| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The clarion call from all Members of this House, from all parts, for as long as I have been here—that is 22 years, this year—has been that we need to have more police officers on the beat. The issue of visibility was raised by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), and we need to see our bobbies on the beat. If we accept the Government’s figures—I am glad to see the Minister smiling—an additional 50,000 people have joined the police work force as a whole. I am talking about civilians as well as uniformed officers. If we accept the Government’s
figures, there are 15,805 police community support officers that we never had before and we have an extra 15,000 police officers—their number has increased from 125,825 to 140,230 this year.
If we accept those figures, they should mean that there is a police office on practically every street at every moment of the day. We know that that is not practical, and that is why we welcome the reduction in bureaucracy that will lead to that outcome. That is why I intervened on the Home Secretary—
Mr. Bone: As always, I am listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman, and he makes a lot of sense. The Government’s answer to a question put by me suggests that the number of police officers on patrol has fallen by 30 per cent. in the last three years. We may be getting more police officers, but they are certainly not out on the beat.
Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the Government have sought to make amends. The problem is the targets that were imposed on police officers at every level. Those targets are now being removed. I do not understand why we would impose targets on local police forces in an attempt to make them more efficient and cost-effective, and then five or six years later decide that targets do not work and there is no point having them. But let us give the Government the benefit of the doubt. They have recognised that the targets that were imposed were not necessary and they are removing them. That will result in an extra 260,000 hours of police time. If we accept what the Government have said this week, police officers will have an extra 30 minutes a day out of the police station and out on the beat, in Northampton, in Leicester and in London—where we would like to see them and so that we can justify all the additional money that we have spent on the police service. If that is the Government’s direction, I welcome it wholeheartedly. If it means more officers on the beat and not filling in forms, hooray for that.
My concern, as I raised with the Home Secretary, was the report in The Times today and the comments made by Dr. Timothy Brain, who is supposed to be the leading expert—and with a name like that, one would imagine that he would be—for the Association of Chief Police Officers on finance. That chief constable told the newspaper that, as a result of what the Government have done over the past few years, he will have to cut the number of police officers in his force in Gloucestershire by 60. The newspaper telephoned other chief constables to ask them what the reduction will be in their area. In Suffolk—I choose that county off the top of my head—we are told that the reduction will be 28 officers.
The fact is that we need an independent audit to prove who is right. The Government assert that more money has been spent on the police force than at any time in its history. But Dr. Brain and other chief constables readily tell newspapers that they will have to reduce the number of officers as a result of what the Government have done. These are serious matters, and they go to the heart of the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. Let us be clear about those statistics. Let us monitor them independently, so that we can have a real debate about substance and policy, rather than about whose statistics are correct.
Chris Huhne: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation that he sets out is of particular concern at a time when we know that we can expect—and are beginning to see—a rise in acquisitive crime because of the impact of the recession? This is not the time to remove police officers from the front line.
Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is the worst time to do that, and I do not think that it will happen. Given the Government’s figures, the introduction of PCSOs and the proposals to reduce bureaucracy, what will police officers do if they do not need to fill in unnecessary forms and will be resourced as they have never been resourced before? In those circumstances, there should be no reduction in the number of police officers.
My second point is about new technology. I welcome what the Government have done in making a commitment to put in an extra £18 million for new technology, and that is precisely what the Home Affairs Committee called for—I see two members of the Committee in their places. “Policing for the 21st Century” was a unanimous report. We took evidence for over nine months from witnesses including Sir Ronnie Flanagan and Ministers, and we came to the conclusion that new technology would save police officers enormous amounts of time. The investment in new technology should be warmly welcomed, with the caveat suggested by Jan Berry in her report about the need for compatibility between police forces. There is no point in Lincolnshire buying one type of equipment if it is incompatible with the equipment that is purchased by Leicestershire. I suggest that Ministers, as well as providing the money, should introduce effective guidelines on procurement to ensure that when police forces buy new technology and equipment, it is compatible with other areas. That matter is connected to the database issue and the need to ensure that when the computers of the 42 different police authorities speak to each other, they are able to understand what is required.
We welcome the desire to reduce the level of bureaucracy in the requests for information between police forces, and from the Home Office, but it is essential that the new technology works and is compatible. I do not suggest that everyone should buy a BlackBerry, although I know that several hon. Members have one, as does the President of the United States, but it is estimated that such devices cost only £1 a day— [ Interruption. ] I see that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is checking his BlackBerry— [ Interruption. ] I apologise—I did not mean to get him into trouble. The fact is that they are very useful pieces of equipment. Imagine a police officer at the scene of a crime being able to access information from his or her BlackBerry, taking down statements there and then, and saving time.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that while technology is very important, the accompanying training is equally important? So although the Government have announced that Tasers will be made available—I am not very happy about that—the forces will have to pick up the training costs associated. Those costs should be covered, if the introduction is to be effective.
Keith Vaz:
The hon. Gentleman is right. We do not know what will happen next year, but if I were to decide to join the police force, I would need a great deal of
training in using equipment. Without training and support, new equipment is meaningless. However, there are examples of good practice all over the country. In Bedfordshire, the introduction of personal digital assistants—PDAs—meant that police officers spent 46 per cent. more time out of their stations. So there is every reason to support the introduction of better equipment and to give all officers access to it. It is not sufficient to allow some officers to have such equipment. If it is decided that it will be useful, everyone should have it.
Finally, because I know that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate— [ Interruption. ] I am happy to hear from all hon. Members on this issue, because it is one that we should debate on many more occasions than we do. I have a problem with grounding rules, or however the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell describes his new proposals, because they would need to be monitored. I am not saying that the suggestion is bad because it was mooted by the shadow Home Secretary. I am saying that we need to be very careful about how we use such powers. It is of course important to take up fresh ideas, but if we merely take young people off the streets and confine them to their homes, they will still have to be monitored regularly by the police.
I was very interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O’Hara) said about what is happening on Merseyside with Operation Staysafe. Indeed, there is not that much difference between what is happening there and the Opposition’s proposals for curfews. I am not against the principle of curfews, but we should consider their use carefully to ensure that police time, although not necessarily the money, is costed. If we are saving the police time in terms of cutting bureaucracy, we need to ensure that that time is used effectively. I hope that when the proposals are fleshed out, we will know the result of that analysis. If the proposals turn out to be good, the Government should accept them—we should be able to build on fresh, new ideas that will benefit people.
We have just come to the end of our inquiry on knife crime, and the Select Committee took evidence today from a number of witnesses. In private session, we took evidence from a number of young people involved in knife crime who have now been helped by the Prince’s Trust. We then took public evidence from the director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, who, in an interesting statement to the Committee, said that the criminal justice system was the most expensive blunt instrument that we can use to reduce the level of crime. She was basically saying that by the time somebody got to be a statistic, it was far too late, and that we needed early intervention to prevent that from happening.
I know that the statement made by the former Prime Minister about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime causes some merriment among the Opposition, but I say to the Government that it is important that we consider the causes and the investment that we can make in providing assistance to those in our education system and our schools, to those who have been excluded and to those in bad housing. It is important that we consider the huge issues that we do not want to tackle, because we are politicians, and the Home Secretary, in particular, has to make instant decisions and provide the public with an instant panacea to deal with the huge problem of the underlying causes of crime.
Of course, we are getting to the end of this Parliament, with about a year and a half to go before there will be a general election. Perhaps we should have tried to work on this problem sooner, but it is incumbent on the Government and on Ministers, who are listening carefully to what I am saying, to consider the long-term solutions even at this stage, with a year and a bit to go until the end of the Parliament. They should set in stone the values and principles for the future. We are all against an increase in crime, we all want to see more bobbies on the beat and we all want to get value for money. Those issues unite everyone, but communicating the fundamental values to the public so that they can be discussed is important. That is why one of the overlooked recommendations of the Select Committee was that we should have a royal commission into policing to consider why we have police officers, what they do, Parliament’s vision for them and how they fit with the law and order issues that we discuss. In grappling with the short-term problems of crime—those problems are clearly short-term, as crime happens daily, hourly and every minute—will the Government also use the opportunity to consider the long term and to lay the foundation stones that will make this society much safer?
6.13 pm
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking) (Con): As always in these debates, I begin by declaring an interest as a lawyer by background, a part-time district judge and a Crown court recorder. I hope tonight that I am speaking with some experience of the criminal justice system.
I want to focus on some problem areas and, I think, some solutions. One day 10 or 12 years ago when I was visiting a young offenders institution—in Kent, I think it was—I met a 19-year-old young man, in a cell, looking depressed, tired and drawn. Incidentally, he spent 17 hours a day banged up in his cell. I asked him what he was doing there and he said, “I am here for driving while disqualified.” “What’s the problem?” I said, “Are you a bad driver? Do you speed? Do you drive dangerously? Do you nick cars? What on earth is wrong with your driving?” “Nothing’s wrong,” he said, “My driving is good. I’m perfectly okay, but I don’t have a driving licence so I get disqualified.” “So,” I said, “Get a driving licence.” It was not unreasonable of me to say that. “But I can’t,” he said. I asked why not and he replied, “Because I would have to take the theory test.” “What’s the problem with the theory test?” I said. “I can’t pass it, because I can’t read and write.” That got me thinking—and I have thought ever since—about the link between crime and literacy.
That is the link for young children from some of the worst sink estates in London and elsewhere. At school, they get behind and begin to fail. Then, because they fail, they cannot keep up with their peers and get angry and bad-tempered. When things go wrong, they are excluded because of their poor performance, and they are out on the streets, where they commit crimes, which leads to their being locked up. There is a link between levels of literacy and school exclusions, and between school exclusions and crime.
My thoughts have been backed up by an inspectorate of prisons report, which said that some 83 per cent. of boys under 18 in custody had been excluded from school. An even more astonishing figure was given to me by the Ministry of Justice: 52 per cent. of young
men in custody—boys up to the age of 21—had been permanently excluded from school. There is surely a link—I hope that the House will understand this—between literacy and numeracy, school exclusions and crime.
I want to focus for a few minutes on the young offender estate—the prison estate that holds youngsters aged from 13 to 21—and to tell the House a little about my experiences. I talk to many people who work in the young offender estate and ask about the levels of literacy among the boys who arrive at the ages of 13, 14, 15 and 16. One senior official told me that in his judgment, which is backed by many others at that young offenders institution, more than 80 per cent. of the youngsters admitted at the age of 15 had the literacy and numeracy level of an eight-year-old or of someone even younger. What the devil does that mean? It means that there are 15 and 16-year-old boys who basically cannot read or write. They cannot cope, and that has led to frustration and anger. I am not saying that that covers the whole scene, but it is a problem and it greatly troubles the young offender estate.
What value for money do we get from our young offender estate? What does it cost? The average cost of putting a youngster into the young offender prison estate is £33,000 a year. That is what it costs us. In Feltham A and Feltham B, which are the two young offenders institutions in Feltham, it costs £42,000 for the year. That is a lot of money, and what do we get in value for money? What about the reoffending rates? They are absolutely mind-boggling. Official Government figures show that 16 and 17-year-olds who are released from custody have, respectively, an 80 and 70 per cent. chance of reoffending within a year of release.
David T.C. Davies: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, but should we not take into account the cost of that reoffending? Would it not often be cheaper, in simple financial terms, to keep somebody in Feltham at £33,000 than to have them committing one offence after another on the streets of London?
Mr. Malins: I will to come to that. Value for money, for me, means that people come out of Feltham, or anywhere else, and do not reoffend. That, I think, is what will save money.
Worse still, Government figures show that the 80 per cent. of those released who reoffend within one year do so, on average, four times in that year. Given that people are caught only once in every eight crimes that they commit, nobody can doubt the fact that, in effect, those youngsters are coming out and committing 30 or 40 crimes in their first year. At a cost of £33,000 a year, that is failure on a grand scale.
What are my remedies and solutions, if any? I have a few, which I want to draw to the attention of the House, and the first relates to literacy and numeracy. When someone arrives at a young offenders institution, on day one—I do not mean month one; I mean day one—a complete assessment of their educational position hitherto and their achievements should be undertaken. If they have been statemented, a full copy of the statement, binding on the prison, should be provided, and the prison should act upon it. Straightaway after that, a plan for that individual offender should be drawn up, showing what he or she must achieve in their time in that young offenders institution.
I wonder whether hon. Members know how many hours a week people in young offenders institutions spend on education. Would they think that it was six hours a day? Six hours a day spent in education would be fair enough. I will tell hon. Members the answer: Feltham, seven and a half hours a week; Glen Parva, five hours a week; Reading, five hours a week; Aylesbury, six hours a week; and Rochester, three and a half hours a week. Will someone tell me that that is good news? It is not.
What about being locked up in the cells? How long does one feel that it is a great idea to lock up a young man in a cell each day? Would six, eight, nine or 10 hours be right? Let us look at the figures; they are depressing. At Aylesbury, young people are locked up in the cells for 17 hours a day. That is horrific. What does it do? At Reading, they are locked up for 16.5 hours.
What about sport? I am old-fashioned, but I reckon that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise the value of sport, activity and physical work. I do not just mean PE in a gymnasium. A lot of those young people are pushing iron all day, or half the day or for a couple of hours, and according to the powers that be, all that does is make them stronger, and they can run away faster. No, I am talking about sport, out on the field in the open air. I met a young man who had not seen daylight in four months at a young offenders institution. Where is the sport? How many hours are spent on sport—real sport, team sport and active sport? Does sport help to develop character? I think that it does. People in our young offender estate are doing two or three hours a week on average.
Perhaps I am a little fanciful when I say that the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme is terrific. It is my pet hobby. I met an employer who interviewed everyone who came to him who had done the DOE. It is not done enough—barely at all—at places such as Feltham, Portland and other institutions. There have been only one or two bronze awards in the past six years, out of hundreds of young men going through the system.
Here is a revolutionary idea: I really believe that education—literacy and numeracy—is vital, which to me means that short sentences of six, eight or 10 weeks are a waste of time. We cannot do anything with a youngster in that period. All the judges whom I have spoken to say, “For goodness’ sake, put them away for nine months, because then you can make some real advances. If a crime is not serious enough for nine months inside, don’t bother. Don’t faff around”—I am not sure how Hansard will take that word—“with six weeks, because it’s a revolving door; they are straight out, having laid low, and they come out no better.”
Mr. Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the other barriers to the prevention of young offenders reoffending is the fact that about a third of them have been through the care system and that there is no statutory requirement for a social worker to visit them while they are in custody, to try to work with them towards a package of rehabilitation, to ensure that they do not reoffend when they come out and find themselves back where they started?
Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and anticipates a subject that I shall come to in my closing words. He is right.
In our young offenders institutions, we must focus on literacy and numeracy, but what else? Here is my nuts-and-bolts idea: in the last quarter of the sentence, all youngsters should be moved into a specific resettlement wing. What will happen then? The family will get more involved. Huge amounts of work will be done to arrange housing on release. It is no good leaving a young offenders institution in Surrey and being sent off to bed and breakfast in Slough at the age of 16. What is going on? Resettlement is the name of the game, coupled with the absolute requirement of going into a job. Education on release, housing on release, job on release—those are the things.
I went to Oakhill young offenders institution, where not one of the youngsters—both boys and girls aged 15, 16 and 17—who had done hairdressing had reoffended after two years of leaving. Oh yes, we can lock them up for ever if we want, but let us get the children literate, get them numerate, get them adding up and subtracting, get them to have a bit of pride, get them fit and well and give them a purpose. Let us give them a little remission, but it should be based on positive, excellent behaviour and real achievement, not just on sitting on their backsides or joining a gang. Let us focus on resettling them into the community, not back where they came from, but into a job or education. Let us put money into that. If we put money into it, we will save quite a lot of money in the long term, and we will be doing absolutely the right thing.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |