| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Jun 2007 : Column 97WH—continued
11.15 am
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. David Hanson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for her positive contribution on the issue of retail crime. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) for taking part in the debate.
First, I declare an interest: I am a member of USDAW, the shop workers’ union, as were my father, mother and grandfather, so I am fully aware of the support for USDAW’s campaign to tackle retail crime.
The Government take retail crime seriously, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to our attention today. We recognise that retail crime causes disruption to retailers and involves the threat of physical violence to staff, and that it can have a knock-on effect on communities and, by increasing costs, on consumers. When I worked for the Co-op in Plymouth and south Devon many years ago as a retail manager, losses from shoplifting were of great concern to the organisation, in terms of both the knock-on costs for consumers and the company’s profit margin, so I take my hon. Friend’s points seriously.
Sadly, there has been an increase in shop crime from 275,000 cases in 1995 to a little under 300,000 cases in 2005. I hope that I am able to assure my hon. Friend that the Government take the matter seriously, by pointing out that only 2.6 per cent. of those convicted of theft from a shop were sentenced to imprisonment in 1993, but the figure had increased to 19.5 per cent in 2003.
My hon. Friend made some valid points about the impact of the threat of violence that shop workers bear as a result of shop-related retail crime, and she gave some extreme examples from her constituency. I take the issue of violence against shop workers very seriously, as do the Government. There are a number of measures available in the criminal law with which to deal with
violent behaviour, and I hope that they will be used accordingly. Guidelines issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council ensure that courts take account of the seriousness of offences, and sentences will reflect the fact that violence is an aggravating factor.
The Government are working with the Health and Safety Executive and other key stakeholders to help reduce incidents of workplace violence, primarily through the partnership on work-related violence, a stakeholder group. We want to target those sectors, including retail, in which there is the greatest risk of violence to staff. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I recently visited my local Co-op in Flint and spoke with USDAW members at a local level, and I support the USDAW campaign. Violence against shop workers is totally unacceptable, and I give a commitment from the Government that we fully support USDAW’s “Freedom from Fear” campaign, through which the union is collaborating with employers, local authorities and the police to help promote the health, safety and well-being of shop workers. Sadly, many retail business do not report crime to the police. I hope that we can encourage people to report that crime to the police when they discover it.
According to the Sentencing Advisory Panel, research has shown that the average sentence has increased during that period from 11 months to just under 13 months. More people are in prison for longer periods now than 10 years ago, but there are still more offences, and we must address that problem.
We must consider whether prison is always the most appropriate venue for someone who has been convicted for certain crimes. That involves fine judgment. I share the message from my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend that it is unacceptable for the courts not to have the full sentencing options for organised crime, persistent offenders and violence-based crime, but for some people a community-based sentence with action on some of the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned, such as drug and alcohol abuse, may be appropriate to help them not to reoffend. The Government are trying to ensure that we take action to prevent reoffending by people who are currently undertaking activity that is distasteful to all of us.
In community terms, that means that sentencing can involve individuals being subject to intensive supervision, surveillance, unpaid work, curfews, drug treatment and alcohol referral orders, which might help to prevent reoffending. Many women are involved in shop crime, and prison may not be the most appropriate place for them. I take my hon. Friend’s point that sentencing is key.
We are considering the question of custodial sentencing. On 24 August last year, the Sentencing Advisory Panel issued a consultation paper on sentencing for theft. The consultation closed towards the end of last year, and is being examined by colleagues. Recommendations will go to the Sentencing Guidelines Council and will ultimately come to Ministers. I take very seriously my hon. Friend’s strength of feeling on behalf of her constituents and her union that we must maintain a range of sentences appropriate for the crime.
My hon. Friend also referred to penalty notices for disorder. They were introduced under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to target low-level offenders, not to avoid the issues of high-level sentencing. PNDs
were designed for a speedy response to minor incidents, if we can define them as such, of shop theft. Serious and violent offenders will not and should not be issued with PNDs, and my hon. Friend is particularly concerned that we look at alternative solutions.
Since November 2004, the police have been able to issue PNDs for an offence of retail theft that is normally under £100. Since the start of the scheme in 2004, we have issued 400,000 penalty notices, and 61,000 were for shop-related theft. There are problems with that—I must be honest with the Chamber—because there is a difficulty about the payment level of some fines, and the lack of continuity if individuals commit crimes, for example, in Greater Manchester and then in Cheshire.
I am aware of the concerns raised by the British Retail Consortium about the inappropriate use by some forces of PNDs for repeated and prolific shoplifting and those with drug and alcohol problems. We must review those issues positively, and we are already taking steps to examine the effectiveness of the PND scheme, and to consider an action plan to evaluate it. I hope that my hon. Friend will be party to discussions about that.
We are also looking at how we record offences. All penalty notices for recordable crimes are logged on the police national computer and while there is no central record of criminal convictions, the information is used as intelligence by local police forces to ensure that they operate positively I agree that a 24-hour national facility for the police to check for previous PND issue notices is necessary. That is why the Ministry of Justice and my colleagues in the Home Office are considering introducing a national PND database from 2009 to allow forces to track individuals, and to determine whether PNDs are the most appropriate penalty or whether there should be referral for further action in due course. PND payment rates and fine enforcement are a difficult issue and we still have some difficulties in enforcing those fines, but I hope that we can look at that.
I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that our approach is not making retail premises more attractive for thieves. We have jailed more thieves, and we have issued penalty notices to many people who would not have had them previously. However, as I said, recorded shop crime has, sadly, increased. We must look not only at existing options for custody and community sentences but at new disposals to deal with low-value shop theft, which formerly went unpunished. Since 2004, PNDs have been available, but we must look particularly at individuals who have a low level of reoffending and how to deal with them with other out-of-court disposal options.
We have introduced conditional cautioning, which is available to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. A simple caution has been used for a long time, allowing the police to deal quickly and simply with people who have admitted to a less serious offence. It records individuals, and again the purpose is to try to reduce reoffending in total. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service can offer adults aged 18 and over conditional cautions with attached conditions covering drug and alcohol treatment. I hope that that will prevent reoffending in the longer term.
Retail crime is important, and my hon. Friend made a number of valid suggestions. She mentioned the police key indicator, which is a matter for my hon. Friends in the Home Office, and I will draw this debate to the attention of my colleagues there who deal with the police. There is no appetite in the Government for expanding the key performance indicators, but I will draw the matter to my hon. Friends’ attention.
My hon. Friend asked whether we would agree to examine the calls from USDAW, the British Retail Consortium and major employers such as Morrisons for a review of sentencing for retail crime. They have been active in pressing the Government, Home Office Ministers and now the Ministry of Justice to look at the police response to shop theft as well as sentencing options. We are trying through the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), to ensure that we examine those issues seriously. We are considering an effective review of the PND scheme, and there will be meeting on 24 July involving my Department and the Home Office to consider these issues.
My hon. Friend asked whether we could contact crime and disorder reduction partnerships. I hope that we can do so as part of the business crime strategy, and widen understanding of available penalties and what the Government can do to help with crime reduction, as well as giving greater prominence to the need for local crime and disorder reduction partnerships to tackle business crime. I will certainly consider, with Home Office support, highlighting the importance of business crime in public service agreements. My hon. Friend stated clearly and coherently that we must consider that as a key issue for the future.
We will look into the advent of local area agreements, which I hope will mean that, more than ever before, funding decisions will be made at local level, and that the crime and disorder partnerships can consider how to support positive developments in working with shopkeepers, businesses and the police to reduce the level of crime by having high-visible-impact, targeted actions in the community at large.
I shall be happy to meet USDAW, if my hon. Friend wants to investigate that possibility, to discuss the wider issues of sentencing for retail crime. We will shortly face the outcome of the Sentencing Advisory Council’s consultation and the guidelines and comments following that.
From my perspective, my hon. Friend’s points have been extremely valid. Retail crime affects us all, and it is often a hidden crime. It puts up costs for consumers and creates difficulties for staff who work in stores. It attacks the profits of British businesses, and the Government should not tolerate that. As the Minister for sentencing, I must consider how we can most effectively prevent that crime. That means a menu of options, from imprisonment through to community orders, according to the severity of the crime.
I thank my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend for bringing these matters to the Chamber today, and I hope that we can continue this debate positively outside.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until half-past Two o’clock.
East London Line Extension
2.30 pm
Martin Linton (Battersea) (Lab): I shall be bold and leave my phone off during this debate. I do not know whether everyone else will follow my example, but we live in stirring times that may distract a few people from this very important debate. I am glad to see in the Chamber hon. Friends and colleagues who are giving their minds over to the issue.
I am glad of this chance to put the case for the East London line to the Minister at a time when she and her colleagues at the Department for Transport are having talks with Transport for London and with the Treasury, which is preparing its comprehensive spending review for the autumn. She knows that phase 1 of the East London line is going ahead, and that phase 2 is dependent on further funding from the Treasury in that spending review. She may remember that I last raised the issue with the Secretary of State at Transport questions only last week, and he promised to pass my point on to the Treasury. I need hardly tell the Minister present that I shall make the same request of her. I should not want to leave Treasury Ministers in any doubt about the importance of the project to Clapham Junction, south London as a whole and the entire London region.
Few infrastructure projects can claim that their price tag has gone down since they were first discussed, but the East London line phase 2 can, because its cost was first put at £250 million. The most technically difficult and expensive part of phase 2 is known as the Dalston curve. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will explain what it is.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): It is in Islington, so be careful.
Martin Linton: My hon. Friend is an even greater expert on it.
The curve will be accomplished alongside phase 1, although it is technically a part of phase 2, so the additional cost of phase 2 is now only £100 million, which includes an allowance for contingencies and for rolling stock. The pure infrastructure cost is now only £70 million, and the scheme has become so cheap that it may fall below the Treasury’s radar. Treasury Ministers may not even have heard of it, which is why I feel that it is necessary to make absolutely sure in the Chamber today that the Minister and her colleagues at the Department for Transport are fully aware of the project, its importance to London and the importance of ensuring that the comprehensive spending review provides sufficient capital for TfL to proceed with the scheme’s second phase.
I am sure that the Minister will remind us that TfL now has responsibility for its own priorities, and I fully support the devolution of that power to TfL, which has done a million times better job of taking the project forward and looking after London’s railways than the late and unlamented Strategic Rail Authority. TfL has many competing priorities, from cooling overheated tube tunnels to the Thames Gateway bridge, but the Mayor of London has assured me that he is fully
committed to the East London line extension project, and that he regards it as one project in which phase 1 should be followed seamlessly by phase 2.
TfL has also assured me that it is fully committed to phase 2, and that it has been able to advance the project completion date, which was due to run from the end of phase 1 in June 2010, taking three years to complete by June 2013. The last time we discussed the project, I pointed out that the date meant that the project would end 10 months after the completion of the London Olympics, which would have been a missed opportunity to say the least. However, now TfL is talking about a completion date—if the finances are available—of December 2011, which is nine months before the Olympics. That would make a lot of sense for the Olympics, for people from south London travelling to the Olympics, and perhaps for special trains running from the Olympics tennis tournament at Wimbledon to the main Olympics at Stratford. Who knows?
I pay tribute to TfL’s Ian Brown and Peter Field, and its commissioner, Peter Hendy, for their commitment to the scheme, and the energetic and imaginative way in which they have pressed ahead with it. They have been able to advance the project by nine months, which demonstrates their commitment to it. However, they can complete phase 2 only if they receive sufficient capital grant from the Treasury. Phase 2 has always been dependent on the comprehensive spending review, because it runs beyond the time frame of the original spending review. That is why we are making the case today.
Meg Hillier (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op): I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that because Transport for London is a relatively new body with a very good double A credit rating, it is a very good and sure investment bet for the Treasury. TfL counts the paperclips, but seriously, as a public body, it is a model of how to manage finances. Does he not agree that the Treasury ought to consider funding TfL for the extension?
Martin Linton: I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall make a few comments about the scheme’s value for money later.
First, some people might build their case on the fact that we made a promise in our 2005 manifesto to
“support...the extension of the East London line.”
It is important that we carry out that promise, but I accept that we must make the case at every level—in value for money, transport, regeneration and social terms. There are strong arguments on each ground, and I shall allude to them briefly.
When the London underground was first built, it left out many poorer parts of London. It stretched far out into the suburbs of Hertfordshire, but it did not get as far as Hackney, and it hardly made it across the river into south London. On top of that, the middle classes have tended to migrate along underground lines, which reinforces that fact. Lord Rogers once said that if one wanted to know where the middle classes live in London, one should look at an underground map. That is not completely true, and we can think of exceptions, but it is true that many parts of London were left off the tube map when the underground was first built, and that they have suffered ever since. They include most of
south London, such as Battersea, Clapham Junction, Southwark, Peckham and Lewisham, and parts of north London, such as Hackney and Finsbury Park.
The East London Line Group, a consortium of local authorities that support the scheme, is launching a campaign on Monday called “Connect South London”. The group points out that most of south London is poorly served by the underground, and that it suffers badly as a result. It suffers economically because all the railways go in a purely radial direction to London termini, which is okay for getting to and from work but useless for getting around town. People find it much more difficult to get to shops, restaurants and entertainment centres in south London than in north London.
The campaign launch will be held at Battersea arts centre, which is one of the best arts centres in London and a regular pick of the week in Time Out.
Jeremy Corbyn: One of the best in the world.
Martin Linton: My hon. Friend from north London agrees with me.
The arts centre suffers because Battersea does not appear anywhere on the tube map. Tourists, and indeed many north Londoners, simply cannot work out where it is, even though it is near a railway station.
The network will be launched in November. In December, the current East London underground line will be closed while works for phase 1 of the extension are carried out. When that is complete, it will form part of the London overground network.
Phase 2 is our particular concern today. It is an extension described by the Mayor as the regeneration express, because it will link all the deprivation hot spots of south London—including Deptford, Peckham, Camberwell, Brixton, Clapham North and, of course, north Battersea—and put them all within easy reach of the docklands. Almost 168,000 people live within 15 minutes’ walk of those stations, one in six of whom live in the most deprived parts of London.
When both extensions are complete, the London overground will have 60 stations covering 20 boroughs and connecting 80 per cent. of the most deprived parts of London. The extension will bring rapid transport to both the docklands and the City, as 14 per cent. of City jobs are located within a mile of the planned Shoreditch High Street station.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |