Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for Borders and Immigration (Mr. Phil Woolas):
Is it my turn now, Mr. Deputy Speaker? My apologies for not being quick to get to my feet, but I was listening to the speech by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) with some sadness. I shall explain why, but before I do so, I pass on apologies from the Minister for
Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) who could not be at the Dispatch Box because of Committee duties. That is why you will have to put up with me this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was looking forward to this debate because I thought that I would find out about the views of hon. Members across the House, and the views of those on the Opposition Front Bench. We did achieve the former, and we heard some very thoughtful speeches, to which I will respond in a momentbut sadly, what we heard from the Opposition Front Bench was a repeat of a speech that was delivered yesterday. I do not know what the rules and procedure of the House are concerning informing the House first, but if we have an Opposition debate it is important that we find out something new, instead of the single transferable speech that we heard, not from the Liberal Democrats, but from the hon. Member for the front pagesorry, the Front Bench.
Chris Grayling: Youve used that joke before as well.
Mr. Woolas: Yes, and it was funny then, and it is funny now. I am going to keep on using it, because it is obviously hitting home.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) made a thoughtful speech. He described our procedures as a legal whirling dervish. He described the shadow Home Secretary as dangerously Napoleonic and Caesaristlanguage often heard in The Dog and Duck in Eastleigh, I am sureand he accused my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of populist punitiveness. I can assure the House, having worked closely alongside the Home Secretary, that she does not go in for populist punitiveness. She has yet to tell me what it means, but I am sure that it was well intended.
The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, made a thoughtful speech on the analysis [ Interruption. ] My right hon. Friend is in his place, as he always is. He made a thoughtful analysis of the figures on police numbers, and got behind those figures to the issue of the allocation of police time, which is the really important point. The figures that he pointed out with regard to Gloucestershire and other police authorities were important. He talked about equipment compatibility, and I assure him that the National Police Improvement Agency is looking at that issue. He raised the case of Lincolnshire, in particular. We also thank my right hon. Friend for his Committees report, and his work on early intervention is important. This was one of the biggest gaps in the speech of the shadow Home Secretary. I was looking forward to his analysis of the causes of crime, but detail on that subject was thin on the ground. The Chairman of the Select Committee, on the other hand, gave us a thoughtful analysis of early intervention.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) gave an extremely interesting speech, clearly based on his experience. He put forward practical solutions focusing on how people in custody, particularly young menhe was right to refer to themshould be given more instruction, education and opportunities when they leave custody. There was a strange coming together of his ideas and those of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who spoke from his experience of being a special constable. On these Benches, we recognise and
applaud him for that, despite our party political differences. It is good for Parliament that Members undertake such duties, and there are Members in our party who do so as well. There was an interesting coming together of the two analyses. They were different in their premises, but similar in their conclusions, and they concerned what more can be done to give young mennot just young men, but those young men in particularthat added work experience. The hon. Member for Monmouth was good enough not to play yah-boo politics, which some have done in this debate, and to acknowledge the good things that have taken place. That gave his criticisms greater force, and we take those points on board.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) stood up for his constituency by calling for more resources for Dorset, and I now turn to that point. The resources provided to Dorset police authority have gone up by 47 per cent. since 1997, which is a 12 per cent. increase in real terms. I will come to this mornings report in The Times in a moment, but police numbers in the hon. Gentlemans authority area have increased by 179, to 1,463 officers, under this Government.
Mr. Ellwood: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Woolas: Could I move on? It is discourteous not to respond to all the points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), given his family experiencehis sons are police officersquite rightly pointed out the rather trivial nature of the Opposition slogan the broken society, which simply serves to talk down our country. This Government have never claimed that there are no problems in our society; of course there arebut my hon. Friend pointed out the end result of the Oppositions policy. Opposition Members should look in the mirror in the morning and ask themselves a question. If they talk about reining in the horns of the public sector and reducing public expenditure, they cannot in all credibility come to this House and call for measures that would involve more resources, or criticise us for not providing them [ Interruption. ] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) says that they can do that, because they are in opposition.
In a brief speech, the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) made three or four important points. I will certainly ask my colleague the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing to look at the point she made about the fly-tipping project in her area. She made some important points about mental health, and the Governments initiatives in that area should be commended, but it is right that we recognise that issue. She also praised the Muslim community, and she was right to do so.
The hon. Member for Reigate read out his speech extremely well, which is all I can say about it. I was disappointed that he did not respond to the analysis that hon. Members in various parts of the House had put forward. The Opposition should think hard about this point. They take the slogan Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime from Tony Blair, but they need to provide an analysis based on the facts of the situation. Just briefly, let us look at the resources. I assume that the article in The Times is coincidental to
this debate, but again I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on his front page this morningwell done.
Let me read out the figures for the seven forces that were criticised in the papers this morning. The article refers to Durham; I remember signing off a 30 per cent. increase for Durham police authority when I was a local government Minister; I think that the Prime Minister had some interest in that at the time. There has been a 49 per cent. increase in the number of Durham police, with 288 extra police staff. In Gloucestershire there has been a 52 per cent. increase, with 228 extra police staff. In Gwent there has been an increase of 91 per cent., with 415 extra police. In Hampshire, there has been an increase of 79 per cent., with 1,045 extra police. In North Yorkshire there has been an increase of 101 per cent., with 527 extra police staff. In Surrey, in the local county force of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, there has been an increase of 136 per cent., meaning 994 extra police staff. In South Yorkshire the increase was only 59 per cent., with 764 extra police staff. The Opposition call for more resources, but condemn the very Government who have brought them about.
I come to the analysis put forward by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in the speech that he was kind enough to read out to the House following his speech to the Local Government Association yesterday. It really is not good enough to come along and bandy about statistics when every independent authority and every independent provider of statistics has shown that crime has fallen under this Government. It is not true to say that because we have changed the methodology of reporting violent crime, violent crime has gone up. That is the politics of 1984, and I condemn the Oppositions motion and commend the Governments amendment.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
That this House welcomes the unprecedented 39 per cent. fall in crime since 1997, with burglary down by 55 per cent. and violence by 40 per cent; notes that the chance of being a victim of crime is at an historic low; further welcomes the record numbers now entering and staying in drug treatment services; further supports the drive to tackle gangs, including measures in the Policing and Crime Bill to introduce injunctions on gang activity; further welcomes the preventative, educational and enforcement action taken to tackle knife crime, with those carrying a knife now more likely to be caught, prosecuted and imprisoned, if found guilty; considers that the Governments determination to tackle criminal and antisocial behaviour is demonstrated by the record levels of investment in policing since 1997 and increases in the numbers of police officers and police staff to an all-time high, as well as the Governments drive to cut police red tape to free up more time for police officers to spend on the beat; is concerned at any proposal to make sudden cuts to the Home Office budget that could lead to reductions in police officer numbers; commends the Governments determination to stand shoulder to shoulder with local communities in the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour; and deplores talk of a broken society as a counsel of despair.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |