Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Oaten: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the Government's ability to run a major national IT scheme. I take it that he will vote against proposals for an identity card system on that basis?
Mr. Hawkins: In the past, I have expressed my concerns about the use of technology in all kinds of Government projects, not merely the one I was just talking about, and clearly some of the issues that arise in this context may also apply to identity cards, but I do not intend to make predictions without knowing what the motion would be. The hon. Gentleman made a nice try and I understand what lies behind his point, but I shall not commit myself to what my vote might be on a motion that has not yet come before the House.
When we look at the issues that have come to the centre of public attention recently due to the tragic shooting of Danielle Beccan, we have to consider whether the police forces affected have received what they asked for. Even Government Members have made it clear that forces such as Nottinghamshire have been asking for vast increases in officersthe chief constable of Nottinghamshire obviously wants that, as he has asked for it repeatedlybut they have not been getting those increases. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary pointed out, Manchester has been asking for 3,000 more officers. That is why we phrased our motion as we did; we feel that law-abiding people want a vast increase in policing. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will solve all the problems with IT projects when we face a situation where violent crime is up by 20 per cent., as even they accept, gun crime is up by 30 per cent. and drug offences have gone up by 16 per cent.
As other Members want to speak, it would be wrong of me to take too much time explaining my view that the Government have presided over far too great a relaxation of drugs policy; I made speeches on that subject when I was shadow drugs Minister. I shall refer to some headlines as they describe what the law-abiding people of this country are seeing: "Labour drops key targets on drugs"; "Government goes soft on club drug-taking";"'Give young crooks £20,000 a year to stay out of trouble', urges Minister. So, who says crime doesn't pay"; "Crime shambles. Offences up"; "Plunging prices of drugs on the street"; "Cut-price drugs hit the streets"; "Cannabis explosionwhen police tried going soft on the drug its use tripled. That same approach is about to become national policy"; "Cannabis laws in shambles"; "Real offenders are not paying price of crime"; "MPs urged to reconsider the dangers of cannabis".
It is not good enough for the Government to wash their hands of their responsibility for that explosion in drugs since they came to power in 1997. My right hon. Friend referred to the Prime Minister's use of the phrase "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". The greatest cause of crime, as all law-abiding people know, is drugs. The Government have not been tough on drugs as a cause of crime, they have been soft. There can be no argument about that; everybody in the country knows it. The Government have given misleading signals, especially to the young.
18 Oct 2004 : Column 691
I feel strongly that the Government have created a situation in which the drug barons, who use guns so ruthlessly, can take advantage of the greater market for drugs and the lower street price for drugs. They have moved into our inner cities in increasing numbers and that has led to the rise in organised crime over which the Government have presided. I put the finger of blame firmly on the Government, because all those matters are linked.
I want to refer to one final quote from a paper that is not my normal reading, but perhaps that makes the words even more effective. The Independent stated:
"Mr. Blunkett's ideas grab headlines, but won't prevent a single crime."
I would go further: the policies of the Government all about headline-grabbing initiatives, strategies and glossy brochuresare failing to tackle the problem and are ensuring, unfortunately for the law-abiding people of this country, that crime will continue to rise. It is not good enough for the Government to wash their hands of the serious problems that affect every part of the UK. As recent events have all too tragically demonstrated, the Government have lost control. That is why Members on both sides of the House should support the Opposition motion.
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), as I come from a constituency that is well endowed with some of the Government's special initiatives. We have a very can-do approach to tackling some of the problems.
I want to pay special tribute to the thoughtful way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) has dealt with the issues in his constituency. Our constituencies have much in common. Nottingham is a city of similar size to Plymouth and faces similar challenges. Thankfully, we do not have the gun crime that appears to be endemic there, but we have severe drug and alcohol-related problems. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the recent establishment of an all-party group on the night-time economy, as that will enable us to undertake some constructive thinking about the issues.
In Plymouth, we have a "Catch a Rat" initiative, rather than "Rat on a Rat", so I was interested in my hon. Friend's idea for "Grass on a Gun". I wondered what the equivalent might be for knives, but perhaps we could pursue the catch a rat theme on guns and knives. Those with such weapons are rats infesting our communities and making people's lives a misery.
I hope that the visit from the Home Office team that my hon. Friend mentioned will go as well as the recent visit to Plymouth. It certainly created a buzz in our community; the knowledge that Ministers were willing to talk to people in our communities about the challenges that we face brought very positive feelings. The Home Secretary and his team now have a first-hand view of our policing, crime and community challenges in Plymouth and of the way in which our local partnerships are working to tackle the deep-seated problems of antisocial behaviour, substance abuse of all
18 Oct 2004 : Column 692
sorts and binge drinking in a city that has for hundreds of years been associated with the abuse of alcohol, especially in the Barbican area where I live.
I am trying to choose my words carefully, because such things matter. When we talk about crime and crime figures, it is important to distinguish, as the Home Secretary did, between what the British crime survey and the figures for recorded crime are telling us. There has been a significant rise in violent crime in Plymouth, but the story is interesting and it may inform our debate to consider exactly what that rise means and how it chimes with what the British crime survey tells us about a fall in violent crime.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety knows, alcohol and drugs problems are as serious in Plymouth as anywhere, and although, thankfully, we do not have the gun problem, we have a knife problem and I shall return to that point towards the end of my remarks. In May this year, we carried out a successful blitz on yobs and drunken louts, using on-the-spot fines, as part of the national campaign that the Home Secretary launched on 22 March. In the four months between March and July, 490 on-the-spot fines were issued throughout Devon, 170 of them in Plymouth. Chief Superintendent Maurice Watts welcomed such fines as a valuable weapon to allow police to tackle offenders without getting tied up in paperwork, so that they could get back on patrol andguess what?catch more offenders; hence the rise in the statistics. We want them to rise. One of the few points on which I could agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was that detection ratescatching people and successfully holding them to accountmatter and on-the-spot fines are proving to be useful in that respect. They increase the chances that people are caught and fined.
Mr. Oaten: I am beginning to warm a little more to fixed penalties, but is not one of the problems the number of individuals who fail to pay them? Is there any evidence that a fixed penalty will stop an individual committing further crimes in future?
Linda Gilroy: The hon. Gentleman makes a relevant point. I do not have the figures in front of me, but I was reading about them earlier today. Certainly, when they were reported in July at the end of that programme, more than half of such fines had been paida significant numberbut I am not certain how many remain unpaid a few months later.
Mr. McCabe: I was surprised to hear the comments made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). Perhaps I can direct him to a survey conducted by West Midlands police, which shows the difference in the payment rates for on-the-spot fines and conventional court fines. The police advocate on-the-spot fines for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend mentions.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |