| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): I am very glad that the Home Secretary referred to the chief constable of Surrey, Mr. Ian Blair. He is an outstanding chief constable, but he is wrestling with the problem of taking a savage cut in the provision of resources to the Surrey police last year. Surrey has the most successful record in crime prevention in the country, which is founded on the provision of policing that is largely community based. It will be undermined if there are further cuts in the funding for Surrey's police. Can the Home Secretary offer any hope today to my constituents and to the chief constable of Surrey?
Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to the chief constable of Surrey, who is one of many very impressive chief constables. The savage cut to Surrey's budget last year was a Tory cut. [Interruption.] Well, it was. The budget for 1997-98 was set by the previous Administration and we came to office on 1 May, one month into the financial year. [Interruption.] It is true. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is gaping, as though he fails to recognise the date of the general election. It may have passed him by: he was one of the few Tories for whom it was not wholly traumatic because he won his seat. The 1997-98 financial year came into force on 1 April 1997 and we took office on 1 May, a full 30 days later.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): May I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to reducing crime and, particularly, his emphasis on crime prevention? Are any of his initiatives aimed at getting an increasingly young population out of prostitution? Given that many
young people go into prostitution in order to fund a drug habit, what initiatives does my right hon. Friend intend to introduce to help drug users kick the habit?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend raises a serious problem. The first point, on which there will be agreement on both sides of the House, is that we should treat child prostitutes, not as criminals, but as victims of serious and unpleasant criminals; and that only in exceptional circumstances, when they are near adulthood, should they be treated as criminals. My hon. Friend is probably aware that a great deal of effort has been made by the Government and the police to develop ways to deal much more effectively with the problem of child prostitution: for example, West Midlands police carried out pioneering work in the Wolverhampton area. Some of the money of which I have spoken today will be available for dealing with that problem.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the President of the Council, who leads for the Government on drug treatment and overall drugs policy, will be making a statement about the additional resources that we are allocating to be specifically targeted on the major drug problem that this country faces.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
I am sure that the House will have noted the Home Secretary's recognition of the fall in recorded crime achieved since 1992 and welcomed his objective of sustaining the Conservative Government's record in that respect. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in my county of Cambridgeshire, the increase in the number of police in recent years has been counted as a significant factor in achieving a fall in recorded crime? Notwithstanding that he cannot set establishment figures, will he say whether he regards his statement as consistent with an increase or a decrease in police numbers, and on what assumptions does he base that view? Given the importance, especially in rural areas, of visible policing--the bobbies on the beat to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred--will he say why he has removed visible policing as a key objective for police forces?
Mr. Straw:
As I said, the previous Government learned a hard lesson. Under legislation that they brought before the House and passed, the setting of police numbers was made a matter for police authorities and chief constables alone. The previous Government said that they were providing additional money to pay for more officers--the number varied according to the tune: sometimes it was 5,000 more officers; sometimes it was 2,000--but the reality was that, by the end of the 1992 Government, 200 fewer officers were available. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield talks about the previous period, and I want to see more officers wherever possible, but, if we are to have a serious debate about the relationship between the number of police officers and the rise in crime, we must recognise that, during the 1980s, when there was a significant increase in the number of police officers--although not as significant as the 2,000 a year which the Labour Government put in place between1974 and 1979; it was only 800 a year under the Conservatives--crime rose very much faster.
It is a matter of interest--I put it no more strongly than that--that, during the period when the number of police officers levelled out, crime fell. There are interesting comparisons--[Interruption.] Conservatives Members seek, and sought when they were in government, efficiency improvements in other public services, but they close their eyes to any application of research or science in this area. They should look at the evidence of the Audit Commission, which they established. It looked at the difference in performance between Surrey and Kent constabularies, which cover similar areas, and revealed that, over a certain period, Kent constabulary did significantly better than Surrey constabulary, even though it had lower resources. That is the sort of thing which ought to be taken on board.
Angela Smith (Basildon):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people welcome his commitment of extra resources for vulnerable witnesses? Last night in the House, a number of hon. Members attended a meeting of Voice, an all-party group for people with learning difficulties, and heard of some of the harrowing experiences of people with learning difficulties who have been victims of crime. Their statements were quite horrific and upsetting. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that some of the money being spent on supporting vulnerable witnesses will be used for training of court staff and judges and for examining procedures, so that such people are dealt with sympathetically and to ensure true justice?
Mr. Straw:
I give my hon. Friend that assurance and draw her attention to the consultative document on the treatment of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, which I published about eight weeks ago. It makes many improvements, both in terms of changes to the criminal law and criminal procedure, especially in respect of cross-examination, and in the sort of support with which victims and witnesses ought to be better provided, both in court and outside.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch):
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister was crowing about concessions that he had wrung out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of hypothecation. Has the Home Secretary been equally successful? If so, does that mean that the police will be able to reinvest the fines and penalties that come from speed cameras in more speed cameras?
Mr. Straw:
As "Reducing offending" makes clear, changes are being made in the treatment of income from such fines and charges. A significant change has been brought about--a change, that is, from the extraordinarily dogmatic policy followed by the last Administration. I hope to make an announcement in due course, as does my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, whose responsibility this is.
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North):
Will these measures augment or diminish the stratagem so publicly imported from the United States--the much-vaunted zero tolerance programme?
Mr. Straw:
Zero tolerance is a matter for individual police forces. Interestingly, "Reducing offending"--
Sir Norman Fowler:
Including by the Home Secretary.
Mr. Straw:
Of course. It is not a particularly scientific term, and I am not sure whether "Reducing offending" uses it in the context in which I would use it. What I am clear about--and the evidence supports this--is that effective police action against small crimes can stop large-scale crime developing. The research evidence for that is striking. It shows--I am happy to concede that the research was carried out under the last Administration--that there is a four times greater chance of people becoming victims of serious crimes of violence in areas of incivility where small crimes are ignored, than in areas of civility.
"moderately strong evidence that it can reduce serious crime in the short term",
but that there are
"large question marks over the ability of the police to distinguish between firm and harsh policing styles".
It adds that
"zero-tolerance may offer an attractive short term reduction in crime, but . . . it must also be evaluated against its long term effects on those arrested, and the communities from which they come."
"Zero tolerance" is a phrase which is used differently in different contexts--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |