| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Juries
3. Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South): What plans he has to increase the protection of jury members from intimidation and threats. [109757]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (
Hilary Benn): The Government are making provision in the Criminal Justice Bill for trial by judge alone in cases involving jury tampering and the risk of intimidation. A number of measures already exist to protect jurors and the proposals in the Bill seek to deal with the very small number of cases that those measures cannot address satisfactorily.
Mr. Tynan : I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Does he accept that the protection of jurors and witnesses is vital to the criminal justice system? What discussion has he had with the Labour-led Scottish Executive on providing secure, safe, separate witness areas in courtrooms? Does he believe that such a proposal should be universally adopted?
Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of providing effective protection for both jurors and witnesses. I have not had any such discussions because those matters are, of course, entirely for the Scottish Parliament. As I am sure he will know, we have already taken a number of steps to tackle the problem, including separate waiting rooms, although that is not always possible in all courts, and enabling people to give evidence from behind a screen or by a television link. The importance of the measures contained in the Criminal Justice Bill is that they will send out a clear message to anyone who thinks that there is benefit to be gained by trying to suborn a jury that it will not succeed. If they seek to do so, the criminal justice system will have an effective response to make sure that justice can be served.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Is the Minister aware of the comments of his noble Friend Baroness Helena Kennedy, who described the proposals in the Bill as a
- "wholesale assault on civil liberties"
Hilary Benn: I do not accept that the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to deal with the intimidation of jurors constitute an assault on civil liberties. On the contrary, those who seek to suborn jurors are trying to undermine the criminal justice system, and it is right that we should have effective measures to prevent that.
The second point is that a very strict test has to be passed before the new provisions come into play. In the first instance, there must be a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place, and it must be the case that either the level and duration of the trial would be such as to place an excessive burden on the juror or that any other measures that could be taken, including 24-hour police protection, would not be sufficient, so that, in the interests of justice, the trial should be conducted without a jury. The House will recognise that that is a strict test to deal with a small number of serious situations in which attempts are made to subvert the course of justice.
Metropolitan Police Force
4. Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting): How many police officers are serving in the Metropolitan police force; and how many were serving in May 1997. [109758]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): The Metropolitan Police Service had 26,868 police officers on 30 September last year, 191 more than in March 1997. The increase should be seen in the light of boundary changes that have reduced the metropolitan area. In addition, the Metropolitan police have 498 community support officers, and the Metropolitan Police Authority's budget for this financial year allows for an increase of 1,200 officers by March next year.
Mr. Cox : I note that reply and welcome the improvements that have been made and, according to my hon. Friend, will continue to be made. Is he aware that many London Members such as me, who have large ethnic communities in our constituencies, are deeply concerned about the lack of police officers, men or women, who come from an ethnic background? London's police force is totally unrepresentative of its population. Will my hon. Friend and his Department urgently consider the recruitment of ethnic police officers, men or women, into the Metropolitan police?
Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it is not only recruitment but retention that we need to bear in mind. The Metropolitan police have 1,286 officers from ethnic minorities, which is 4.9 per cent. of the force strength. That is well above the national average, but of course it is nowhere near a reflection of the community that the force is policing, so we need to continue all our efforts not only to recruit but to retain officers from ethnic minorities.
Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): Ministers will know that the beginnings of the increase in numbers in the Met are very welcome, but is that recruitment at the expense of other police forces in the country? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that six police forces—City of London, Merseyside, Cumbria, Staffordshire, Sussex and West Yorkshire—have between them lost 633 officers in the same time, even though their council tax increase this year is, on average, 29 per cent.? Nine forces have had no increase at all—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.
Martin Linton (Battersea): Will my hon. Friend continue increasing police officers in the Met until they number 28,000 and, in due course, 30,000? We recognise that the increase, together with the appointment of street patrols and community support officers, has
already borne fruit in the form of the sharp reduction in street crime that the Home Secretary was able to announce last year in Wandsworth.
Mr. Ainsworth: We intend to continue investing in the crime fighting fund opposed by the Conservative party. The increase in police numbers in the Met is far higher than the 191 that I mentioned because the boundary changes effectively result in 890 officers moving from the Met to other forces. The increase, boundary for boundary, is already of the order of 1,000 and, as I said, the new budget for the coming year allows for the further recruitment of 1,200 officers.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Having recently finished the parliamentary police service scheme, I pay the highest tribute to the quality of officers serving in the Metropolitan police, regardless of their ethnic background. While it is welcome that an extra 1,200 uniformed personnel are expected by March next year, in my borough of Hillingdon we are promised only one extra uniformed officer. Will the Minister therefore consider appointing reserve officers, who will meet exactly the same criteria for training and experience as the regular force, but will be paid only when they serve, not as specials but as regular reservists?
Mr. Ainsworth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the quality of people coming into the Metropolitan Police Service irrespective or their racial background, but may I correct him in one regard? There will be more than 1,200 additional uniformed staff—he and his colleagues like to forget that, as well as those extra police officers, there are already 500 community support officers in the Met, and their numbers will be augmented in the year ahead. The allocation in the Metropolitan Police Service is a matter for the commissioner, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that it is for the Home Secretary or me to tell him where he should deploy that force.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): Last year's pay reform package allowed police authorities and, indeed, the Met to make special priority payments to officers where there are recruitment or retention difficulties, greater than average responsibilities or where the needs of the job are more demanding than average. The Police Federation points out that in some cases that has had a perverse effect, leading to constables being paid more than sergeants, sergeants more than inspectors and inspectors more than higher ranks. Does the Minister believe that that is good for the effective organisation of the Metropolitan police?
Mr. Ainsworth: We wanted to reward police officers on the front line and those whose performance is exceptional, and have sought to do so. Of course, we will keep the way in which those payments have been arranged and made under review, along with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the commissioner and the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset): In common with every other questioner, I welcome the slight increase in numbers in the Metropolitan police, but does the Minister accept that the lesson of New York is that it is
not a slight increase that is required but a step change in the numbers of police officers in London? Does he accept that, as part of a national programme of adding 40,000 extra police officers, we need to add about 8,000 in London to get to the point where the level of policing in London is comparable to that in New York?
Mr. Ainsworth: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I shall just ask him, if I may, to go back to his figures on New York. He may have noticed that there has been a drop in police numbers there in the past few years. He should not underestimate the number of additional police officers here. As I have said, taking boundary changes into account, there are already 1,000 additional police officers in the Metropolitan area, and there are plans for a further 1,200. The right hon. Gentleman comes up with these ideas but how he is going to pay for additional police officers? Who knows where that money will come from? He belittles the fact that we have record numbers of police officers, something that his party failed to achieve when in government.
Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving the House a taste of the various rhetorical devices that the Government have used to avoid addressing this question. I wonder whether we can strip away the party political badinage for a moment, because Question Time is a good opportunity to try to get clear answers to difficult questions. It is clear that the Minister has two options, and I hope that he can tell us which one he is choosing. One is that he does not accept, for some reason or other, that a step change is needed in the level of policing in London, and the other is that he accepts that one is needed, but does not have the funds to achieve it because it is not one of the Government's priorities. Which of those two positions is the Minister taking in the face of our proposal for an increase of 8,000 officers in London and 40,000 in the country as a whole?
Mr. Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman should at least accept that, in the 12 months to September 2002, there were an additional 4,337 officers, which is the biggest single increase in any one year since 1976—when a Labour Government were in power. How on earth does he reconcile his promises on police numbers with the insistence of his hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on a 20 per cent. cut in public service spending? The right hon. Gentleman cannot do so despite his best endeavours.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |