners. That is inherent in the system. Some
of them - for example, those that go to Thorn Cross - are those who are
selected for Thorn Cross, so they are more likely to do well. Leaving that
aside, when you are comparing like with like, the principal difference is the
culture of the establishment, and trying to change the culture of individual
prison establishments is, in my judgment, the most important job.
39. It is management?
(Mr Straw) It is management, but it is more than that. There is a great
irony about the prison service which is that here you have 150 institutions
which, roughly speaking, should be all the same but they are all different.
They are all different because sometimes it is almost as if the walls have
developed a personality which transcends the individuals in them, and it is
trying to break that which is important with those badly performing
institutions. The same prison officer placed in one institution will behave
in a different way from another institution. So that is absolutely critical.
It is the work of the current Inspector and his predecessor which has been
very important in opening people's eyes to the problem. Alongside that, it
is a high priority for the Director General and his management colleagues, and
of course the Prison Board, to get on top of this problem of this variation
in performance. I would just say this: all institutions in the public sector
vary whether they are schools, hospitals or police services, but at least with
those they are open institutions so there is a natural accountability because
people know what is going on in them. Prisons, by their definition, are
closed institutions, and finding out what goes on and flushing out the reasons
for it is more difficult, but it is very important.
Mr Winnick
40. If I can quote, Home Secretary, someone who was in Feltham in
1995 who was later cleared on appeal, he wrote an article in a national
newspaper and he said "The months I spent in Feltham were the worst of my
life. The place I remember was a dirty, racist, violent place where the
warders did not care for what happened to you." He said that the place was
full of kids all trying to prove how hard they were and to prove how hard they
were through violence. Clearly, what was happening was that the stronger
inmates took it out on the weaker ones, almost from the day they entered
Feltham. I wonder, in view of what has been reported about more recent times,
how far Feltham has changed, if at all, for the better in five years?
(Mr Straw) I cannot comment on that, and I think one needs to bear in
mind that people who have been in prison (and I have not seen the article) are
often less than complimentary about the fact they have been in prison, because
they have been incarcerated by the courts for criminal behaviour. So one
needs to bear in mind why it is that courts decide to impose a sentence of
custody on these youngsters. In almost every case it is because the courts
have reached the end of their tether and decided that a raft of community
punishments have simply not worked. It is very, very rare indeed - except
with a youngster convicted of a very grave offence for the first time - that
those youngsters have no previous convictions and no previous history of
failing a raft of community punishments. I am told that a more recent
inspection of Feltham is expected to report that standards in the under-18
prison are good despite severe population pressures; the regime in the over-18
prison is undeniably poor but I gather that the report is expected to
recognise strides in the right direction. A new governor has just taken up
post, and recruitment and refurbishment work are proceeding apace. We have
put a lot of effort into improving the regimes for under-18s, and that has
happened and we have now got the Youth Justice Board involved in that. I
recognise that as a result of that less priority has been given than it should
have been to the regime for over-18s, and we are now concentrating on that.
41. Do you accept, Home Secretary, on the final question of Young
Offenders' Institutions, that no one disputes, as far as I know - and I
certainly do not - that persistent offenders should be institutionalised if
there is no alternative, but that they should be able to be secure in such a
place, and, first and foremost, not be subject to bullying, harassment, racism
and, hopefully - hopefully - be in a position where the large majority of them
will not reoffend again. That is not the position at the moment, certainly
as far as reoffending is concerned.
(Mr Straw) Of course I accept that, and we are putting a lot of work
into programmes to ensure that these youngsters do not reoffend. So big
investment is going into education in YOIs and a very substantial proportion
of those in YOIs seriously under-achieve. The figures are that for YOIs and
juveniles 35 per cent were below level 1 (and I just remind the Committee that
level 1 is the attainment of Grade D or G at GCSE), 24 per cent were at level
1 and 41 per cent above level 1. That is in reading. For writing the figures
are worse: it is 54 per cent below level 1, 31 per cent at level 1 and just
14 per cent above level 1. For numeracy it is 45 per cent below level 1, 30
per cent at level 1 and 24 per cent above level 1. So we are putting a lot
of investment into raising educational standards. As the Committee, I know,
appreciates, many of these youngsters have simply not been in school so they
could not have been educated. A lot of money is going into drug programmes
with these youngsters, and of course, I accept, into improving the environment
in which these youngsters live and operate. The first responsibility of the
governors and the staff, once they have ensured that the institution is secure
externally, is to provide a secure environment for the prisoners.
42. On adult prisons, Home Secretary, is it the aim to double the
number of prisoners getting jobs after release by April 2004?
(Mr Straw) Are you quoting from the PSA? I think you are.
43. If it is not in front of us you can provide us with the answer.
(Mr Straw) We want significantly to increase the number of youngsters
getting jobs. We are putting a lot of work into that. I am just turning them
up. I have not got the piece of paper.
44. If you would be good enough to write to us.
(Mr Straw) Of course. The answer is yes, because we know that if we get
youngsters into jobs, that is one of the surest ways of cutting down their
likelihood of reoffending. The important thing to try to do is to fix them
up with jobs before they leave prison. I have talked to a lot of young
offenders in my constituency, and the period which frightens them and which
leads them to go back into offending is that week or so when they come out of
prison.
45. What impressed us, Home Secretary, about Blantyre House - and
this is not a session where we are going to go into the ins and outs of that;
you have our report and we will be having your comment - is that the
reoffending rate when prisoners left Blantyre House was in the region of 8 per
cent, whereas nationally it is 57 per cent for reoffending. Are you going to
pursue the policy of encouraging resettlement prisons like Blantyre House?
(Mr Straw) Yes, we are. One of the things that has emerged, which I
said in response to your report on Blantyre House, was that there had not been
a national policy for resettlement. These things have just grown up. There
needs to be a national policy and it is essential that there is. That is what
we are developing. I just say that your comparison, with respect, Mr Winnick,
is one of apples and pears. Your comparison of the 8 per cent reoffending
rate for those from Blantyre House and the higher rate, above 50 per cent, for
prisoners across the estate generally is, with respect, not comparing like
with like. What you have got to be seen to compare is the profile of
prisoners who are typically much older - and, to some extent, have exhausted
their criminal careers - in Blantyre House with a control group of similar
prisoners who have not gone through such a process. The other thing I would
say is that the figures on reoffending rates are figures for reconviction
rates, and the two are different. The figures also, at the moment, do not
properly compare like with like because the figures for reconvictions of those
in prison go not from the point at which sentence was issued and they went
into custody but from the point at which they were released. Those for
probation go from the point where the sentence was issued, so you do not get
like-with-like comparisons. From the point of view of the public, the figures
at the moment are not taking account of the incapacitation effect of prison.
Obviously, when you are dealing with high-profile, very active offenders, that
is important, but we also want work on the reoffending rates of prisoners on
probation and other community sentences and from prison. I think the results
will be remarkably different from those which are apparent from the current
figures.
46. Do we take it from your remarks that in no way are you minimising
the importance of the work which was done at Blantyre House and that you want
to see such work continuing?
(Mr Straw) Of course I do not minimise the work that is done by
resettlement prisons, including Blantyre House. The issue was a different
one. There is no question that part of the purpose of prison ought to be to
make prisoners better, and change them into law-abiding citizens, and provide
them with opportunities to do so. We are very powerfully committed to that.
Mr Malins
47. Home Secretary, I think you told us that there is currently a
72,000 backlog in asylum cases. With what proportion, do you think, of those
applicants has the Home Office lost touch? To put it another way: how many
of those 72,000 do you think you know the names, addresses and whereabouts of?
(Mr Straw) We know the names and addresses and whereabouts of the asylum
seeker at the time when they made their application or subsequently. We do
not detain all asylum seekers, Mr Malins, I think as I explained before. I
am not saying you are committed to this but your party, apparently, is
committed to detaining all asylum seekers, which would mean having at least
30,000 detention places, 60 prison-sized establishments ----
48. I am just asking a question.
(Mr Straw) Given the fact that we do not detain all asylum seekers - and
whatever your party says it would literally be impossible for you to do so -
people are free to come and go.
49. I asked a straightforward question. This is not a party
political point.
(Mr Straw) So the result is that we do not know the whereabouts, today,
of every single one of those asylum seekers. However, there are a lot of
incentives and penalties in the system for not maintaining contact with the
Immigration and Nationality Directorate, because if people do not maintain
contact with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and comply with the
time limits for the service back of documents then their application for
asylum is refused on non-compliance grounds. We are toughening up on both
that and, also, removals.
50. In October 1998 when you were before us and discussing the
matter, the position, as I put to you then, was that contact had been lost
with at least 17,000 asylum seekers currently within our system, plus
dependants. Is it a fair bet that that figure has shot up?
(Mr Straw) Not necessarily. Indeed, we are putting a lot of effort into
maintaining contact with them, for example, by reporting centres which are
being established around the country. That was not much more than a year
after I took on this job. I do make a partisan point against a background of
a system which had, frankly, run into the ground.
51. What about failed asylum seekers? That is a different position
from those who are currently seeking. Do you remember what the figure was in
1998 when you told us about the failed asylum seekers who were liable for
removal?
(Mr Straw) Not off-hand.
52. Over 19,000 then. We were told then that the current trend of
failed asylum seekers liable for removal could be up to 115,000 by 2002.
(Mr Straw) Whose evidence was that?
53. This was the Department's evidence to us in July 1998. Do you
think it has gone up to 115,000?
54. I can provide the Committee with the best estimate we have, but
the answer to that is that we are putting a lot of effort into improving the
removal of asylum seekers. In some cases we are being successful in that, but
in other cases there are significant problems in removing asylum seekers from
this country, which is why ----
55. I know ----
(Mr Straw) May I just make this point? Which is why maintaining a tight
border control is so important, so that we prevent those who have an unfounded
claim getting here in the first place. That is the difficulty of returning
these people to their country of origin, if their country of origin is in
serious civil turmoil.
56. That is a separate point.
(Mr Straw) It is the same point. That is the problem.
57. Home Secretary, I accept that it is a good thing that you are
deciding asylum applications at a very high rate at the moment, but you
understand that what I am saying to you is that decisions are all very well
but enforcement action is vital. Without enforcement action afterwards the
decision-making process is neither here nor there. When I asked you a
fortnight ago of the ones at Oakington who had lost their appeals - applied
and failed (1300 or so, I think) - how many had been deported or how many had
been removed, you said you did not know and you would write to me. I have not
heard.
(Mr Straw) I will give you the figures. 231 applicants refused asylum
have departed - either removed or departed voluntarily - of whom 120 were
removed after their appeal was dismissed.
58. How many, finally?
(Mr Straw) I am sorry, 231 have departed with 120 removed after their
appeal was dismissed.
59. That is 120.
(Mr Straw) No, 230. Quite a large number of people leave voluntarily
once they are told they have not got any basis for saying.
Mr Malins: When you told me a fortnight ago ----
Chairman
60. They do not appeal, you are saying?
(Mr Straw) Most do appeal but most lose their appeals.
Mr Malins
61. You told me a fortnight ago that 654 appeals had been heard and
16 were allowed, which means, presumably, 649 refused appeals.
(Mr Straw) Yes. In fact the number has now gone up.
62. Quite, but I am still looking for the letter that relates to ----
(Mr Straw) I hope you will take this instead of a letter. 763 appeals
have been heard at the latest date, 28 of which have been allowed and the rest
have been refused.
63. How many of that 720-odd left ----
(Mr Straw) I have just told you - 231.
64. What has happened to the other 500?
(Mr Straw) There are still in the United Kingdom and we are taking
enforcement action against them.
65. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of this. You and I know
that with tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers at large in the country
and, similarly, a backlog of people with whom the Home Office has lost touch
completely, the chances of actually being removed is so low as to turn the
whole system into rather a mockery. Is that a fair judgment?
(Mr Straw) It is an unfair judgment, Mr Malins. It was a fair judgment
of your government, because they were allowing the system to fall into
disrepute and had cut the amount of staff and cut the investment in the
Immigration and Nationality Directorate whilst the numbers were rising. Also
they signed up to the Dublin Convention which is the single factor which has
made removals more difficult than it was before. The mother and father of
this is the Dublin Convention which your government signed up to and your
government ensured was brought into force in October 1997. What that has done
- let us be quite clear about it - is prevented us from removing people at the
point where they make an application, at the port - for example at Dover -
before we can send them back to France. Now we cannot, and it does not lie
in the mouth of any Conservative Member of Parliament to start complaining
about the problems with removals, given the fact that it was your government
who signed up to Dublin and we have been lumbered with it.
66. You sound very prickly.
(Mr Straw) What we have also done is put œ600 million - huge investment
- into the new system, and hundreds more staff into the system, including into
removals, and that additional staff will start to make a very significant
difference on the number of people being removed from this country. And, let
me say, we are also expanding the detention estate to increase it to a total
of 2,400 places. However, every time we try to get a new detention centre
established, of course, there are local objections, and the very same people
who have been saying "Lock up these asylum seekers and send them back" jib at
the means.
67. If you have only got round to sending away 200-odd out of
whatever it is - 1300 - at Oakington, if Oakington is not working how are you
going to possibly get up to 30,000 deportations in 2001/2? That is 600 a
week, is it not?
(Mr Straw) It is a significant increase.
68. How are you going to do that?
(Mr Straw) By the way in which I have described - and Oakington is
working - to speed up the claims from those nationalities which are likely to
have unfounded applications. One of the consequences of having Oakington
there is that it has raised the game against, for example, East Europeans.
The number of people applying from Eastern Europe has declined. It is also
the case that in recent months the number of people applying from countries
where there is unquestionably major civil turbulence and civil violence has
increased. These countries - like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Sri Lanka
-now account for the major proportion of the applicants, along with a
continuing problem from the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
69. Finally, Home Secretary, in relation to those whose immigration
appeals have failed all the way through and who are at large in the country -
not current ones but at large in the country - and estimates vary from between
50,000 to 150,000, is this Government simply going to leave it there or take
any steps to find them and remove them?
(Mr Straw) We do take steps to find them and to remove them. They are
not entitled to benefits.
70. No state benefits at all? Education and housing? Are you
telling me I cannot find dozens of people who are in this position who have
got housing or other ----
(Mr Straw) What I am telling you is that these people who have no basis
for staying here are not entitled to benefits. They may have their children
in school.
71. They have doctors, housing, etc.
(Mr Straw) Of course they have access to health care. You cannot deny
people ----
Mr Winnick
72. Some would. Sitting on my right, some would.
(Mr Straw) Some might, but I am not proposing that.
Mr Malins
73. If they are not meant to be here we actually should be saying to
them "You should not be here, you must go."
(Mr Straw) Of course we say that. We say that more vocally and with
more effect than the previous government. However, we also have to
acknowledge that if someone comes from a country where there is huge civil
disturbance and there may not be an effective government there, as with, say,
Somalia, simply trying to make arrangements with that government to get them
back - or Sri Lanka, where there is an effective government but large parts
of the territory are under the control of opposition groups - is very
difficult. That, I am afraid, would be a verity whichever government was in
power.
Mr Howarth
74. Home Secretary, can we move on to the question of police numbers
and conditions. You have made it a key priority not simply to maintain the
number of police officers but to increase them by 9,000, I think, over the
next two or three years. The fact is that most recent figures, up to March
2000, show that there are something like 2,700 fewer police officers than
there were when you came into office. Can you let us have the latest position
as to the numbers of police officers there are? Secondly, what are you really
going to do to address a significant failure in government?
(Mr Straw) I can certainly give you the latest figures. I am trying to
remember the latest provisional figures I have seen for September, which were
about 200 down on those for March, and they are now bottoming out and starting
to rise.
75. So the latest figure for March is ----
(Mr Straw) For September. It is about 200 down on what it was in March.
I am happy, obviously, to give you the figures. It is now levelling out.
That is the important point.
76. What does that mean? You have more recent figures than September
to suggest that it is levelling out? On what basis do you say it is levelling
out?
(Mr Straw) Yes. Bear with me, Mr Howarth. These are provisional
returns. We will give them to the Committee as soon as possible, but the
brief I have here is that some returns are still awaited from two services,
but the total strength will be 213, I suspect, down as of 30 September
compared with March. The important point is that we are now turning the
corner in terms of police recruitment. It is very clear that in the vast
majority of police force areas - not all - recruitment is significantly
improving. Overall, the numbers will start to rise, as the Crime Fighting
Fund recruiting as well as basic recruiting kicks in. You asked me some more
general points about police numbers and it is important to put these on the
record. I gave no undertakings at the election, or before it, about what
would happen to police numbers because I was aware of the lags involved in
this and the fact that police budgets had been squeezed by the previous
government from 1994/95 onwards. The budget set for 1997/98, which was set
in January 1997 before the election and which was earmarked by the previous
government for 1998/99, were tight ones, and we had committed to maintaining
that. Numbers have gone down, and I regret the fact that numbers have gone
down and, for example, the fact that the cost of pensions is higher than
anticipated. However, once - and we did it very quickly - we identified there
was a problem new money was put into the system to turn things round. The
other point I would say is this: of course, it is the case that if police
services are acting at an optimum level then more officers can help in the
fight against crime. I have asked, and I am happy to make it available to the
Committee, for a detailed analysis to be conducted comparing the performance
of individual police force areas against whether or not their police numbers
have risen or fallen. The suggestion is that it is in those areas where
police numbers have risen that there has been a reduction in crime and in
those areas where police numbers have fallen there has been an increase in
crime. In fact, there is no correlation at all between these two - none
whatever. Some of the forces which have seen the best improvement in policing
have had a reduction in crime and some of them which have the worst
performance have had either the biggest increase in police numbers or
improvement in budgets. There is no correlation there. It goes back to this
issue of yes, we want to see more investment - and I do want to see levels
rise - but we also want to ensure that these numbers are used effectively.
77. The fact, nevertheless, remains, Home Secretary, however much you
want to blame the asylum problems on the previous government and however much
you want to blame the lack of police numbers on the previous government, that
since 1998 you have been setting the budget, you have been in charge and even
on your own admission to this Committee now, in the last six months the
numbers have still fallen. You have sought to reassure us by saying that on
the basis of figures which you are unable to give us you have turned the
corner, but the fact is, notwithstanding the increase in the amount of money
available and improved efficiencies, the numbers of police officers are down.
May I put it to you that there are two problems: the first is that retention
of existing officers is a problem, and that one of the issues giving rise to
that is disillusion. I have been talking to Mr Norman Brune (?) who, you will
know, is the Director of the Victims of Crime Trust. He said to me this
morning that if there were a vote of confidence in senior police officers in
this country today it would be overwhelmingly lost. There is deep disillusion
within the police service, he told me. I wonder what your comment is on that.
Would you accept, as I do (I expect you will not) that the MacPherson Report
and its wholesale condemnation of the police service in the Metropolis has had
a lot to do with reduction in police confidence?
(Mr Straw) No, I do not, and I am happy to deal with that. First of all
----
78. Tell us where the disillusion is coming from, Home Secretary.
(Mr Straw) Overall, the police service is very pleased about this record
investment that is being made. In any service and any group of people you
will find some people who are happy about their work and others who are less
than happy, but it happens that wastage inside the police service is
remarkably low compared with others in the wider public sector or in the
private sector. The overall wastage rate was 4.7 per cent in 1999/2000; it
was 4.8 per cent in 1998/99 and I think it was 5.2 per cent in 1997/98, under
a budget set by my predecessors. CBI data from April this year showed average
wastage rate - this is including retirements - of 19.3 per cent as a whole,
15.7 per cent in the public sector generally and 11.7 per cent in local
government. The wastage rate for leavers leaving for all reasons other than
retirement last year totalled just over 2,000 or 1.6 per cent of total police
officer strength. So there is a huge gap here between myth - people, yes,
complaining - and what actually is happening.
79. So it is a myth, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir
John Stevens is wrong to suggest that disillusion is a factor, that poor pay
is a factor and he is wrong to say he is losing 120 officers a month and
believes that the bottom line is that we need another 2,700 police officers?
He is wrong about that?
(Mr Straw) There was a problem of pay inside the Metropolitan Police
Service, which I have dealt with, and the pay of Metropolitan Police Officers
- for those who were joining post-1994 - has been increased by over œ3,000
over non-London officers of œ6,000 (?). For example, a good honours graduate
coming into teaching in Inner London, at the age of 22, will get œ18,500. A
new police recruit aged from 18-and-a-half with 5 GCSEs Grades A-C, coming
into the London police service, will get œ22,500. So it is a good job on
offer, and that has been recognised. As the Chairman of the Police Federation
was pointing out quite recently, most of the recruitment problems inside the
police service go back to the Sheehy Report and the abolition of the housing
allowance. If I might just deal, Mr Howarth, with your important point about
MacPherson, I make no apologies whatever for setting up the MacPherson Inquiry
into the death of Stephen Lawrence, and I regard it as one of the most
important things I have done in my period as Home Secretary. Yes, it made
uncomfortable reading, yes, it requires some police officers and some police
services to change and it requires them to change for the better. What
happened to the Lawrence family was utterly scandalous and completely
unacceptable, and it exposed deficiencies in the service both of inefficiency
- and that was a lot of it - and, also, to do ----
80. And it did not find that one single police officer had acted in
a racist fashion.
(Mr Straw) With great respect, it also found - and it was not saying
that the police service was alone in this, and they are not - that the service
had acted in an institutionally racist way, and it had. I could have just sat
on my hands over this and said "Well, we do not want to disturb the horses,
let's leave it", but what would have happened progressively if I had not
established the Lawrence Inquiry is that confidence in the police service by
that 25 per cent of people in London who are black and Asian - and a large
part of the white population who want to celebrate the fact that they live in
a diverse society - would gradually have reduced. That would have meant that
the efficiency of the police service would have gone down and they would have
been less capable of fighting crime. I draw a parallel here, Mr Howarth, with
the attitude of the police service to corruption in the 1960s and 1970s. If
you now talk to experienced police officers around the Metropolitan Police
Service in the 1960s and 1970s, they will tell you what every young barrister
knew, which was that there were parts of the Metropolitan Police Service -
particularly the CID - which were riddled with corruption. Everybody, from
Home Secretaries downwards, turned a blind eye to this. They said it was
justified as being "noble cause" corruption. In the end, brave police
officers and others said this was unacceptable, and they flushed out the
problem - not least Sir Robert Mark. Yes, it led to some reduction for the
time being in efficiency in nicking criminals in that way, but if that had not
happened then public confidence in the police service would have collapsed.
81. I put it to you, Home Secretary, there is a world of difference
between actual examples of corruption and something as vague and unidentified
as "institutional racism", when the report itself established that not one
single police officer - save poor Detective Inspector Bullock who described
the two boys as "two coloured lads", which was apparently racist - was guilty
of individual racism. That is now water under the bridge, so that what you
now have as a police service, in the aftermath of MacPherson, is a situation
where we are told that at the Notting Hill Carnival police officers were told
not to search "gunners" (?) as The Daily Telegraph headline had it. I do not
know what inquiries you have since carried out into the policing of the
Notting Hill Carnival but I have not seen any reports. Can you tell us now
what is the instruction that Sir John Stevens is giving his police officers?
Is it to tread warily at next year's Notting Hill Carnival?
(Mr Straw) That is a matter for Sir John Stevens. I have certainly not
carried out my own inquiries. I am not the police authority of London any
more, and there has been no evidence presented to me that I should set up a
kind of Section 49 inquiry into the policing of the Notting Hill Carnival.
It is open to you to bring the Commissioner before you, if you wish.
Mr Howarth, it was you who raised the Lawrence Inquiry, not me, so let me just
deal with the point you raised. I am not suggesting that corruption is the
same as institutional racism, and I did not suggest that. What I do say,
however, is that long experience shows that if there is a problem inside a
service it needs to be dealt with, and if you do not deal with it you end up
with worse problems.
82. They could not find a problem. The only thing they could find
was something which was indefinable.
(Mr Straw) With great respect, I do not think the issue of how people
feel they are treated, if they happen to be black or Asian, by the police is
incidental. It is a serious problem, and there is also a serious problem
about the quality of investigation. I just want to say this: what has
happened since the MacPherson Report is that, contrary to what you are
asserting, the police service, as a whole, has embraced that report, and it
is hugely to their credit that they are getting on with implementing it. I
chair a steering group on which all the police associations sit, along with
Mr and Mrs Lawrence and other organisations. There happens to be a meeting
today at 4 o'clock. We have been working progressively through the 70
recommendations of the Lawrence Inquiry to ensure that they are properly
implemented. It is greatly to the credit of the Police Federation that they
have embraced these recommendations as well. Amongst other recommendations,
we have set targets for each of the police services to increase their
recruitment of black and Asian officers. That is gradually creeping up and
it has gone up from September 1998 by 10 per cent. From 2,500 in September
1998 it is now 3,029.
Mr Winnick
83. 3,029? In the Metropolitan Police?
(Mr Straw) No, in the police service as a whole.
Mr Howarth
84. How many in the Metropolitan Police?
(Mr Straw) The Metropolitan Police Service is up to now 4 per cent of
the total.
85. So that is 4 per cent of 27,000 or 26,000?
(Mr Straw) It is about 1,000.
86. So well short of your target of 5,500.
(Mr Straw) In ten years. It is a ten-year target, Mr Howarth. We are
making progress, is the answer, and we will make more progress. One of the
many benefits of the Crime Fighting Fund is to provide more opportunities for
recruitment of black and Asian staff, as well as others.
87. I would like to stay on this but there are other aspects of
policing which I know colleagues also want to raise with you. Can I just take
you back to this business of recruitment? How realistic are your recruitment
targets when apparently the National Police Training centres do not have the
capacity to train huge numbers of extra probationers which you are proposing?
(Mr Straw) We think they are realistic.
88. Apparently Manchester has had its bid cut by 30 officers.
(Mr Straw) We think they are realistic. Some forces may be able to
recruit ahead of their target, others a little behind. This is an uncertain
science. The crucial thing is that we have provided funds to ensure that
there is a step-change in the number of officers inside the service from,
overall, 126,000 in 2000 rising to 128,000 in 2001 and to 130,000 in 2002.
That is the projected strengths we wish to see. There may be some slippage
in those but the aim is to ensure there is a significant change in the number
of police officers, and I hope that you would be welcoming that against a
background - to just remind you - that police numbers began to decline in
1993, not 1997. The biggest decline in the Metropolitan Police Service took
place between 1993 and 1997, and I do not remember Conservative Members of
Parliament complaining about it at that time.
Mr Howarth: You may recall, Home Secretary, that I was resting between
engagements.
Mr Malins
89. So was I.
(Mr Straw) I was not suggesting otherwise. I have no doubt at all that
had you both been in the House you would have complained about it. It is
interesting that none of your other colleagues who were possessed of your
qualities of perception did at the time protest about it.
Mr Howarth
90. They must have been distracted, Home Secretary. We will
obviously have to take your faith in the National Police Training centres
being able to deliver the level of training that you want. Moving on to the
question of retention and moving away from the disillusionment issue that I
mentioned earlier, can we deal with the question of housing, which is a very
important issue in the home counties and, indeed, in my own county of
Hampshire. You are pouring money into recruitment, but what further efforts
are you taking, apart from pay, to deal with the problem that particularly
affects the home counties?
(Mr Straw) The issue of low-cost social housing, particularly in the
home counties, is extremely important. It is one that I know that Nick
Raynsford, the Housing Minister, and Hilary Armstrong as well, are concerned
about. It was raised with me yesterday on the Floor of the House, and I am
trying to remember by which colleague. What we want to see (it is a matter,
obviously, for local authorities and the DETR) is more social housing being
provided for young recruits. May I just say this, Mr Howarth, on the issue
of recruitment in some of the home counties? We are turning the corner so far
as recruitment into London is concerned, and you will be aware that some of
the outer-London forces, particularly in the Greater London area, have made
representations about their problems of recruitment, particularly as they are
closer to London. I have had representations from a member of your
constituency who I happened to meet on a visit not long ago. What I have
provided for there is for employers to make an offer to those working within
a 20-mile radius of London of a œ2,000 increase and for those working within
a 30-40-mile radius there will be a œ1,000 increase.
Chairman
91. It is column 10 of Hansard.
(Mr Straw) Thank you. The money is there, it has been put on the table,
for payment for 1 September. However, what is extraordinary is the way in
which the Police Negotiating Board (and at the moment, I have no power to
direct it to meet) takes its time about things. It is due to meet, I
discovered at the weekend, to consider this in February, which is an
extraordinary thing, given the concerns of both police authority members and,
we are told, the police officer representatives about the need to do something
about this problem. So I have asked the PNB to meet earlier and, also, we
have discussions with the PNB about changing their constitution. It is a
byzantine, bureaucratic body with 95 people on it (I gather all of them
claiming expenses) and only 4 of them can speak. So we have to speed up the
process. Any help being given from constituency members to police authorities
to say "Here is the money on the table and we may have to tweak exactly how
it is distributed" would be appreciated. It is ludicrous that we are hanging
around with the money there and yet if we left the machinery to operate
according to its normal timescale it would probably be March or April before
it came into payment, because there would probably be some disagreement in the
PNB, they would have to go to arbitration and have to come back to me. I want
to see it speeded up.
92. Can I ask a final question, and it comes back to the question of
recruiting. I gather that the police service is now prepared to relax its
conditions on new recruits who have minor criminal offences.
(Mr Straw) Even former Conservative Members of Parliament could join.
93. To my knowledge not many of them have criminal convictions, Home
Secretary.
(Mr Straw) I was not suggesting that. I was saying it could be regarded
as a blemish on one's character. It was a joke, Mr Haworth. I was not
expecting to be taken seriously.
94. You invite us to take so many jokes seriously, Home Secretary,
I thought it was another one. You have announced this policy. How easily
does that policy sit with the rooting out of corruption in the police service?
Is there not a discrepancy here, a paradox, between, on the one hand, seeking
to root out those police officers who are guilty of criminal offences and, at
the same time, recruiting new police officers who have had criminal
convictions?
(Mr Straw) May I say I have announced no policy on this. The
announcement to which I think you are referring was one by Sir John Stevens,
the Commissioner, because these are matters for police chiefs and not for me,
quite properly. Secondly, at the moment, the recruiting criteria vary quite
a lot. For example, some services have banned officers who have got tattoos
and others have not; others have long had a policy of looking on a case-by-
case basis at people's criminal convictions, whilst others have had a blanket
rule about it. My understanding is that what Sir John Stevens was doing was
bringing practice in the Metropolitan Police Service into line with the
general practice across the country. If we believe in redemption and we do
not regard every single criminal conviction has an equal weight - and that is
certainly the view I take - it must be the case that there will be some people
who apply for the police service who are otherwise well-qualified yet have a
criminal conviction but the conviction is spent and is spent not only within
the Rehabilitation of Offenders' Act but is spent so far as that person's
character is concerned. A minor conviction for a minor criminal offence at
an early age. It is up to these people, otherwise, to make good police
officers. I think it is entirely reasonable for that judgment to be made,
just as it is in virtually every other walk of life. The other point that you
raised, Mr Howarth, I am afraid ----
95. It is about the question of the paradox between rooting out
corrupt officers ----
(Mr Straw) There is no connection at all between the profile of police
officers who are likely to commit serious corruption and whether or not they
have been involved in some minor act that led them to the courts when they
were young. Indeed, one of the interesting things about officers who are
seriously corrupt is how difficult it is to profile them and how apparently
good they are at their jobs. These are, typically, officers who are
completely clean, who have a history of being "effective" as typical criminal
investigators, and it is partly because of that that they are able to mask
their criminal activities. So there is not any connection at all there.
Mr Cawsey
96. Home Secretary, I was almost tempted to say it is entirely
possible to have a spent conviction and become President of the United States,
is it not. So, I suppose, in that respect, to become a police officer is not
necessarily a bad thing.
(Mr Straw) I am very grateful to you for drawing that to my attention,
yes it is. At the moment, I guess - because unless the news has changed in
the last hour, which is likely, and he has been confirmed as President, we are
talking about a presidential candidate but I take your point entirely - my
guess is that whilst George W Bush is certainly well qualified to become a
candidate from the point of view of his criminal convictions, leave aside
one's personal views, whilst he is properly qualified to become President of
the United States he would not be qualified were he a British citizen to be
a member of the Metropolitan Police Service. So it is quite a good point you
make, Mr Cawsey.
97. I am glad to be of assistance. During your answers to Mr
Howarth's questions you talked about the decline in police numbers since 1993,
which set a few alarm bells ringing because that was the year I became the
Chairman of the Police Authority so I hope there was nothing personal. Since
that time there has been a decline which has gone on almost consistently. The
question I want to put to you is really to explain the phenomenon to me in one
respect, that is that in the four years that I chaired the Police Authority
we saw systematic cuts in real term spending, yet as we had a central
establishment for police officers we tried very hard, and with some success,
to keep police numbers up to that level and crime increased. The situation
in more recent times has been that the budgets have increased in real terms,
police numbers have gone down but so has crime. What do you think is
happening out there which is leading to this almost paradoxical occurrence?
(Mr Straw) The answer is that there is no direct connection between
inputs and outputs. This is the same in any other public service, indeed the
same in the private sector as well. You have to make sure that the resources
are used properly. Now there is plainly a reductio ad absurdum here which
would not apply if there are no police and certainly no recorded crime, there
are huge levels of crime. What we are talking about here, although a great
deal has been made about changes in police numbers, is variations around the
margin of two per cent, that is what we are talking about, since 1997. It is
a two per cent variation. Instead of having 100 people in the room we have got
98. If you have 100 people available to you and you use them poorly they will
be of less effect than if you have 98 and use them well. I am happy to
provide the regression analyses which have been done which I have been trying
to turn up in this compendious briefing that I have got here. I think what may
have happened was, first of all, those forces which were suffering a bit of
a squeeze put an effort into using the officers they had got more effectively,
because they had to, and, secondly, other factors came into play, including
the effect of the money which we were investing in crime reduction which was
going directly into targeting burglaries, vehicle crimes and things like that.
The overall combination of that was to see a reduction in crime. I may say
that the experience which you have had, Mr Cawsey, in Humberside has been
replicated in Lancashire where I regret to say that the settlements for the
Lancashire service in 1998/99 was one of the worst in the country. It was the
way the formula came out. Yet the record of the police service there, in
terms of reduction in recorded crime, under the Chief Constable, Pauline
Clare, was one of the best in the country. That is what has happened. Also
we know, as I have said, there is no correlation between police numbers and
variations in crime patterns. Also there is no correlation between police
services which have got the biggest or smallest increases in budgets and
variations in police numbers. Some services which have quite generous,
comparatively generous increases in budget, had Chief Constables who chose to
use that money, for example, to invest in technology or to put in to civilians
rather than into police numbers, as they are entitled to. Although, as I
pointed out to them, one or two of them then complained about the fact that
their choices have been less popular and they have blamed the Home Secretary.
98. Yes, I am quite interested in that point because it was a long
battle, which was finally conceded by the former Government, and it was a
decision which I supported, to say that establishment for police forces should
be a matter determined between the police constable and the police authority,
not essentially set by the Home Secretary. To a certain extent, the Crime
Fighting Fund that you have now set up to put more police officers in actually
starts to backtrack to that and draws you back into this process again of
being an arbiter on what police numbers are going to be in what area. What
made you feel that extra money had to go directly for officers, irrespective
of what a local decision may have been as opposed to just allocating those
funds locally, in which case they may have chosen to recruit extra officers
or they may have chosen extra equipment, IT, civilians as part of an
improvement in overall performance?
(Mr Straw) The fact that I was concerned about the drop in numbers, and
it had gone too far, and they needed to go back up, and that public confidence
in the police service was difficult to pin down and therefore, in the widest
sense, that was related to their own sense of safety and security, was related
to what they felt about the capacity of the police service to deal with crime
and disorder when it took place. In turn that is related to what they see
about overall police numbers. There can be no doubt that concern about police
numbers was feeding into concern about crime. You cannot just deal with crime
in terms of the numbers, you have to deal with it in terms of public
perception. The other thing was that there was a number of police authorities
and Chiefs who on the one hand were saying "We want our independence to spend
as we wish", and on the other hand the moment there was any difficulty locally
was saying "Oh, it is all to do with the Home Office". As I said to ACPO and
the Association of Police Authorities you cannot have it both ways. Many
Chiefs and police authorities helped to make the issue of police numbers an
issue. I have sought to resolve that. The only way of resolving it fairly is
by the Crime Fighting Fund.
99. One of the other things you could do which would be of enormous
assistance to police forces and police authorities would be to come up with
some sort of resolution to the issue of police pensions. Again this is
something which has been considered all the time I have been involved with
police authorities and police forces. Where are you on that particular issue
now and what do you see as being the resolution to it?
(Mr Straw) You are right about that. Where we are is we are considering
responses to the consultation and we will make announcements in due course.
I have already flagged up the interim proposals about it. It is a continuing
problem. The difficulty about this is people say "Go to a funded system" and
if we were starting from scratch again I would dearly love to have gone to a
funded system which would be outwith police budget. In the long term a funded
system would be better. The problem is that as John Maynard Keynes famously
said "In the long run we are all dead" and in the short run moving to a funded
system will involve higher levels of public spending in order to get the
funding going. That is the difficulty about it. In any one year there is
always an argument about why you should use the resources for something else
rather than turning it into a funded scheme. Now we are looking at whether
there are any other ways, as it were, of starting the funding which would be
outside the definition of public spending. It is hard to see how we can arrive
at that. Meanwhile what we have sought to do is to take better note of the
impact of pensions on police budgets. Pensions, as a proportion of the police
budget, have risen from seven per cent ten years ago to over 14 per cent in
the last year and are still rising. We have factored that in to the
settlement.
100. The problem becomes an individual police authority's for
whatever reason, and Mr Howarth said earlier about officers may be
disillusioned, perhaps in particular force areas or whatever, and drop out of
the service. It is not even the fact that if you had, for want of a better
phrase, an average number of retirements you have got this increase in burden,
you can also find suddenly that the figures go beyond your control because
somebody has done their full 30 years and need only give a month's notice and
then leave and suddenly you have an enormous hole in your budget. Do you not
accept that all of those sorts of pressures must be taken away from the police
authority at each individual area if there is going to be any certainty in
planning and fighting crime effectively?
(Mr Straw) I agree we should reduce the pressures. There has to be some
pressure on the police authorities in respect of pensions and the Chiefs so
that they do not make decisions which they regard as free in terms of early
retirement and things like that, management retirement, which in fact has a
big impact on the public purse.
101. If somebody has done 30 years, it is nothing to do with the
local service.
(Mr Straw) What is important, I do not think we will be able to do it
before next year, is that the SSA better takes into account the impact of
pensions on individual police services than it does at the moment. The other
thing we are looking at, again easier said than done, is to see whether we can
provide better incentives for officers to stay on beyond the 30 year mark. At
the moment quite a number of officers do and we are very grateful to them but
they do not exactly get thanks for this in terms of their salary because they
go on contributing to their pension payments although they do not get an
enhanced pension as a result.
102. If I can move away directly from funding on to performance.
You have spoken already about the fact that it is undeniably true that
different areas are having different performances with similar resources.
What are you doing to actually analyse that and try and ensure that good
practice is carried out across all of England and Wales and not just in
certain areas?
(Mr Straw) A huge amount is the answer. With the Chief Inspector of the
Police Service Constabulary, Sir David O'Dowd, we have a programme for
inspection of the basic command units. In the past formal inspections have
taken place at a police force area, what we are now moving to do is to inspect
at the divisional area and it is in the divisions you get the biggest
variation. If I may, Chairman, use an example which would be local to the West
Midlands. Within a very large West Midlands Police Service you have got very
busy inner city divisions and you have also got ones which are very suburban,
some are verging on rural, on the borders of West Mercia and that area. It
is obviously important to inspect the service as a whole because what you are
inspecting there is quality of overall leadership, management, things like
that, but it would also be of help to the citizens of Birmingham as well as
to the Chief Constable and Members of Parliament, to know how, for example,
the inner city divisions are performing compared with others in a similar
position. I do not want to suggest there is too close a comparison between
schools and police services because you have to have a super structure above
a division which is in the police service to deal with contingencies and
things like that and provide service-wide provision, which you do not have to
have the same equivalent in the local education authority with respect to
schools. The result of the inspection system in schools has been to ensure
real pressure for schools which are in a similar position to raise their
performance to the level of the best in that position. We have already had
some pilot inspections of BSUs, that produced a lot of information about
variation, and one of the factors behind variation, now moving forward to a
programme of systematic inspection of BSUs. At the same time there is a great
deal of work going on to analyse the effectiveness of the crime and disorder
partnerships which typically are co-terminus with BSUs but sometimes are not,
to get them to raise their game as well.
103. You mentioned West Midlands there which immediately made me
think about issues to do with consistency of recording crime and clear up
rates afterwards. I know you have done some work on that since you have been
Home Secretary. How satisfied are you now that when we look at tables of
recorded crime figures and clear up rates for England and Wales that in fact
you are comparing like with like?
(Mr Straw) We are closer to comparing like with like now than we were,
not least because of the changes in the recording systems, that I introduced
in 1997, which kicked in I think in late 1998, which ensure that the figures
are more accurately reflecting the number of crimes reported. For example, the
old system did not record assaults on the police. When there was a break-in
to a secure car park and 15 vehicles were broken into in turn, that would be
down as one break-in rather than 15. There are many glitches in the system.
The old system significantly under recorded fraud, credit card fraud
particularly, as well as, for example, not recording common assault. I changed
the system and I have to say that it has not been the most popular decision
which I made because it has had the effect of increasing the numbers rather
than decreasing them. I happen to think it was right. The public do have a
right to know better levels of crime in their area. There are still
variations between forces, in the West Midlands, for example. Just to go back
a bit. One of the things which followed alongside my changes in the system for
recording has been improvements in the practice of recording. It is a
combination of those which almost entirely explains the apparent large
increase in recorded crime in the West Midlands. We thought that was the case
but the British Crime Survey now gives us certainty to say that is the case
because that shows in its long term study - 15,000 samples done on a
consistent basis, all the statisticians saying that it is the best measure of
crime - that shows crime has come down 10 per cent between 1997 and 1999. The
explanation for the increase in the numbers in terms of recorded crime is the
fact that the public are now reporting more crimes to the police than they
were. There are still variations in the practice and the inspectorate between
different forces, less than it was but it is still there. The inspectorate are
doing a lot of work to raise it.
104. Just one final question from me. That is really to do with
getting the most out of police officers and what I mean by that is people go
on about police numbers, yet in reality when you speak to the public they do
not know what the police numbers for their area are anyway. I think what they
really mean is police presence, how often do we see them. It strikes me the
biggest thing that can be done to improve that would be to have systems in
place which meant that police officers were dealing with less bureaucracy and
able to spend more time on the street. Again, going back to 1993, this seems
to be something which has been a clarion call for a long time now. What is
happening to improve that situation?
(Mr Straw) You are right about that. The important Audit Commission
report which was published in 1996, Street Wise, showed that at any one time
only five per cent of police officer strength was available for general
patrol. Now that also goes back to this issue about police numbers. You had
a 20 per cent increase in the number of officers available at any one time,
that would increase that proportion from five per cent to six per cent. The
other 95 or 94 per cent are explained by people in squads, on shifts, because
it is a 24 hour service, by all sorts of distractions, health, sickness,
management and so on. This is why, as you say, Mr Cawsey, what the public are
concerned about is visibility rather than about numbers which are to some
extent an abstraction to them. You are asking what we are doing to cut down
paper work, a great deal. I have implemented the Narey changes which have
meant that those who are guilty of their crimes and intending to plead guilty
get to court much more quickly than they did before, that cuts down paper.
There are abbreviated files for these people so that the police and CPS do not
have to go through putting together substantial witness statements when they
are not needed. That also has the effect of cutting down the remand
population in the prisons, which is greatly to be welcomed. That has
happened. Continuing efforts to identify ways in which the amount of
duplicate form filling can be cut down. We have also got this very large IT
project, custody case preparation system, which is critical. That is not
working out as satisfactorily as it should do but we are putting a lot of
effort in to ensure it performs better in the future.
Chairman
105. Home Secretary, on this section, you told the House yesterday
that police spending is to increase from œ7.7 billion this year to œ9.3
billion in 2003/04, which is a 12 per cent increase in real terms over those
three years, with next year's increase the largest for almost two decades.
(Mr Straw) Yes.
106. What do you think the public has the right to expect from
that heavy extra investment? How will they know it is working?
(Mr Straw) Improved performance by the police in terms of getting crime
down is the answer.
107. Yes.
(Mr Straw) An acceptance that, yes, we all acknowledge, and I certainly
acknowledge, that the police service have had a difficult time in terms of
funding for some period but we are now putting in this very big investment and
we are backing it with a lot of other work that is going on in terms of the
crime reduction programme and, for example, the improvements to the efficiency
of the court system, the Crown Prosecution Service, which are so important to
raising the performance of the overall law and justice agencies to make our
society a safer one.
Mr Winnick
108. As far as performance is concerned, Home Secretary, we can be
more or less confident there will not be the repeat of the blunders and
incompetence which took place in the murder of Stephen Lawrence?
(Mr Straw) You cannot be absolutely certain of virtually anything in
life but what I can say is the risk of that happening is very greatly reduced
and the new Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, and his Deputy, Ian Blair, and all
the rest of his staff at the Metropolitan Police are determined that it should
not. They are not just saying that but ensuring that systems are put in place
to ensure it does not happen again.
109. Since the matter was raised previously you have met Mr and
Mrs Lawrence, as I understand it, am I not right?
(Mr Straw) I meet them very regularly is the answer. I saw them a
couple of weeks ago. I see them probably at least once a month in one form or
another.
110. Presumably the attitude of the parents of Stephen is somewhat
different from the views expressed by Mr Howarth today?
(Mr Straw) Yes.
Mr Howarth
111. Can I ask a question as Mr Winnick just mentioned me by name.
Pursuant to Mr Winnick's remark, the Home Secretary will be aware that the
Metropolitan Police are in negotiation with the Lawrence's on a pay out which
has been reported as being as high as œ320,000. Whilst nobody is in any doubt
about the nature of the tragedy and the personal grief of the Lawrence family,
nevertheless what is your view about this sort of level of money that it has
been suggested might be paid out? Can you tell us how much was paid out to
the family of PC Blakelock who was brutally hacked to death by a black gang
in Tottenham?
(Mr Straw) The answer to your second question is no, but if the
Committee wants the information I would be happy to try to supply it. The
answer to your first question is that I would not dream of commenting on this
because it is a matter of potential proceedings between Mr and Mrs Lawrence
and the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Commissioner. I was involved
when I was with the Police Authority, which was up to 2 July of this year, I
am no longer involved.
Mr Linton: Home Secretary, let me briefly take you on to a subject which
is unusually in the news at the moment which is the reform of the machinery
of elections. The United States' election is hardly an advertisement for vote
counting machines.
Chairman: An absurd shambles.
Mr Linton: There have been a number of experiments recently: mobile
ballot boxes in Maidenhead, postal ballots in Wigan, and even, I believe,
early voting in Blackburn ----
Mr Howarth: And voting often in Dublin.
Mr Howarth: More interestingly, polling booths with automated polling
equipment in Bury, Salford and Three Rivers.
Mr Winnick: Sounds like Florida.
Mr Linton
112. You have presumably received the evaluation reports from
these pilot projects. Can you tell me what they say and when some of these
schemes are likely to be rolled out nationally?
(Mr Straw) I have answered a Parliamentary Question about this as well.
The practice and the evaluation showed that it was all postal ballots which
made the significant difference in terms of turnout, very significant
difference. Partly to my surprise, none of the other changes made much
difference at all and that included early voting and what happened in
Blackburn with town centre voting in advance. I had assumed - this was just
my judgment - that making polling more available to people would make a
difference to turnout but it turned out - sorry, no pun intended - it
transpired that it did not.
113. It may have made a difference to the convenience of electors.
(Mr Straw) It may have done. There is a further round of pilots which
take place at the local elections in May. We have received applications. I
will see if I can turn up my note about it. We are in the process of
assessing those. Here we go: 32 local authorities ran 38 pilot schemes. All
postal ballots was by far the most successful scheme in terms of increased
turnouts with some areas doubling previous figures. Evaluation reports showed
all postal ballots to be approximately two and a half times more expensive to
run than normal ballots. Subject to the usual caveats about the Treasury, I
happen to think that is a small price to pay for improving the accessibility
of our democracy. We have received six applications to run schemes in May
2001, five for all postal ballots and one for electronic counting. The all
postal ballots would have a fair wind but on electronic counting I think we
have to make sure that the machinery works rather better than the punch card
system they have in the United States.
114. That was a 34 year old system.
(Mr Straw) I know. That is one of the interesting things about the
United States, everybody thinks the United States is very modern and up-to-
date but often the technology they use is remarkably antiquated.
115. Can I ask whether you are going to publish some of these
evaluation reports?
(Mr Straw) I think we have published the evaluation reports. Yes, we
have published them and they have been made available, so there are no secrets
at all about them.
116. One specific question that certainly voters in my area are
keen to know the answer to is whether the provisions for the rolling register
and postal votes on demand are likely to be in force in time for the next
local election?
(Mr Straw) Yes is the answer. They arise from the Representation of the
People Act 2000 which received Royal Assent in March of this year. These
provisions, as you say, through the rolling registration make postal votes
available on demand, allow the homeless, mental patients and remand prisoners
to register to vote in the area or at the address where they are resident,
provide further assistance for disabled voters and also allow voters to stop
the information which they supply to the actual register from being sold on.
We are intending to bring these into force on 16 February next year which is
the day when the register changes.
117. Does that mean people who moved into a property after 12
October can still expect to be able to register before the May local
elections?
(Mr Straw) I think so, Mr Linton. Because I do not wish to provide
information in error to this Committee I will write to you about it.
118. The Electoral Commission is part not of this Bill but of the
Political Parties Bill currently going through the House of Lords, so clearly
that has not been set up yet. Can you give us an indication of whether you
have been able to prepare for the setting up of an Electoral Commission and
will you be able to move quickly once that Bill is passed?
(Mr Straw) Yes. A huge amount of work has been done on the
establishment of the Electoral Commission. There was an open competition and
a selection panel chaired by Sir David Omand, who is the Permanent Secretary
at the Home Office, and that has recommended the appointment of individuals,
whose names I am very happy to give the Committee, as Chairman and as members
of the Commission. As you may recall, Mr Linton, because it is extremely
important that this Electoral Commission is above the battle and is plainly
composed of people not only of integrity but of impartiality, the arrangements
are that we consult with leaders of all the other parties and if they are
content, as they were with those whose names went forward on the short list,
there is then a recommendation to the Speaker, whose agreement is required,
and a motion on the address from the House of Commons to Her Majesty for the
appointment of these people. That cannot take place until Royal Assent. The
Chairman who will be recommended is Sam Younger. The other members of the
Commission are Pamela Gordon, Sir Neil McKintosh, Glyn Mathias, Koranjit Singh
and Professor Graham Zellick. A great deal of work is going on on the
implementation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. We
are aiming to bring into force the bulk of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, on
16 February next year. Everybody here knows the importance of that date. It
is not chosen at random, it is the day when the new registers come in.
Chairman
119. Two days after Valentine's Day.
(Mr Straw) It is two days after Valentine's Day and, if you are
seriously interested, it is 30 years and a day after decimalisation was
introduced. We could go on.
Mr Linton
120. These will all be people selected because they are above and
beyond party politics, I am sure.
(Mr Straw) Yes. It is extremely important that this Commission should
be composed of people in whose independence and impartiality everybody has
confidence. Now some parts of their duties and some parts of the Bill will
be delayed in terms of implementation. For example, the Parliamentary Boundary
Commission will carry on its work to complete its fifth general review and
then transfer its functions to the Electoral Commission, although it may well
take over the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission. There are
other aspects about the definitions of local candidate expenditure which
require training by the parties and it is currently our intention not to
implement those until much later this year or next year. Obviously what I
have been seeking to do all the way through is to proceed by agreement between
the parties.
121. Turning to one other provision of the Political Parties Bill,
you will remember the Home Affairs Committee recommended a reduction in the
qualification period for overseas voting from 20 years to five.
(Mr Straw) Yes.
122. Yet, as I understand it, your colleague in the House of Lords
will today or tomorrow be moving an amendment to increase it from ten to 15.
There was actually an amendment, I believe, from Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
for a four or five year limit with a use it or lose it clause. I am mystified,
and I think the Committee will appreciate your explanation of why since there
was so much consensus around five years, which this Committee recommended, it
was not accepted?
(Mr Straw) I have to say, Mr Linton, certainly consensus in this
Committee, there was not a huge amount of consensus on the floor of the House,
in fact there was a huge amount of argument.
123. Your Minister at the time did say there was a wave of
consensus on the floor of the Commons.
(Mr Straw) He is ever an optimist.
Chairman
124. Perhaps he said a wave at consensus.
(Mr Straw) You will probably recall that Gerald Kaufman was proposing
the period should be zero.
Mr Linton
125. I think Mr Kaufman would have preferred five years to ten or
15.
(Mr Straw) I cannot remember where we have got to on this, it is a
moving target. The problem about the use it or lose it is that it is
admittedly quite complicated, it requires checking about whether people have
voted and things like that.
126. If they are already on the register it can be extended, if
they are not, it cannot.
(Mr Straw) The other point I would make is the argument before was if
someone came back to this country it would take them 18 months, sometimes
longer, to get registered, they can get registered in six weeks now. They
will not be in limbo for 18 months. There is a judgment about how long you
should be abroad before you effectively lose your connection with this
country. Anyway, it is not an issue on which I have hugely strong feelings,
except in the sense I would rather see it put to bed one way or another.
127. I am a bit mystified by the alleged difficulty of use it or
lose it because it will simply mean an electoral registration officer could
extend the registration of somebody already on the register but could not
after the five year qualifying period put a new name on somebody who lives
abroad. It does not seem to me obvious why it would present difficulties.
(Mr Straw) The last time I looked at it, Mr Linton, there were
difficulties. I am very happy to look at it again.
128. This Committee certainly expressed its point of view at the
time. There was a consensus in the Commons and there seems to be a cross party
consensus in the Lords. Certainly, time is pressing, because it is today or
tomorrow that this will be determined in the Lords but I would appreciate an
explanation of what the difficulty was about the five year.
(Mr Straw) Somebody here is making a note of what things I have to do.
Okay.
129. The main Reform Bill is the campaign spending limits and on
that the Liberal Democrats suggested œ10 million, the Labour Party suggested
œ15 million and the Bill suggests œ20 million which from all the expert
opinion I have heard will mean that there will be no real reduction in the
amount of money spent in the General Election campaigns. After the experience
in the United States' election when there have been estimates of something
like œ3 billion spent in the election, would this not be a good time to effect
a downward step change in the amount of money spent in this country in
election campaigns?
(Mr Straw) I am tolerably certain that the figure in the Bill came from
recommendations of the Neill Committee. I was very anxious putting forward
this Bill to ensure so far as possible we complied with what Neill had
recommended because I am acutely aware of the fact that I have a
responsibility as Home Secretary for electoral law and to do that as fairly
as possible. I am also a partisan politician and I did not wish that loyalty
to get in the way of doing my very best to be fair as between one party and
another. It appeared to me the best way of ensuring fairness, unless there
were overwhelming arguments against, was to follow what Neill recommended.
One area, you may note, we tightened up on the Neill Committee, we have
introduced limits on referendum spending, whereas Neill said it was not
possible to do it. We do our best to take the Neill Committee with us. Now,
my recollection is that the estimates of spending at the last election by the
main parties were œ23 million for the Labour Party, œ27 million for the
Conservative Party. The œ20 million figure will still be a reduction. I say,
also, that this is tiny compared with the amount that is spent in the United
States, completely different ballparks. The other interesting thing - and I
am happy to provide this data to the Committee - is that before the controls
kicked in in the late 19th century, overall spending on elections in real
terms was higher in the 19th century than it is today. These controls have
worked to moderate spending. At that stage almost all the spending was at a
local level, there was not any campaigning which took place at a national
level. The controls introduced in the 1880s and subsequent times have worked
and we have a different culture in this country in terms of election spending
compared not only with the United States but with many European countries as
well. It is very much to the good. The problem they have got in the States is
that whilst they think they can control the size of donations, they cannot
control in the constitution the overall spend by a party. What we have done
is said people can give whatever they want to a party - the experience in the
United States shows trying to control one person from parcelling up donations
in small amounts is impossible - what is crucial and what you can control is
that party's spending and also ensure transparency in terms of donations by
doing what we have done in the Manifesto, namely that the names of donors over
œ5,000 should be disclosed.
130. The figures are actually œ26 million and œ28 million.
(Mr Straw) I speak from recollection but I am not bad on figures
generally.
131. The œ26 million includes a lot of expenditure which would not
be covered by the National Campaign Spending Limit. I have it from the
Director of Finance of the Labour Party that during the last election this
limit, if applied to the last election, would not have caused the Labour Party
to spend any less, it may have caused the Conservatives to spend a little bit
less.
(Mr Straw) We thought it was fair to take Neill and it will be open to
the Electoral Commission, not to parties, in future to say how that figure
should be changed.
132. You did differ from Neill on five different respects, I
think, quite rightly, out of 100 recommendations so I do not quite see why if
you differed on five you should not differ on six.
(Mr Straw) I differed from Neill where you could make a good case for
it. I differed from Neill on referendums. They regarded it as a point of
principle, they thought it was not practical to have a limit on spending on
referendums, we thought it was. We came up with a scheme, we passed it across
to them and it turned out that they had come to that view, I think, because
they had run out of time to go into the detail so we changed it but it has
been changed with consensus. I think probably a good way of starting to get
these important new controls in place is to do it on a similar basis, a level
basis with what happened last time, and so then it is a matter for the
Commission.
133. Just one final question, the Home Affairs Committee also
recommended an increase in the candidate's deposit from œ500 to œ700 and in
your response you comment there will be consultations with other political
parties. Can I just ask how far those consultations have advanced and whether
there is any prospect of an increase in the deposit level seen?
(Mr Straw) I do not know the answer to that. I will have to write to
the Committee.
Mr Winnick
134. You are not opposed to an increase are you, Home Secretary?
(Mr Straw) No. Why should I be?
135. In time for the next General Election, whenever that may be?
(Mr Straw) I am personally not opposed to an increase but it is a matter
for consultation. I simply do not have the answer to the question put by Mr
Linton, namely where we have got to on that.
Chairman
136. Home Secretary, can we just have a look quickly at hunting
with dogs. How many options have you got?
(Mr Straw) If you really want to, yes.
137. How many options have you got, please, that you have decided
on?
(Mr Straw) The Bill will be published probably as quickly as we can. We
may publish it in draft so that colleagues can have a look at it before.
There are three basic options which are between ban, regulation of the kind
that was in one of the proposals that Burns looked at, and light touch
supervision. Those are the basic options.
138. Is the Government's plan to try to get it into the Lords
after it has been through this place as early as possible?
(Mr Straw) That depends on what happens in this place, with great
respect.
Mr Howarth
139. Correct.
(Mr Straw) What we are intending to do is to do exactly what I said we
will do, which is to bring this forward on a similar basis, not quite the
same, to the Shops Bill. We are providing Government time for the Bill in
order that the Commons can then reach a conclusion on it.
Chairman
140. Has the Government reached any conclusion on the Burns
Committee's recommendation of possibly a compensation scheme?
(Mr Straw) No, we have not is the answer.
141. That will not hold up the publication of the Bill in either
of its two forms?
(Mr Straw) No.
142. Thank you very much indeed, Home Secretary, for your patience
and your courtesy as ever.
(Mr Straw) Thank you. I cannot think of anything better to do on a
Tuesday morning.
Mr Cawsey: See you next week then.
Chairman: Thank you.
