| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Jun 2009 : Column 328WH—continued
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced some weeks ago an examination of some of those issues in a White Paper to be produced in the autumn. I have a blank page for those issues. Sensible suggestions are being debated across the board in all communities, and
we will consider them and return to the accountability issue during my tenure in this post.
This morning, I mentioned visibility, which is extremely important. It was also mentioned by hon. Members this afternoon. That includes how to make policing visible, how to make people feel engaged, and how to show people locally what local police forces achieve. Partnership is also extremely important. In his report, Ronnie Flanagan, to whom I pay tribute, indicated strongly that crime reduction cannot be achieved only by the police. The actions of the local council, the local fire brigade, neighbourhood wardens, community groups and local representatives are as important as what the police do.
This morning, I also mentioned delivery. We want positive outcomes, but not just for crime reduction. To deliver, we must take on board the very points that have been mentioned across the board today about bureaucracy. We also need to ensure that we have an efficient front line and that the whole system is about what happens on the front line, with support from chief constables and Ministers down. We agree on some of the synergies, and although we might have different views on some issues, which will be open for debate, the common themes in the report are accountability, visibility, partnership, delivery and reducing bureaucracy, as they were in the contributions that I was happy to hear from the two Opposition Front-Benchers.
An important issue that has permeated our debate is public confidence in policing, and how we tackle that and ensure that justice is delivered. Right hon. and hon. Members will know better than me—they have been debating the matter longer than I have been in my new role—that the new relationship between the police and the public on the policing pledge provides an opportunity to hold the police to account for what they need to do. We must consider how to respond to local expectations. For the first time, the public can have a real and clear expectation of the standards of service from the local police. Communities, especially through neighbourhood policing teams, should be able to see how we are working positively on that. My constituency, which covers the same police authority as yours in north Wales, Mr. Williams, has crime mapping, which is helpful. We consider what we are doing in a local area to tackle crime on the ground. The hon. Member for Chesterfield said that that is an important contribution, and it is important generally.
A central question was how we consider targets. The Government have moved their position, perhaps because of contributions on targets. We have scrapped top-down targets, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and the hon. Members for Chesterfield and for Bury St. Edmunds said. That is a key to improving public confidence. The new single confidence target will measure the success of the policing pledge, and ensure that partnership working happens locally.
Jan Berry’s work on behalf of the Government to examine bureaucracy is ongoing and important. It will be a key factor for me when ensuring that we streamline still further, as was Ronnie Flanagan’s work. Public confidence in the police will depend on how well communities believe that the police work for them. Helpful comments and suggestions were made today about the report.
It is important to recognise—I am grateful for the comments of all three Members who have spoken—that the police do a very good job. I spent Tuesday morning in Croydon with not just the borough commander and the local beat officers on an estate in Addington, but police community support officers. They were not only engaged in visible policing—walking and taking initiatives on the ground—but were in discussion with a local head teacher, and working with local neighbourhood wardens and with teenage groups at the effective local youth club groups. In the evening, they were organising Crystal Palace football club’s local activities. Such alternative activities are important and should be recognised. Such a positive role is mirrored throughout England and Wales, often in difficult circumstances. The work of the police, community support officers and other people who give their time as councillors and officials is extremely valuable.
We should never forget that all that work—the hon. Member for Chesterfield touched on this—has real value on the ground. A key issue that was mentioned is perception. We cannot get away from the fact that crime is down by 39 per cent., robbery has fallen by 18 per cent., burglary is down, and car crime is down, but perception goes to the heart of all the issues that I mentioned: visibility, accountability, delivery and ownership of the problems and challenges in local areas. We should be proud of some of our successes, such as the 55 per cent. reduction in burglary over the past 12 years, but I am acutely aware—this was particularly the case when my car was stolen at Flint railway station—that when crime happens to an individual, that is 100 per cent. for the victim and their family, not in the context of a 55 per cent. reduction. We must examine how to build public consensus and understanding, and how to deal with such issues positively.
A number of initiatives are driving things forward, such the youth crime action plan in 70 authorities, which has received lots of money. Only on Tuesday, London authorities received £4.5 million to tackle youth and knife crime. We are trying to focus on key areas. We must build on a lot of the good work that is being done, and not only by the Home Office, for which I now have responsibility, by bringing in other Departments—I am trying to do that across Government, as the report suggests—including the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and the Department of Health to tackle the issues holistically.
Hon. and right hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, have said that addressing antisocial behaviour is key in this area. Once again, the role of local councils, using a range of tools and powers, is especially important in that regard. Those tools and powers do not just include the well-tried antisocial behaviour orders, acceptable behaviour contracts and fixed penalty notices. Local councils also have a role as partners in this process, which the Select Committee report reflected on and encouraged, and we need to do more to promote that.
The three Members who spoke today all expressed particular concern about the issue of alcohol. They also spoke about the need for us to look imaginatively at how we can tackle some of the alcohol-driven crime that causes antisocial behaviour on the ground and
leads, in many instances, to some of the hidden crimes of violence in the home that are extremely serious and extremely worrying.
For example, it was asked why we had not taken forward the plan for a minimum price for alcohol—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East mentioned that in particular. He will know that the Government announced in December 2008 that we had decided not to proceed with that. However, that does not mean that alcohol, including alcohol sales and alcohol-related crimes, is not important. Hon. Members will know that we have recently published a further document for discussion on alcohol sales in general—I have a copy here. It was launched only two weeks ago and covers a range of consultations on how we can examine some of the key issues involved in alcohol-related behaviour and crime. We have looked at important issues, which have been mentioned, relating to happy hour drinking, women-only drinking nights, alcohol sales in general, and off and on-trade premises. We are also looking at how we can promote responsible sales of alcohol, rather than the irresponsible sales that cause us great difficulty. I hope that there will be a solid debate about those issues and I am certain that we will discuss them in due course—whether in this Chamber or elsewhere—as we have done in the past.
It is important that we recognise that we should not penalise the many people who drink responsibly. However, I am acutely aware of the fact that for young people, in some cases, and for many older people alcohol can be a driver of crime and poor behaviour. We are considering proposing discretionary conditions, including further restrictions on drinks promotions, which I have already mentioned. We are also looking at simple issues, such as safer alternatives to glassware and allowing local transport information to be displayed in licensed premises, which would help individuals to avoid one of the big problems that I came across as a Justice Minister: the consequences of death and injury caused by drink-driving. Although there are challenges, we can meet them, and I will welcome debate about them.
The question of bureaucracy in policing has been mentioned—indeed, it has been a common theme in the debate. Through the work of Jan Berry and Ronnie Flanagan, we have opportunities to address that issue. I am extremely aware that we must continue to look at how we can free up the police from the bureaucracy that they face as part of the work that they undertake. It is important that police officers have the skills, opportunities for development and support to concentrate on their primary duties, which are detecting and driving down crime, increasing public confidence and helping to support the community. We must also ensure that they not only use their own skills and abilities but, as has been mentioned, make greater use of quality IT, where appropriate, and support mechanisms so that we reduce red tape and give them the discretion locally to undertake their activities positively.
Hon. Members will know that the Government have scrapped activity-based costings. We have also stopped, or significantly reduced, 36 data collection requirements and supported all forces to streamline crime recording processes. Furthermore, as has already been mentioned, we scrapped the lengthy stop-and-account form on 1 January 2009, which I think has been genuinely welcomed. It might well have been suggested by the hon. Member
for Bury St. Edmunds before that date but, then again, good ideas never have an ownership that cannot be taken by somebody else.
Keith Vaz: The Minister has been rattling through his initiatives so quickly that he might have already dealt with this point. However, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) raised a point that was also raised in our report about Staffordshire and the need to have good practice implemented immediately, so that when a police force is doing a good job, we can share that practice rather than waiting to do so.
Mr. Hanson: Once again I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am trying to give an overview of some of the activities that have been undertaken to date. He will know—again, this point was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds—that the pilots that were conducted last year in Surrey, Leicestershire, Staffordshire and the west midlands have been shown to have benefits. We certainly need to look at those pilots very positively. Our challenge is to build on that work by working with Jan Berry and, without making any other commitments, I undertake to look at the issues arising from this debate in the next couple of days. As I have said, three days into the job, I need to make some assessment so that the points I have made have greater validity.
Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. He started off with Minister-speak, clearly because he has been in his new role for two days, and ended up by saying that he will look at this issue of good practice in the next couple of days. It sounded like the fastest timetable in history. Obviously we do not want the Minister to make a decision today, in the middle of this debate. All that I ask is that he revisit this issue quickly, because good practice needs to be put into effect immediately. If he could revisit that issue and perhaps write to me in the near future, I would be most grateful.
Mr. Hanson: I will give my right hon. Friend a positive and solid undertaking that I will look at all the suggestions that have been made in this debate. I will also read the debate when it is published in Hansard. I will look at the points that have been made and try to reflect on them. As the Minister—the person where the buck stops—I have to make judgments on these issues, with colleagues, including officials. Three days into this job, I have a range of issues to look at and a range of assessments to make. However, I know that I also have a maximum of 11 months in this post until there is a general election. In that time, I can look at these key issues and I will have an opportunity to affect some of them; I have already tried to flag some up to those right hon. and hon. Members who are here today. Those issues are related to accountability, visibility, bureaucracy and how we deliver in due course.
I want to try to cover some of the other points that have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Chesterfield talked in great detail about the issue of funding. Again, that is an issue that I must look at in the next few weeks and months, to address some of the key challenges that we face. We have a commitment to police finances for 2010 and 2011. The Minister of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families, my hon. Friend the
Member for Gedling, when he was in my post, previously gave commitments that the financial settlement for the police will not be reopened. This year alone, about £9.5 billion is being spent in England and Wales on addressing the issues that we have discussed. I do not know what the public finances will be in the future and I do not know what will ultimately happen in relation to decisions that are taken downstream. However, there is certainly a commitment to maintain the current position on police funding for the future.
As part of our discussions, some difficult decisions have been taken about capping, in relation to police funding in Surrey and in Derbyshire. We have made it very clear, in relation to the Department for Communities and Local Government and previously in relation to the Home Office, in every year since 2004-05 that capping action would be taken if the Government judged that there was a need for that action. Again, that is a debate that we have had today.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield made legitimate points about funding issues. We have to examine those issues across Government and consider how they are being dealt with. However, we have taken decisions in that reflect the fact that there is a need, in certain circumstances, to cap to protect taxpayers from excessive increases in spending to deal with these issues. Ultimately, this is all related to the discussions that we must have about the accountability and other issues that may arise in relation to the forthcoming White Paper. These are real issues, which I know the hon. Gentleman will continue to press me on in general terms.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we hope to undertake a consultation in the very near future the funding formula for next year. We will look at that funding formula as part of the wider comprehensive spending review for the next three years. That important issue will remain on the table and up for discussion, and there will be a range of views expressed about it in due course.
I think that the hon. Gentleman suggested that there may well be some central direction to the funding that goes to police authorities. In fact, there is no central direction of any note on those issues. All the money is unhypothecated. Police authorities and chief constables can spend it in whichever way they wish. That is part of the localism that I shall continue to encourage. It involves people looking at what is happening at local level and how that can be undertaken in a way that meets the needs.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds raised a couple of other key issues that I want to touch on. The first relates to police charging. I acknowledge that charging processes need to be reformed. My predecessor committed to that in the past. That is why we introduced statutory charging in the first place, and that has generally been a success. We will work with Jan Berry to consider those issues still further.
With regard to the RIPA code of practice, a public consultation is under way, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I need to examine the detailed results of that consultation. I will have to make decisions and would welcome a contribution outside this Chamber from the hon. Members present, who are key players in what I
hope will ultimately be the gaining of consensus on how we deal with the issue. From my perspective, we need to have consensus if we can.
I have a couple of further points, which are a bit random but which relate to valuable points made by hon. Members during the debate. My right hon. Friend talked about whether Airwave would prove to be a success. There will be Airwave requirements in line with Olympic security plans. We are considering the final requirement, and that is nearly complete. I will certainly keep him informed of progress on that and I look forward to working with him in relation to it.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned the forthcoming inquiry, which I welcome and will have to participate in, on the role of SOCA and the general objectives with regard to its future effectiveness. SOCA has brought together key players in relation to direct practices and working practices to tackle serious organised crime. Self-evidently, we need to keep it under review. There will shortly be changes in part of the leadership of SOCA with the retirement of Sir Stephen Lander. I will certainly welcome the contribution of the Select Committee in putting issues to us, but with regard to day-to-day of serious organised crime of a pan-European nature, I have already, in my first few days in this post, seen very interesting operations involving SOCA.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield talked about whether we should give the collection of crime statistics to an independent body. When I was in the Ministry of Justice, there was a Chinese wall between Ministers and the Department in relation to many of the statistics that I saw and that were published by the Government—this applies not just to the MOJ, but to the Home Office—even though the Department often produced some of the statistics. There are already strict rules on statistics. Home Office statistics in particular are designated national statistics and therefore, like MOJ statistics, are subject to strict standards that prevent political comment on them before their publication. Often I have had statistics as a Minister that are about the performance of the Department for which I am responsible and that I have seen only 24 hours in advance of their publication. There is independence already and the Government have strengthened that with the establishment of the Statistics Authority—an independent body at arm’s length from Government.
The migration impact fund that was mentioned does exist in full. All police authorities can apply to it for funds. We have spent £70 million over two years in the UK. Many local services are submitting proposals for funding, and the Government are considering them.
I think that I have covered the vast majority of the points that I wished to cover. My final point relates to what my right hon. Friend said about the investigation of the allegations that have been made about Metropolitan police officers in Enfield. He will know that as a Minister I am not able to comment on that at the moment. The matter has gone to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for investigation. I know that the IPCC will examine it in detail. I will obviously reflect in due course on the outcome of the investigation, but self-evidently there are serious allegations that need to be investigated and the IPCC is best placed to do that investigation.
I will read the record of the debate in detail and reflect on all the points that have been made. If I have not answered points raised today, I will consider them
and send letters to hon. Members who are here today. I give a commitment, as the new Minister, with regard to the great challenge that we face. We have an opportunity in the next weeks and months to consider how we can improve accountability, visibility and delivery and ensure that we make efforts collectively that reduce crime and increase public confidence.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the report. I look forward to appearing before him again, as I did on, I think, three occasions as an MOJ Minister, and I look forward to friendly battles but also co-operation with the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for Chesterfield and their respective shadow Secretaries of State. I thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr. Williams.
4.36 pm
Keith Vaz:
With the leave of the House, I shall respond. I do not intend to detain the House. I just want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members and shadow spokespersons for taking part in the debate. I am getting a bit worried
about home affairs. We had a very consensual debate on knife crime earlier this week, and here we have that again. Of course, it will not be the norm, but we have raised a number of points. I paid tribute to members of my Committee when I spoke on the last occasion, and I should like now to pay tribute to the Select Committee staff, who worked extremely hard in the preparation of the report. All the credit goes to hon. Members, because we sign these reports, but the staff work very hard. As the Clerk to the Committee has come into the Chamber and is at the Table, and as she keeps us all in order in the Committee, I think that that is where I should leave my contribution. We will return to this issue, because policing is a crucial aspect of Government policy. I look forward to debating these subjects with hon. Members in the future.
4.37 pm
| Index | Home Page |