| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12 Mar 2003 : Column 303—continued
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): In his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the Home Secretary said that to get 40,000 extra police officers, we would have to abolish the immigration service altogether. Is it not the case that in 1993, when there were 20,000 asylum seekers coming to this country instead of the 100,000 that we have now, the immigration service cost £230 million, or £1.5 billion less than it costs today? Does that not prove that if we had a sensible asylum policy we could have thousands more police officers? Is it not time that the Home Secretary started to look at some imaginative schemes instead of things that are failing?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is a bit wide of the subject.
Clive Efford (Eltham): I welcome the statement. Last month I chaired a public meeting with 200 angry residents of the Middle Park estate in my constituency, who called for just the sort of powers that my right hon. Friend has described.
The problems that undermine ASBOs also undermined earlier laws against antisocial behaviour that did not work, chiefly because those who commit
acts of violence and vandalism in our communities are prepared to intimidate and threaten victims to a point at which they will not come forward to give evidence. That applies even to the new powers. We must become more proactive in gathering evidence, so that we can tackle those individuals.
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right. That is why professional witnesses matter. It is also why—this has been raised with me on my own patch—the ability to provide signed and affirmed written statements, commonly but wrongly known as hearsay, will be important, preventing people from being faced down in court or intimidated or beaten up on the way out.
As for enforcement, the more criminals we have the more police we need on the streets, and the more clandestines we have the more immigration and security we need on our borders, which of course costs us more. That answers the earlier question that I was not able to answer.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating our new area commander in West Norfolk, Chief Superintendent Alan Hayes? He has introduced a policy of zero tolerance on, for instance, graffiti and minor criminal damage. That is already rebuilding public confidence in the police, but we have a serious problem with abandoned and burnt-out cars and fly-tipped fridges, which encourages the production of more rubbish. Time and again, no one takes responsibility. Those problems were not mentioned in the statement; what is the Home Secretary going to do about them?
Mr. Blunkett: We have tightened the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency regulations and the automatic number plate recognition scheme. We have given community support officers powers to deal with abandoned cars, and the White Paper refers to new powers on fly tipping and graffiti. I am sure that the chief superintendent's excellent work in his division will be supported, and that he will welcome the extra powers in the White Paper.
Colin Burgon (Elmet): As a Member who believes that our main task is to build stronger communities, I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. I was particularly pleased with his comments about education, because I think that we should give teachers 100 per cent. support, and with what he said about parenting orders and fines. I am interested in the idea of residential provision; will he expand on that and on the need for parents to admit their responsibility for the kids they have brought into the world?
Mr. Blunkett: Not one of us who has been a parent does not sometimes say "There but for the grace of God go I." Let me say, with some temerity, that we want to tell parents, "If you want help, ask for it, and we will ensure that you get it. If we can support you, in both parenting and dealing with family situations, we will do so. But if you refuse to accept help and continue to cause havoc to your own children and the lives of others, we will intervene."
The idea of residential provision stems from the view that it is sometimes necessary to take families away from one situation and into another in which they can receive
instruction, direction and education if they are to cope with even the most basic tenets of civilised behaviour. There are not many in such situations, but the very few cause havoc to the very many.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): Many environmental health departments struggle to provide a full out-of-hours service with their existing resources. Clearly the proposals will raise expectations in relation to, for instance, noise control. Has the Home Secretary discussed the funding of environmental health departments with the Deputy Prime Minister? Will they be expected to divert resources, or will they be given more resources to finance their new powers?
Mr. Blunkett: I continue to have discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister, and with the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, about how resources raised from, for example, fixed penalty notices can be used for reinforcement and reinvestment. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about environmental health, which is close to my heart and, indeed, my family. My family includes an environmental health officer, who tells me of all the things that he needs to do and that I hope to be able to help him to do.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley): The people of Don Valley will welcome the White Paper. I pay tribute to them, for without their agitation and support we would not have had the antisocial behaviour unit in Doncaster that is serving us so well. We have issued antisocial behaviour orders there, but our police officers say that the threat of such orders has contained behaviour in many cases.
I welcome what the White Paper says about private landlords, parenting orders and much more; but legislation, past, present and future, will work when the agencies concerned listen to the people and respond to their demands. Can we ensure, even more than we do now, that information about what works well elsewhere is passed to those on the ground so that they can meet the expectations of those whom they serve?
Mr. Blunkett: That was excellently put. At yesterday's conference for the new local criminal justice boards and the national board, I said—I think the message is now getting across—that there can be no excuses. It is no good saying that others should have acted; it is up to those at local level to work together to ensure that the system is effective in practice.
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): I recently accompanied special constables in my constituency on a night patrol in support of a Home Office campaign for recruitment of more special constables. From my discussions with them, I gleaned the information that if they arrest a young man for urinating against a wall it takes five hours to process the paperwork back at the station. Does the Home Secretary agree with me, with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—the shadow Home Secretary—and with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who raised the issue today, that if we are to have more effective
policing the Home Office must play its part by radically reducing bureaucracy to give our coppers a chance to do their job?
Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he went on a night patrol during the specials weekend that we organised. As for his example of—I am choosing my words carefully—urination in the street, which is both an affront and a criminal offence, I am delighted to tell him that we shall be able to cut out all those hours of bureaucracy when the offender is taken to the station. Rather than spending a penny, he will have to pay £80 for a fixed penalty notice.
Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has said about air weapons in particular. Over the past three or four years, tenants' and residents' groups in Blackpool have told me that they did not know about the powers and that they have not been working quickly enough. They now tell me that they are working quickly enough.
In a letter to me, Blackpool's chief superintendent writes:
- "It appears that the recent changes in legislation have allowed for a much less bureaucratic approach to be adopted . . . We have maximised the opportunities available to us under this legislation and in recent weeks have seen the courts granting 5 interim orders and 1 full order."
Mr. Blunkett: Excellent work is being done in Blackpool. The Tower project, for instance, has been very effective.
It will be possible to attach ASBOs to an individual rather than a locality—to follow the person. That will, I think, make a difference to enforcement.
On a lighter note, I take the point that was made at the beginning of the debate by the shadow Home Secretary. I am learning all the time how best to amend and to re-legislate Home Office legislation, so that whatever was intended in the first place happens in practice.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |