Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
20 JULY 2004
MR JOHN
GIEVE CB, MR
MARTIN NAREY,
MR WILLIAM
NYE AND
MR BILL
JEFFREY
Q40 David Winnick: Well, perhaps that
is understandable and one of my colleagues will be asking you
about that. Should there not be any mention at all in this report
of the phrase that you do not like? I mean, what phrase would
you like which would meet with your approval?
Mr Nye: Mr Winnick, if you like,
I can answer that point.
Q41 David Winnick: Well, whoever. You
are all part of the Home Office.
Mr Nye: Certainly. The arrangements
which I think you are referring to are the arrangements that we
have with the Treasury whereby we agreed to provide the Treasury
with some monthly information about our expenditure.
Q42 David Winnick: Each month you give
that information?
Mr Nye: Each month we provide
them with some information about our expenditure.
Q43 David Winnick: Because you have been
told to do so by the Treasury?
Mr Nye: Which we have agreed with
them to do, and we also—
Q44 Chairman: You did not volunteer to
do so?
Mr Nye: We were quite happy to
do it.
Q45 David Winnick: You did not have much
alternative, did you?
Mr Nye: We have agreed to do it.
Q46 David Winnick: And I do not particularly
want to go into details about the special measures, the phrase
which your colleague is so sensitive about, because one of my
colleagues is going to do that. My question is a simple one. I
may have missed it, but could you tell me where in the Annual
Report it is mentioned?
Mr Nye: It is not mentioned in
the Annual Report.
Q47 David Winnick: Not a word?
Mr Nye: No.
Q48 David Winnick: So all my research
has gone for nought when I tried to look through and find it.
Fair enough. Now, another what apparently is an omission is that
in answer to questions, and you do not mind me putting these questions,
I hope?
Mr Nye: No.
Q49 David Winnick: In questions which
were put to you by the Select Committee office regarding industrial
action, question 41, again is there any mention here of the industrial
action taken by Home Office staff during the course of the year?
Mr Gieve: I do not think so.
Q50 David Winnick: Because I could not
find it.
Mr Gieve: I do not think we mentioned
it and indeed it did not materially affect our performance.
Q51 David Winnick: Could I put this question
to you, Mr Gieve, at the cost of being misunderstood. Would I
not be right, and it would go for all departments and under any
government, I am not saying otherwise, but the whole purpose of
this is to give understandably the best possible presentation
of the work undertaken by the Home Office? You would say perhaps,
"Why not?", but it is not a form of frank account, to
use such a phrase, is it?
Mr Gieve: I do not think it is
a public relations exercise. For a start, it is much too long
and dense to be successful as a public relations exercise. It
is full of fascinating information, including who sat on all of
our NDPBs and advisory committees and so on and so forth—
Q52 David Winnick: Absolutely fascinating!
Mr Gieve: —and detailed
tables. It is our attempt, pursuing a template which is agreed
with select committees actually by the Treasury on behalf of Whitehall
to set out a lot of the facts. Now, you are absolutely right,
that however many we set out, there are probably as many again
which are not in here, though we felt it was long enough, but
we knew that you would fill in any gaps which you noticed at this
sort of occasion.
Q53 David Winnick: Yes, I am sure you
were quite confident of that and you are pleased that we have
raised it. Crime detection rates, apparently they have gone down
slightly, have they not, but again I do not think there is any
mention in the Annual Report?
Mr Gieve: The Annual Report focuses,
as we do, on numbers of offences brought to justice, which is
what we have targeted and which in a sense is the end-to-end process
of which detection is a necessary part. Detection rates we do
publish every year and we will be doing so again later this week
with the annual crime statistics. The rates have gone up and down
over recent years. The rate is a number of detections as a proportion
of recorded crime, so they are much affected by movements in recording
practices which have been pushing crime up, but we do not try
and conceal that we need to see an improvement in detection rates
and that is explicit in the Criminal Justice Plan which we published
on Monday.
Q54 David Winnick: I don't think even
Sir Humphrey could have done better than that!
Mr Gieve: Good.
Q55 David Winnick: Can I turn to anti-social
behaviour orders which a great deal of emphasis has been put on
by the Home Office. Can you just bring me up to date, Mr Gieve?
Apparently a case is being brought by some who have been named
in anti-social behaviour orders, and perhaps this is sub judice,
but I understand that a court action is being taken by those who
have been named. If so, that is the first time this has happened,
is it not?
Mr Gieve: No. I believe that is
right, that people have challenged that on grounds of privacy
and damage and I do not think I can comment on the particular
case.
Q56 David Winnick: No, I understand that.
Mr Gieve: I think our position
on this is that we do see value in local authorities and police
being able to name and shame, but these cases will clarify the
legal position on that.
Q57 David Winnick: In one of the morning
newspapers today, in a report, and again I am not going to mention
the actual case because, as I understand it and you agree, it
is sub judice, but if I can take the more general position
about anti-social behaviour orders, perhaps I can just say that
when the police are phoned in this particular area in north-west
London, the response is apparently, and I am going from the newspaper
report which may or may not be accurate, "Don't you know,
we have issued ASBOs", and the person speaking to the reporter
goes on to say, "They used it as propaganda which shows they
have done something, but we do not see officers around here",
so it is a no-go area for them. In other words, the police, having
issued, with the local authority, anti-social behaviour orders,
seem pretty content and complacent that nothing more can be done.
Have you had complaints along those lines?
Mr Gieve: Well, I read the same
report and I do not want to understate the seriousness of anti-social
behaviour in many estates and towns and cities around the country
at all and there is no doubt that it still remains a big problem,
but I do think that report underplayed the progress which we have
been able to make. The use of ASBOs has hugely increased over
recent years partly because we have made them much more easy to
get and to use, and I think an increasing number of local authorities,
police forces and people in neighbourhoods see them as extremely
effective, but of course they are not a magic wand. I think in
that case people said, "Well, they may have kept so-and-so
out of the street, but there are some others who are causing just
as much damage", and this is something which I am sure the
local police, though I have not seen what they had to say about
it, are working on. How do we know whether we are getting on top
of a problem or not you might say? The bottom line which we use
is again the British Crime Survey which is a survey of victims
in effect, a cross-section of people across the country, and we
ask them whether they are concerned about a range of anti-social
behaviours from graffiti, youths causing trouble and so on. That
level of concern has been rising over recent years and last year
it turned down for the first time and we use that as our main
measure. If we can keep that coming down, if the level of public
concern about anti-social behaviour comes down, then I think that
is a genuine success, but of course there will still be, however
well we do, people saying, "Well, it's still pretty grim
on my estate" for some time to come.
Q58 David Winnick: Well, few would deny,
I would imagine, that anti-social behaviour orders have undoubtedly
contributed to reducing behaviour which is totally unacceptable.
Are you satisfied in the Home Office that enough is being done
by the police and local authorities in making these orders?
Mr Gieve: I think we are pleased
to see more and more authorities and police forces using ASBOs,
and also fixed penalty notices, but there is no doubt that some
are ahead of others and we see a great deal of scope for using
them even more than they are used at present.
Q59 David Winnick: Do you tell the police
and local authorities?
Mr Gieve: Yes, we do and we have
a team under Louise Casey whose job it is to work with local authorities
and police and to encourage them and in fact to show them how
these things can be used to full effect.
| 
