Crime

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean)

I very much welcome this opportunity to debate an issue that is of the utmost importance to people up and down the country. Crime and the fear of crime, as we all know too well, knows no barriers. It affects and intrudes on the lives of the young and the old, the able and infirm, the family group and those living on their own—whatever their circumstances—and it rightly deserves our continuing attention.

It is all too easy to talk about crime in general terms as we do about the latest television drama or sporting event, but for the victim, crime is not imaginary or easily put to one side. It is real and can have significant consequences for its victims for many months and years ahead.

Against the background of today's debate, I urge hon. Members to bear it in mind that we are dealing not with simple statements of policy, but with the fears and reality faced by many of our constituents. It is our duty to ensure that we bring about a society where it is not the law-abiding citizen who should feel under threat, but those who seek to engage in a life of crime.

The Government are determined to continue to put the criminal in the dock. For too long there has been a depressing view that we are powerless in the face of rising crime; that it will rise year after year and we must somehow come to terms with it. I and my colleagues at the Home Office have never agreed with the nothing-can-be-done tendency. To do otherwise would feed a sense of helplessness and despair. What we need is not despair, but action.

What are the Government's goals in tackling crime? They are the straightforward goals that our constituents want: first, less crime; secondly, safer homes, streets and neighbourhoods; and, thirdly, feeling less frightened of crime. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary recently put it, our goals are

To protect people's freedom to walk safely on their streets. To allow them to sleep safely in their homes. To build a safer Britain. Our approach to achieving those goals is based on clear, commonsense principles: preventing crime, holding criminals responsible for their actions, punishing those who break the law and stressing the difference between right and wrong.

But before trying to tackle the problem of crime, we must appreciate the extent and nature of it. If we were to look to the press for our information, we would, for 604 example, think that juvenile crime in this country was at crisis levels, and that all young people were potential criminals. We all know that that is not the case. The vast majority of young people do not commit crime. Equally though, we must not dismiss lightly a phenomenon that causes so much anguish and suffering.

On 27 September, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Home Office were able to announce the biggest fall in recorded crime in our history. On top of earlier falls, recorded crime fell a further 5 per cent. during the 12 months to June 1995. The latest recorded crime figures highlight the fact that although the level of crime is still far too high, the dedicated efforts of the police and the community at large can result—and indeed have resulted—in significant falls in the number of recorded crimes.

Those successes should encourage us all to make even greater efforts to tackle crime. Effective policing methods, increased partnerships with the community and the use of new technology such as closed circuit television all contribute to reducing the level of crime.

In total, 5.1 million crimes were recorded by the police in the 12 months to the end of June 1995. That is a fall of 5 per cent.—or 260,000 crimes—compared with the number recorded in the 12 months to June 1994. The fall of 2 per cent. in violent crime is an encouraging development, since although those crimes account only for 6 per cent. of all recorded crime, their immediate effects on the victims and their contributions to the public's general fear of crime are especially damaging.

The recent fall of 5 per cent. in recorded crime builds on a previous fall of 5 per cent. for the 12 months to June 1994. It means that over the past two years, most of the major crime categories have seen significant reductions in the number of recorded offences. For instance, there were more than 175,000 fewer recorded burglaries and more than a quarter of a million fewer recorded vehicle crimes than two years ago. The fall of 162,000 recorded thefts, which includes vehicle crime, combined with a reduction of 221,000 offences over the previous 12 months, has resulted in 380,000 fewer recorded thefts than two years ago.

The welcome falls in recorded crime are part of the longest continuous fall in the number of recorded offences since records began. As I remarked earlier, this encouraging trend is a result of the police's success throughout the country in increasingly targeting those engaged in crime. I congratulate the police forces on their proven ability to target effectively those responsible for crime in their area and on their fostering invaluable partnerships with the community which enable everyone to play their part in tackling crime.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister's last sentence. Does he agree that one of the reasons why the police have been able to target serious crime, which often networks down to, for example, large-scale drug distribution, is the development of criminal intelligence systems? Will he make a statement to the House now about what is happening to the national criminal intelligence service, in view of the publicity in the past couple of days? I ask him, in an entirely apolitical and neutral spirit, to give the House some reassurance that the NCIS will continue to 605 operate and that the Government will ensure that its operation is not inhibited by whatever investigation is taking place.

§ Mr. Maclean

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to draw attention to the phenomenal success of the NCIS; it has been one of the best innovations in police intelligence gathering and in the national policing effort in recent years. Its success is acknowledged by everyone who knows of it and by the police service in general. I cannot comment on any internal investigations currently taking place in the NCIS. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, Mr. John Stevens, the excellent chief constable of Northumbria, has been asked to investigate and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any of that. However, I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that the NCIS will continue to operate highly effectively, giving police forces around the country and the regional crime squads the intelligence information they need and as a result of which they are so highly successful.

The police are to be heartily congratulated on their success against crime in their areas. The "Partners Against Crime" campaign promotes schemes such as neighbourhood watch. We have enabled that to be expanded and strengthened and new types of partnership, such as street watch and neighbourhood constables, have been introduced. Those schemes not only prove invaluable in the overall crime prevention and detection effort, but give people an opportunity to play a constructive part in combating crime, thereby making themselves and their local neighbourhoods feel that crime is not simply something that should be feared, but something that can be beaten.

Police forces throughout the country attach particular importance to operations which target persistent offenders who are responsible for a large amount of crime in any one area. I know that the police share my concern about the misery caused by crimes such as burglary and car crime and that they are determined to do everything they can to fight it. Increasing the number of detections for burglaries, and targeting and preventing crimes that are a particular local problem are key objectives which have been set for the police. Throughout the country, police forces have undertaken initiatives specifically to tackle those types of crime, often using intelligence-based methods such as crime pattern analysis and targeting offenders.

I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of Operation Christmas Cracker which was undertaken on 5 December. It was the largest operation against burglary that this country has seen, involving 12,000 officers from 40 forces in England and Wales.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile

Let us wait and see how many will be convicted.

§ Mr. Maclean

Perhaps that will be the responsibility of the hon. and learned Gentleman and his learned friends.

The police targeted people suspected of being involved in burglary and completed 3,772 dawn raids. In all, 3,327 people were arrested and £1.8 million-worth of stolen property was recovered. The objectives of Operation Christmas Cracker are to strike a major blow against burglars, to transfer fear from victims to criminals, to 606 show that police forces around the country are serious about combating burglary and to persuade burglars that there is a high likelihood that they will be caught.

§ Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen)

Will my right hon. Friend give further thought to helping victims of crime? Will he give serious thought to introducing victim impact statements, as is done in America? Victims have the opportunity, when the perpetrator of the crime comes to court, to appear and to tell the court and the jury exactly what effect that crime has had on their lives. Many victims in this country do not have such an opportunity. Many of them do not even know when their attacker is coming to court and many are not told, after the court appearance, what has happened. Such a scheme would help the victims in their rehabilitation process. We spend a lot of time rehabilitating the criminal and not doing as much as we should for the victim.

§ Mr. Maclean

I have a section in my speech relating to victims and I shall deal with those issues then. Suffice it to say at this stage that we and the Lord Chancellor's Department have a raft of measures to help victims. They include generous funding for Victim Support and a revision of the victims charter. I hope that some hon. Members saw the pack we published recently with rather specialist victims' organisations which work with those who, unfortunately, are relatives of people who have been murdered. We have issued a rather special pack to deal with them.

§ Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)

Why then did the Home Secretary and the Minister vote against our proposals to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service had to take into account the impact on victims of crimes when deciding how to deal with matters before the court?

§ Mr. Maclean

We voted against the proposals for most adequate reasons; they were plain daft.

Operation Christmas Cracker follows the successful operation carried out in May this year against burglars. In this operation, more than 5,000 officers from 22 forces across the south of England and Wales searched 1,828 addresses and made 1,324 arrests. The operation was instigated by the Metropolitan police as part of their Operation Bumblebee initiative.

Operation Bumblebee was started in the No. 1 area of the Met in June 1991. In the first phase, more than 5,000 people were arrested and 8,000 offences of burglary were solved. The initiative went force-wide in June 1991 and there have been seven London-wide operations before Operation Christmas Cracker. Around 4,401 premises were searched and 3,276 people were arrested.

Operation Bumblebee has used an unprecedented mix of operational activities, using techniques that had previously been employed only to investigate very serious crime. A key plank of the strategy and all the other operations around the country, including Scorpion, Bear, Claw and Spider, is targeting the criminals rather than the crime.

The latest statistics on recorded crime show that those initiatives are helping to reduce crime levels nationwide. In the 12 months to June 1995, burglary has fallen by 5 per cent. and vehicle crime by 9 per cent. compared with the previous 12 months. Police officers believe, as I do, that it is by targeting and imprisoning persistent 607 offenders that we can significantly reduce crime. Such operations have already led to thousands of successful prosecutions. The criminals are now aware that they are not going to be allowed to get away with their malign activities.

As Mrs. Pauline Clare, the new chief constable of Lancashire, stated:

Professional criminals whose activities are curtailed by lengthy prison sentences have perhaps the greatest impact on reducing recorded crime. There is no doubt that the fear of imprisonment is an extremely effective deterrent and certainly protects the public from the habitual offender. And so say all of us—or at least, all of us on the Government side of the House.

That said, we have no illusions about the level of crime. There is, as I have said, far too much of it, and we shall continue to back the police in their crusade against the criminal.

Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary plays a significant part in ensuring that good practice is adopted by forces in tackling crime. In 1993 the Audit Commission published a report, "Helping with Enquiries—Tackling Crime Effectively", which encapsulated the principles of crime management advocated by inspectors. It effectively drew together existing good practice and provided a firm basis on which to reassess priorities within criminal investigation departments.

Following that report, in early 1994, the inspectorate, working in association with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Audit Commission, helped to produce a management guide to assist forces. The guide advocated an integrated approach to tackling crime and recommended a more proactive approach to crime management, improved prioritisation of the investigative process, better use of intelligence, improved targeting of suspects and greater emphasis on the prevention of crime.

During the course of the year inspectors have looked carefully at how forces responded. They found that the management guide had enhanced the awareness of forces. Most had instituted some form of crime desk system, which enabled them to target resources more effectively, and had developed crime strategies which incorporated many of the principles in the guide.

The spread of good practice lies at the heart of the promotion of value for money, and is a key responsibility for the inspectorate. In October this year the inspectorate published a report, "Obtaining Value for Money in the Police Service", which followed a major review of efficiency gains made by forces and an assessment of those planned for the future.

The Government's commitment to maintaining law and order and tackling crime was amply demonstrated to the House, to the police service and to the whole country again last week by yet another excellent funding settlement for the police service. Nationally, £6.6 billion will be available for policing in England and Wales next year. That is a generous increase of about 4 per cent., or —240 million, over the figure for 1995–96.

The Prime Minister's pledge to provide sufficient funding for 5,000 extra police officers means an additional £180 million over the next three years, and £20 million is being provided initially next year, which will allow chief officers to recruit 1,000 extra police officers.

608 We have worked hard to improve the police funding formula. It has been investigated by independent consultants, who concluded that it was technically sound but that further work was needed on a number of aspects. Police service and police authority representatives have helped us with that. As a result, although some work is still continuing, we have been able to make the following principal changes for next year's formula: a reduction in the establishment element from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent., and an increase in the formula's pensions element from 9 per cent. to 12.3 per cent.

On top of those improvements to the formula we have proposed two additional rules for the allocation of police grant. The first rule ensures that all forces—except the Metropolitan police, where other considerations apply—can receive at least 3 per cent. more funding next year. The second rule ensures that all forces will receive a fair share of the additional 5,000 bobbies over the next three years.

The additional rules that we have invented safeguard stability in police funding allocations and make possible real spending increases in every police force. Those results in turn will make decisions on police budgets easier, and allow chief officers to respond to public demand for more high-visibility policing.

The success of the police service in getting crime down deserves our full support. The additional funding for next year demonstrates that every police force in the country is getting full support from the Government, and will continue to do so.

§ Mr. Michael

Will the Minister tell us what change has been made in capital funding for next year, and whether the total has gone up or down?

§ Mr. Maclean

We publish the full figures for police funding, including capital funding. Of course there are some changes in capital funding, because we are introducing the private finance initiative. We are encouraging all police forces to grasp that initiative so as to spend considerably more in capital—on new police stations and divisional sub-headquarters, for example—and to share with the private sector the wonderful opportunities for development. Of course, until forces have prepared their private finance initiative plans we are maintaining the major build element of police capital funding.

§ Mr. Michael

Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Maclean

No, I have made my point and I want to move on. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech, in his usual way.

We introduced those rules to safeguard police funding. And from what I hear at this early stage, I understand that the police service is pleased with its settlement. Police forces understand that this year's settlement of 4 per cent. builds on the 3.8 per cent. increase last year, and they know that the Government are looking after the police service.

Bobbies with long service and long memories can remember 1977, 1978 and 1979, when the police service was sabotaged by the Labour Government, who left office leaving it 8,000 bobbies under strength. The first thing that Lord Whitelaw had to do in 1979 was to recruit 8,000 bobbies, just to bring police numbers back up to what they 609 should have been. Most officers with long service will take with a pinch of salt some of the Opposition's current protestations that they would look after the police service.

The way in which we have looked after the police service is part of our comprehensive strategy to turn the tables on the criminal, and that strategy is now beginning to bite. It includes changes in the law such as reducing cautions, restricting bail, and limiting the so-called right of silence. Those developments, too, are important in tackling crime.

Action against street robbery is one of the priorities that the Home Secretary approved for the Metropolitan police policing plan. I wholeheartedly supported Sir Paul Condon's Operation Eagle Eye, as did the Metropolitan police committee. Like Sir Paul, I hope that everyone in the community will put their wits together to address the problem. There is no excuse for street crime. All citizens, black or white, have a responsibility to condemn the muggers for what they are, and to ask what the police can do to make our streets safe.

I do not doubt that most people want to see uniformed police officers out on the street. That is why that was made one of the key objectives for the police last year. I know from my discussions with serving police officers and with members of the public how much the public are reassured by the presence of uniformed officers in the local community. As Chief Superintendent Brian Mackenzie, president of the Police Superintendents Association, said recently,

What's undeniable is that the public, particularly the vulnerable such as the old, get tremendous reassurance from the patrolling officer". Of course, he is right.

Regional crime squads also play a crucial role in the fight against serious and organised crime. In the past year they have been involved in operations leading to more than 4,000 arrests, the seizure of drugs with a street value of £176 million, and the recovery of £58 million-worth of stolen property, and of counterfeit currency with a face value of another £36 million.

Many of the squads' operations are international, working jointly with law enforcement agencies abroad. One recent operation, which provides a good example of European co-operation, involved regional crime squad officers working with the assistance of the German police. The operation led to the arrest of two Turkish nationals in Germany and another two in London, all four of whom were involved in the importation of £1 million-worth of heroin.

The Government are committed to tackling organised crime, and we have introduced a comprehensive package of measures to tackle it head on. The first stage of the package is the forthcoming Bill to allow the Security Service to provide support to the law enforcement agencies in the fight against organised crime. The increasing complexity and sophistication of organised crime is a cause for serious concern, and we must ensure that the full range of capabilities is available to the law enforcement agencies in order to combat that menace.

The skills and experience of the Security Service in acquiring and analysing intelligence will be of great value to the law enforcement agencies. At present, the law does not permit it to provide assistance. That makes no sense. 610 Accordingly, our Bill will amend the Security Services Act 1989 to allow the Security Service to act in support of the law enforcement agencies against serious crime.

As we have said repeatedly, the Security Service will be supporting the police service, and the police service will remain in the lead. Linked to this measure, we also intend to establish a new national tier of police response to combat organised crime. This will build on the achievements of the regional crime squads. We will not be setting up a "British FBI", as has been suggested by some, but we will ensure that there is a more focused and better co-ordinated response to what is a national problem. Local police forces will remain the primary focus for policing in the UK. We will also strengthen the key intelligence and co-ordinating role of the national criminal intelligence service.

The police are at the forefront of developments in information technology. It is important that they remain so in the ever-more sophisticated fight against crime which will be needed as we approach the next century. The Government are determined to ensure that the right services, strategies and structures are in place to achieve this.

Use of the police national computer continues to grow and around 50 million transactions will be handled this year. Since the introduction of Phoenix in May, the police have been able to retrieve and enter records of arrests and convictions directly. On 1 November, new facilities were added to allow for the first time the recording of cautions on a national basis. When the very complex task of transferring existing records is complete, Phoenix will provide a database of immense value to the police and eventually to the rest of the criminal justice system.

Further enhancements to Phoenix are planned. The most important of these will be a system called QUEST, an investigative facility for searching the collection for all known offenders who meet a particular description. Phoenix will also be linked to NAFIS—the national automated fingerprint identification system—which will incorporate the national fingerprint collection of more than 5 million records.

The system will be rolled out to the national identification service and eight pilot forces in the middle of 1997. All existing fingerprint-matching systems in England and Wales will be replaced by 2001. Common data and system services will be co-located with the police national computer. As William Taylor, the Commissioner of the City of London police, said recently about NAFIS,

This will not be a simple fingerprint matcher, as can be found in bureaux all over the world, but a second-generation full fingerprint management system, the only one of its kind in existence. This will place the UK Fingerprint Service at the top of any league table you would like to devise. The police national network, provided by Mercury, already forms the backbone for both data and telephone communications. It will also be used by NAFIS and is designed to meet the needs of the wider criminal justice community. The PNN is an excellent example of a public and private sector partnership delivering real benefits to all users.

The police use many local systems in addition to these centrally provided services. We must ensure that the investment of some £150 million a year in local systems is used to the best possible effect. In terms of new technology, there is no longer a clear boundary between local and centrally provided systems. 611 To maximise benefits, we now need to think about links between systems as well as planning the systems themselves. That is why the Home Secretary launched the first-ever strategy for police information systems. The strategy is fully supported by chief constables and police authorities and, one year on from the launch, lead forces are already developing cost-effective standard systems which will communicate with each other and centrally provided systems whenever necessary.

Changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gave the police greater powers to take non-intimate samples from people suspected of being involved in recorded offences. The police can now take DNA samples, the profiles from which can be entered on the national DNA database and compared with profiles from traces left at scenes of crime. The national DNA database, which became operational only in April this year, is the first of its kind anywhere in the world. It is revolutionary. It relies on leading-edge technology and the most up-to-date DNA techniques.

More than 19,000 samples have already been entered on the database. For anyone whose DNA profile is held on the database, the risks involved in crime are very high. To date, 118 profile matches have already been achieved. The DNA database is an important tool for the police. The number of samples being submitted by them and the number of profile matches achieved speak well for the continued success of the database. As some of those cases come to court in the next few months, the House will see what an effective tool it is and will understand why I am not able to talk about those successes in detail at this stage.

Another area of technology to which I have already referred is closed circuit television. There cannot be many people who have not noticed the spread of these watchful guardians in recent times. High streets, shopping centres, industrial estates, schools, villages, community centres and other areas have all benefited from the presence of the cameras. The police have embraced the new technology enthusiastically, sometimes running their own systems, but more often working in partnership with others such as local authorities or town centre management committees.

CCTV is overwhelmingly popular with the operators, the police and the general public. It undoubtedly helps to prevent crime, helps the police to detect crime and assists with the investigation of crime. It gives the police extra incontrovertible evidence to help prosecute and convict more criminals, and it reduces the fear of crime among the general public.

CCTV has other, less serious social benefits. Everywhere I go, the police have shown me how they have found lost children, spotted fires in the early hours of the morning and got the fire brigade to them and identified people who have been taken ill on the street.

The results speak for themselves. There are examples of crime reductions from all over the country. I will just give the House a few examples of those. The Newcastle city centre scheme has been running for four years. There have been 800 arrests, and in only six cases did the criminals plead not guilty. It did not do them any good—they were still convicted. In Swansea, up to August 1994, there were 147 instances of taking from a motor vehicle. Since the cameras were installed in December 1994, there have been just 10. That is a dramatic cut.

612 In Northampton, there has been a 57 per cent. reduction in crime since CCTV was installed. In Berwick-upon-Tweed—which has a small-scale, four-camera system—burglary is down by 69 per cent., criminal damage by 41 per cent. and theft by 24 per cent. I use that example, but I should have used one for Montgomery instead, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is in the Chamber.

In Bedford city centre a CCTV scheme became operational in April 1994. It has led to over 200 arrests, to a reduction of 55 per cent. in overall recorded crime in the city centre compared with 1993 and to a reduction of 75 per cent. in recorded thefts of motor vehicles. I could go on, but I will not. We are seeing the same thing happening all around the country. Everywhere that CCTV has been installed, we get the same reports.

John Stevens, chief constable of Northumbria, said recently:

We are leading the world in CCTV technology and its use. In every case where cameras have been installed, crime has dropped and the number of arrests increased". We in the Government are doing our bit to help the process. Last year we initiated a CCTV challenge competition. It was a tremendous success and the 106 winners in the competition will share the £5 million Government funding available. If all the schemes go ahead on the scale planned, the competition is expected to lever in £13.8 million in contributions from other sources including the private sector. In other words, a total of £18.8 million will be invested in CCTV this financial year.

We have now announced another competition. This time we are not offering £5 million, but £15 million of taxpayers' money and we hope we can fund at least a further 300 schemes. A key condition of the funding is that there will have to be a code of practice on the proper use of video tapes. We shall also insist that any scheme currently up and running that wants top-up funding should have a proper code of practice as well. I, and I am sure many both inside and outside this Chamber, totally condemn the irresponsible use of any CCTV images for commercial gain.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile

Many CCTV systems are operated by private security firms. Why does not the Minister go further on the issue of how those firms operate and introduce some kind of registration scheme—for which there have been many suggestions—to ensure that those working for private security firms are not criminals and other people of public disrepute? A great many criminals work as security guards in this country at the moment.

§ Mr. Maclean

I dispute the hon. and learned Gentleman's last point about a great many criminals working as security guards. That is not the case. I have studied all the evidence and listened to what the police have said. The point is that a small number bring the majority into disrepute. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we are currently carefully considering the Select Committee report and its recommendations. I cannot pronounce on that today.

Preventing crime is as important as tackling its consequences and the concept of partnership is central to our crime prevention strategy. That vital work cannot be left to the police alone; communities have a central role to play. Successful partnerships are essentially those that have developed local solutions to local problems—and 613 they are successful. All over the country, business, community groups, local authorities and the public are working with the police to reduce and prevent crime in their areas. Local knowledge and expertise are being used to solve local crime problems.

To stimulate the partnership principle at a local level, we issued a guidance document in 1993 containing much practical advice on working in partnership and managing successful projects. Various such partnerships have been established across the country and a sample of the wide-ranging activities in which they have become involved includes reducing the fear of crime, reducing car crime, preventing youth involvement in crime, introducing anti-burglary measures, improving community safety and providing advice for licensees, and so on.

One of the main themes of local partnerships is that they should encourage local institutions and businesses to contribute directly to the fight against all types of crime in their areas and to improve the quality of life for the whole community.

I am often asked on my travels as crime prevention Minister why the Government decided not to implement the recommendations of the Morgan report on the local delivery of crime prevention through the partnership approach. The specific recommendation of that report, which is quoted at me most frequently, is that local authorities must be given a statutory duty to undertake crime prevention work. One of my predecessors took the view, in considering the report, that it would be wrong to burden local authorities with additional statutory responsibilities and I have to say that I think that he was absolutely right. As I go around the country and see all the excellent partnerships that are working voluntarily and how enthusiastically local government and others involved in crime prevention and community safety matters are working, I ask what is the point of hitting people with statutory regulation when the system works voluntarily? It is sensible to stay away from statutory provision.

Of course, the Government play their part and will continue to do so. The principles of partnership apply at a national as well as a local level and crime prevention generally is one of our highest priorities. In fact, Government Departments as a whole spent some £260 million in 1994–95 on crime prevention-related activity. In that year, Home Office expenditure on crime prevention rose by some 40 per cent. to £18.3 million.

§ Mr. Michael

The Minister said that he does not want to put burdens on local authorities. It is an expression of kindness that we do not usually expect from Ministers. However, the request for statutory authority for partnership between the police and local authorities came from the police and local authorities, so why was it refused?

§ Mr. Maclean

As I said, my predecessor took the view that that would be a burden and I take the view that it is wholly unnecessary because the system is working voluntarily. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it all ways. He will no doubt boast about the tremendous job local authorities are doing in crime prevention, but then say that they must have statutory powers to do it. Since we refused to provide statutory obligations, voluntary partnerships 614 throughout the country have worked very successfully. That voluntary approach is to be commended. I dislike the idea of having to force people into statutory partnerships because it simply does not work. I should be very surprised if anyone could show me any areas in the country where the partnership approach is failing because of a lack of statutory duty to force people to work together.

The Government continue to provide core funding and support to Crime Concern, which works closely and productively with a wide range of partners—the police, central and local government, the private and voluntary sectors and many more—in its aim to prevent crime and create safer communities. Crime Concern has been very successful in establishing local partnerships and developing schemes that are having a real and beneficial impact on levels of offending. It has taken various initiatives. I am delighted with the work that it does, which is why the Government are generous in funding it.

There are many excellent examples of Crime Concern's work and we shall continue to work closely with it, not least through Nigel Whiskin, its chief executive, who will be a member of the new Crime Prevention Agency's board. I will say more about that in a moment. Crime Concern has a proven track record in developing effective crime prevention measures and I will be anxious to continue my support for its work.

In the autumn of last year we extended the concept of partnership through a £6 million "Partners Against Crime" television and radio advertising campaign to embrace individuals as well as institutions. There are three main elements to the campaign. First, we want to strengthen and encourage the existing neighbourhood watch schemes. Neighbourhood watch gets the people of a neighbourhood together to look out for one another and to protect their property from crime.

Secondly, there is the new concept of street watch. This takes the "eyes and ears" activities that already exist within neighbourhood watch out on to the streets. It means being sharp and observant when out and about, for example when walking the dog or taking the kids to school. That helps to block opportunities for the criminal.

The third main element is neighbourhood special constables. That is a sub-division of the special constabulary. They are fully trained specials, but working in their local areas. That brings visible foot patrols to their neighbourhoods. As a regular feature of the local scene, they help to deter criminals.

Initial evaluation of our campaign, which has now been running for just over a year, has shown high levels of approval for the various elements. I view the campaign as a big success. There will be a second phase to the campaign which will be launched at the beginning of 1996 and I am confident that it will stimulate new interest in the campaign and show what people can do to fight crime in their areas in conjunction with the police.

We have recently set up a new Crime Prevention Agency, whose work will be overseen by an agency board. The board will bring together key bodies in crime prevention—the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Crime Concern, local and police authorities, the business community and others. The board will be a smaller, leaner body than its predecessor, the National Board for Crime Prevention, and will provide a sharper, more focused approach to the development of 615 crime prevention strategy. The board will be closely concerned with promulgating best practice—what really works in crime prevention—and promoting the effective delivery of crime prevention on the ground, where it really matters.

The new agency will build on the valuable work of the working groups of the former national board, especially on vehicle and retail crime, and the chairmen of those groups will sit on the main board. The board will have an enhanced role by acting as the management board for the Home Office crime prevention unit and the crime prevention centre, whose work will be at the heart of the new agency.

The board will advise on the broad range of crime prevention issues. It will be for the board to determine the details of its work programme, but one area which I have asked it to consider is the opportunities for the increased use of technology in crime prevention. I fully support the view expressed by Sir Paul Condon, in his recent Police Foundation lecture, that there is scope for significant reductions in volume crime if we can involve manufacturers and retailers as active and innovative partners in the fight against crime. We want Britain to be world leaders in taking forward that approach.

Inevitably, when dealing with issues of prevention it is natural to consider why people offend in the first place. One can argue for ever about the causes of crime, but what I think is beyond question is that children, at home and at school, must be taught the difference between right and wrong. Research studies consistently show that family influences are central to explaining why some young people start to offend. Also, young people who persistently truant from school are bound to be more likely to be involved in offending, as are those who commonly associate with other offenders. We know, too, that at any one time a small proportion of offenders are responsible for a disproportionate amount of criminal activity.

Of course, the Government's influence on the creation of social attitudes is limited, but we are responsible for the framework of incentives and disincentives. We need to do all that we can to make sure that that framework encourages responsible behaviour and discourages irresponsible behaviour.

Despite our best efforts, many children get into trouble with the law, starting what could be a lengthy criminal career. There is thus clearly a need for partnerships between parents, schools, local education authorities, the police and local communities to do all they can to reduce the opportunities for offending, and to look at how we can rescue those, such as truants, from going astray.

If we can help turn away significant numbers of youngsters from a life of crime we will have achieved a great deal. For that reason, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced the establishment of a new ministerial group on juveniles with the remit of looking across Government at what we can do to identify children at risk of developing into offenders.

The group, which is in the process of being established, will be charged with examining departmental policies and programmes so that we can maximise the benefits, identify any gaps and encourage good practice. We are particularly keen for the voluntary sector to play its full part in partnership with Government agencies. In some parts of the country this is already happening, and we want to see it spread.

616 I remind the House that our new drugs strategy for the period 1995–98 was set out in the White Paper "Tackling Drugs Together", which was published last May. The new strategy, while fully maintaining the emphasis on law enforcement and reducing supply, recognises the need for stronger action on reducing the demand for illegal drugs. We all see, sadly far too often, the misery and suffering caused by illegal drug misuse. The focus of the Government's new strategy is on three main areas: crime, young people and public health. Every opportunity must be taken by those with care of children and young people to discourage the use of illegal drugs.

I want to say a brief word on our new proposals on prosecution and defence disclosure, which are undoubtedly very important. This is one of the most pressing and difficult problems affecting our criminal justice system. The current arrangements protect the innocent, but they also make it far too difficult to convict the genuinely guilty. Put simply, too much is required of the prosecution and not enough of the defence. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill will redress the balance.

I was much heartened by the welcome that the disclosure proposals received from the police. The sentiments of the Police Superintendents Association provide a useful summary. The supers said:

The Bill is a real step forward in the fight against professional crime and is another weight in the rebalancing of the criminal justice system which for too long has protected those who abuse the present arrangements". In perhaps more glamorous language, the chairman of the Police Federation made the point forcefully when, on the day that the Bill was published, he said:

This is a black day for the Lawyers' Angling Society. This Bill should end the farce of the gigantic fishing expedition which has become a notorious tactic amounting, in plain English, to blatant attempts to obstruct and delay justice". That Bill has started its progress in the other place and I look forward to it proceeding safely there and to us dealing with it in the Commons in the not too distant future.

As the House will know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has recently announced radical new proposals on sentencing. We intend to publish a White Paper early next year to provide a basis for full public consultation and then to introduce a crime Bill.

The key elements of our sentencing proposals are as follows. First, the sentence imposed by the court should be served in full. Model prisoners would be able to earn a small discount by good behaviour, but automatic early release would be abolished.

Secondly, anyone convicted for the second time of a serious violent or sexual offence would receive an automatic life sentence. At present, even dangerous offenders must be released at the end of the sentence imposed by the court. Under the new proposals, they would be kept in custody until they no longer presented a risk to the public.

Thirdly, persistent burglars and drug dealers should know that they face stiff minimum prison sentences if they continue offending. Accordingly, we propose that the courts should be required to impose a minimum sentence on offenders convicted of burglary or trafficking in hard drugs, if they have already been convicted of such offences on two or more previous occasions. 617 I reckon that the public rightly expect protection from serious, dangerous and persistent offenders. The Government believe that these proposals would provide that protection and send a powerful message to the criminal.

The aim is to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system and ensure the adequate punishment of the guilty and protection of the innocent. We want a system that allows for clearer sentences that enable those who are contemplating further crime to know just what to expect if they are caught and convicted and stop those who present a real risk to the public having to be released back into the community.

On the subject of sentencing, I should add that there has been some criticism of the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and myself that prison works. That criticism, I believe, has been grossly unfair and ignores the facts.

Of course prison works. It works, first of all, by punishing offenders and depriving them of their liberty. That is why we have provided the courts with power to impose custody where the offence is so serious that no other sentence is justified. It works in a second important regard by removing offenders from circulation and therefore preventing them from committing further offences while they are inside.

§ Mrs. Peacock

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people feel that prison is much too comfortable and should not be as luxurious as it is? Many people, especially pensioners, do not want their taxes to go to provide that comfort. Is not it interesting that the bed in the cell of the young man sentenced to prison in Singapore consists of one blanket? Could we not look at having severe conditions in our prisons?

§ Mr. Alex Carlile

It is a lot warmer in Singapore.

§ Mr. Maclean

Yes, we must be kinder than that; perhaps two blankets would be more appropriate this week, although we do not know the thickness of the blanket.

My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) is in accord with public sentiment and with my sentiment. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said that he wants prisons to be decent but austere. He is right. He and my hon. Friends in the Home Office with responsibility for prisons are looking carefully at Sir John Learmont's report and considering his suggestion that any privileges and rights in prisons should be earned by prisoners and not granted automatically on day one. My hon. Friend is right to raise that point.

§ Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam)

What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that prison regimes are relevant and rigorous and that prisoners do not sit in cells watching television but do useful work? Are steps in hand to make sure that the work they do is sufficiently productive for them to be able to earn their keep, contribute to their costs and provide resources for victim support and for their families?

§ Mr. Maclean

This could be the subject of another debate, which we may want to have at some time. My hon. Friend touches on many things that are happening in prisons. Yes, regimes are being made as relevant as 618 possible. There are treatment and therapy courses for drug users, alcoholics and sexual abusers. There are pilot studies that are trying to get better work regimes so that prisoners do better things than make mail bags and ministerial boxes—which fall apart far too easily—at great cost.

Prisoners need proper skills that they can use in the real world when they come out. I am one of those who believe that if they do a proper day's work in prison rather than sit in their cells, it makes sense to pay them a proper wage and deduct money to send to wives and families and save money for a nest egg. I want prisoners to pay the same penalty as the rest of us face: it is called income tax. There is no point in cushioning them from that while their wives and families are dependent on the state. If they were doing a proper day's work in prison and getting better pay rather than pocket money, such deductions could be made.

§ Mr. Carlile

Is the Minister announcing perhaps the most radical and important change that there has been in the prison system in the past 100 years? If he is, it will be very welcome. Are we being told that it is now Government policy that all prisoners should be given proper jobs to do, from which they would learn something; that they will be paid a wage from which they can pay their own keep; and that they will pay income tax? That is the sort of radical change in the prison system for which Judge Tumim appears to have been campaigning for a long time. If true, when will the Government introduce those dramatic new measures?

§ Mr. Maclean

I said that we were working on pilot studies. The hon. and learned Gentleman should he aware that many of our prisons, despite the new, modern prisons we are building and opening, and which Lord Whitelaw instituted in 1979–80 when he was Home Secretary, are old-fashioned buildings. They do not have adequate workshops and they were not built beside super-modern car plants where prisoners could work.

§ Mr. Carlile

Half the workshops have been closed. This is absolute piffle.

§ Mr. Maclean

The hon. and learned Gentleman should stop hollering from a sedentary position. Radical improvement regimes are being introduced in our prisons and attempts are being made to ensure that prisoners do not sit idly in cells all day. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) that prisoners do not have televisions in their cells—my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary does not permit that, and rightly so.

I shall conclude so that others may speak. Prison works because the threat of prison is a deterrent. Many people are discouraged from crime because of the threat of imprisonment. The likelihood of arrest and the threat of imprisonment deter many people from crime. Some of the pre-sentence reports provided by the probation service show that what some scoundrels fear more than anything else is imprisonment.

As I said earlier, I believe that victims should he foremost in our minds when tackling crime. Despite huge pressures on all departmental budgets, we were able to increase our funding of the national charity Victim Support by .20 per cent. last year to over £10 million. It has been increased by a further 8 per cent. this year to nearly £11 million. That enables Victim Support's 365 local schemes and branches, and their 12,000 volunteer visitors, to offer help to over 1 million victims of crime a year. 619 There will be witness support schemes in all 75 Crown court centres by the end of this year, helping victims through the stress of appearing in court. And better facilities are being provided at all courts, including information facilities, support services and separate prosecution/defence waiting facilities wherever possible.

This Government pioneered the victims charter in 1990. Most of the 50-plus standards it sets have been, or are well on the way to being, met. I can tell the House that we are now developing a new victims charter. This will tell victims more clearly the minimum standards of service they should expect from the criminal justice agencies. It will explain which agency is responsible for providing the service, and how victims can complain if they do not get the level of service promised. We hope to publish the new charter in the new year.

We are keeping victims better informed about what is happening in their case. And last year we set up a victims helpline so that any victim concerned about an inmate's possible release can tell the prison authorities.

Victims' views are being taken into account more consistently. For example, the police now specifically seek victims' views on bail and make those known to the prosecution. Pre-sentence reports on offenders now explain the effect of the crime on the victim. And new guidance has been issued to the probation service about contact with victims when prisoners' release plans are considered.

As I mentioned earlier, we published a special information pack on 6 November to help families of homicide victims. The pack contains practical information, including details of sources of support and advice, to help such families cope with their unique tragedy.

§ Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

Will the victims charter also include fresh guidelines to the Crown Prosecution Service? In far too many cases, victims—including police officers who are victims of crime while protecting citizens—are extremely concerned about how many times the Crown Prosecution Service decides not to pursue certain cases. That is the greatest insult to victims who feel that justice has not been done and has not been seen to be done.

§ Mr. Maclean

Perhaps my hon. Friend does not realise that a new code of practice for Crown prosecutors was promulgated recently and has been issued. I agree that perhaps not many people know that there is a new code of practice which increases the possibility that more cases will be prosecuted. However, at times the CPS is right to conclude that a charge is not valid or relevant; that there is no case to answer; or that the charge should be changed from one offence to another. That is when it is vital to try to keep the victims informed, so that they know exactly what is going on.

As my hon. Friend will have seen in the press, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is currently considering various procedures to bring the CPS and the police closer together and to improve their understanding of how the other operates, and to ensure that victims and the public are kept better informed. We look forward to the result of my right hon. and learned Friend's deliberations, which will make a big improvement to the system.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created a new offence of witness intimidation. It also abolished committal proceedings, and that means that victims no longer have to give evidence twice over.

620 I believe the measures that I have announced today will go a long way to help victims pursue legitimate means of redress, and to relieve some of the unnecessary suffering and anguish they are put through by those criminals who have no respect for the law or for the feelings of their fellow citizens.

Our priority is to ensure that our response to crime at every level is as effective as possible. But tackling crime is not just a matter for the Home Office, the Government, the police or the courts, but something for all of us—including local people, local authorities and local business. We are forging partnerships to turn the tables on the criminal, and we are seeing the results of what can be achieved.

This morning, I have set out at length to the House all the action that we are taking. I make no apologies for that because it is important that the House knows that we are not just concerned with the crime figures, or a bit of policing here and victims there. There is a wide, comprehensive strategy tackling all aspects of crime, and creating a safer Britain. We are giving the police the money to buy the tools to do the job; we are giving the courts the powers they need to punish the guilty; and we are giving local people the opportunity to work in partnership with the police. The key is to divert people away from crime, convict the guilty and prevent as much misery to innocent, law-abiding citizens as we can. We will not flag or fail in keeping up our pressure to achieve those aims.

§ Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)

I shall start by underlining the fact that we are dealing with the fear of crime, and the daily reality of crime for our constituents. The Minister acknowledged as much at the beginning of his speech, but he went on to show massive complacency about a small drop in recorded crime. He said that the Government continued to put the criminal in the dock, but the proportion of offenders going into the dock has decreased under the Government. Crime used to be something that happened to someone else; now it affects us all. People have less and less faith in the ability of the criminal justice system to cope.

In the past 15 years—when recorded crime has doubled—the number of people convicted or cautioned has fallen by 7 per cent. Far more offences are committed in Tory Britain, and more people are getting away with those offences. Those are the facts, despite the rhetoric of punishment that the Minister has used today. He suggested clarity in sentencing with some tough talk about sentences. We wait to see the reality, because the implication is that the courts have been failing us. However, the confusion caused by the Government is what has undermined confidence in the criminal justice system. The public expect protection, but they are not receiving it from the Government. The greatest deterrent is being caught, and as I have just said, the figures show that that deterrent has been reduced during the years of Conservative Home Secretaries.

The public expect a prison system that works, but what will the Government do? How long will it be before they propose measures that will make prison more effective, instead of cutting useful occupation in prison? Education is being cut in prisons throughout the country.

The Minister tells us that he has left the "nothing can be done" tendency. That is a change for the Government. He should read the press statements of his predecessors 621 and the past few Home Secretaries because, year after year, they have said that crime is something that we simply have to expect.

The Minister exposed his real attitude when he described the proposal that the Crown Prosecution Service should be made to listen to victims as "plain daft". It is not plain daft. It is an obligation that should be placed on the Crown Prosecution Service. Extremely belatedly, the Government, who might have accepted amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, have suddenly found that there is a need to put pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service to listen to victims.

§ Mr. Maclean

The hon. Gentleman should not inadvertently mislead the House by misquoting my remarks. I did not say that it was plain daft for the CPS to listen to victims—that is what it should always do, and that is what happens. What I described as plain daft was the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the victim should be dragged to court to make a victim impact statement, in which circumstances the victim would be eligible for cross-examination by the defence. I am sure that that would have a great effect on the victim.

§ Mr. Michael

The Minister has misdirected himself. The suggestion about victim impact statements came from the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), not from me. During scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill I suggested that the Crown Prosecution Service should be obliged to pay attention to the impact on the victim when deciding whether to downgrade or drop charges. That proposition is not plain daft; it is plain common sense. The Minister should listen when constructive suggestions are made. His hon. Friend has left the Chamber, but I am sure that she will be very interested to hear that he described her proposal as plain daft. Our proposal was not plain daft; it was plain common sense.

I, too, want to congratulate the police, not least on keeping going, even under the present Government. I want to praise the partnerships between police and local authorities and local people, but they are little to the credit of the Home Secretary. The Minister was in Committee on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill when he turned down the proposition, supported by local authorities and the police, that such partnership should be set in statute. They wanted Government support for such local partnership, on which they have worked so hard.

§ Lady Olga Maitland

If the hon. Gentleman is as supportive of the police as he says he is, will he explain why, throughout Committee proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, he and his colleagues consistently voted against every single measure to be tough on crime? I can suggest only that he is soft on crime.

§ Mr. Michael

The hon. Lady should not take her briefings from Tory central office. I am sure that she would not want to mislead the House. and the suggestion that the Labour party voted against tough measures is untrue. It is a lie. I hope that the hon. Lady will have the strength of character to withdraw that suggestion, because it is totally untrue.

622 I shall develop that argument later, because there is a great deal to be said about Labour's record of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and those arguments need to be placed on the record during the debate.

Let me respond to some of the Minister's comments. He spoke about targeting crime. That policy complements local partnerships, which we have urged for years. It has nothing to do with the Home Secretary's performance indicators, which are introducing strain and confusion for police forces locally. It is ironic that the Minister, who a few moments ago rejected the idea of placing a statutory duty on the police and local authorities, introduced a statutory responsibility for them to follow the Home Secretary's nationally decided performance indicators. The Minister appears to be criticising not only Conservative Back Benchers but the Home Secretary in his responses to the debate.

The Minister today said one thing that shows a welcome dawning of light. He said that most young people do not commit crime; yet the Government have continually denigrated young people and described them as a problem rather than the strength and opportunity of our future.

The Minister's speech might have impressed someone who had been living in exile for 16 years without access to newspapers or radio and television, but it will not have impressed the people of England and Wales. He even had the temerity to refer to the victims helpline. Do hon. Members remember that one? It followed the cones hotline. Last year, over Christmas, it closed down, despite the fact that Christmas is the time of special stress and danger in respect of domestic violence.

The Minister says that he wants the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to come closer to one another. We have tried to persuade him to follow that policy for the past few years, but he has refused to do so.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the curious history of the current debate. The topic is "The Government's policy against crime". Yesterday, I was telephoned by a journalist who wanted to know more about the topic. In his quest for knowledge, he had telephoned the Home Office, where an official told him:

No, it wouldn't be a Government debate—you'd better talk to the Opposition. Those people with short memories may have forgotten what the debate was about when first announced. The topic was supposed to be "The success of the Government's policies to combat crime". I am told that such a topic, if tabled by the Opposition, would have been ruled out of order as obviously being ironic. Somewhere along the line, it changed to "The Government's policy against crime." I am not surprised that the Minister wants to speak about the future, not the past. I bet the Government had a problem getting the title past the House authorities. Which policy would that be. Minister? Walking with a purpose, perhaps? I am surprised that the Minister reminded the House of the Home Secretary's document "Partners Against Crime", because not only was that a theft of the title of a Labour party document published earlier, but it was not about partnership. It offered three aspects of volunteering, not of partnership.

We support the work of neighbourhood watch and of special constables, but those are not aspects of partnership; they are aspects of people volunteering to 623 help with crime in their community. Welcome though that is, it shows little understanding of partnership to give that title to the document.

Today's debate is a remarkable own goal, as the Conservative party tries desperately to steal Labour's clothes and appear interested in a subject of public concern on which the Government's record does not stand scrutiny.

Let us consider the facts. Recorded crime is more than 100 per cent. higher than in 1979; robbery in England and Wales is 403 per cent. higher than in 1979; home burglary is 159 per cent. higher than in 1979; theft from motor vehicles is 194 per cent. higher than in 1979; criminal damage is 184 per cent. higher than in 1979.

No wonder the Government changed the title and deleted their claim to success in the fight against crime. That is only recorded crime. The "British Crime Survey" shows that actual crime increased two and a half times as fast as recorded crime between 1991 and 1993—the most recent figures available. Only one crime in 50 ends up with a punishment by a court. Only one crime in 750 ends up with a custodial sentence.

A complacent Home Secretary, whose mantra is "Prison works", is indeed wise to avoid debating the success of Conservative policies on crime. What grounds for complacency are there in a country where the risk of being burgled is one in 12, the risk of a vehicle being broken into is one in six and the risk of a person being assaulted is one in 46?

The Automobile Association recently surveyed its members about their experience of crime. One in 14 of drivers in the survey had experienced a car being stolen. Six out of 10 victims of thefts from vehicles did not claim on insurance and presumably did not report the crime. Many of those surveyed feel that the police are unwilling or unable to reduce car crime activity.

Confidence in the criminal justice system is seriously in question. A survey of members of the Police Federation of England and Wales showed that 87 per cent. of the 73,000 officers who replied were not at all satisfied or not very satisfied with the criminal justice system. Only 9 per cent. gave the lukewarm response that they were "fairly satisfied".

The Police Federation has expressed anxiety that proper debate on law and order should not become a purely party political matter. It states:

For many years a consensus existed between the parties on this topic. The police and the public would welcome its return. We would also welcome its return because, despite the activities of the present Home Secretary and his immediate predecessor, the present Chancellor—the two most partisan Home Secretaries in history—we have continued to try to make constructive suggestions about how to tackle crime. In that context, I welcome the Home Secretary's development of a strategy for police intelligence and a comprehensive database. That proposal follows years of frustration, when the Home Office and its Ministers refused to accept policies and strategies urged on them by chief constables.

I pay tribute to the work of individual chief constables and police forces. Dyfed-Powys police force, one of the smallest in this country—which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will know as well as I do—has said that it wants to tackle crimes when they 624 start to happen and use new technology to nip things in the bud. That is an example that the Home Secretary should examine carefully.

I welcome the Minister of State's statement today that a national tier of police will follow the pattern of regional forces, with local forces in the driving seat. I welcome the fact that the intelligence services involved in police work will be accountable to the police—that is an extremely important principle—but will the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), spell out how the accountability will work in practice? In his opening speech the Minister of State outlined the right principles, but in such matters the devil is in the detail, so when he replies to the debate will the Under-Secretary tell us how the scheme will work in practice?

The Minister of State has clearly discovered two other Labour themes: the need to work with families and encourage parental responsibility and the need to work with young people across Government Departments. I participated in a project in which I worked with children and their families in the mid and late 1970s. The report has been on the shelf ready for the Conservative Government for the past 15 years and I recommend that the Minister take it off the shelf and look at it.

I welcome the Minister of State's conversion, but on those two topics, as on others, we shall judge him by his actions—just as we judge the Conservative Government on their record on law and order policy after 15 years of being responsible for it. Their policy has left many people in Tory Britain afraid to leave their homes at night and afraid when they are inside their homes. Women and the elderly feel particularly vulnerable and parents are frightened to let their children out alone. All too many people are terrorised by nuisance neighbours and too intimidated to report offences to the police. In his opening speech the Minister of State did not make one suggestion to tackle those problems.

The court processes are expensive, inefficient and outdated. The cost of criminal legal aid has rocketed. The proportion of cases discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service has almost doubled. I am delighted that the Home Secretary has finally woken up to that fact and that his Cabinet colleagues have recognised the need for new guidance. We have been consistently telling him about those problems for many years. Cases are also taking longer to come to court.

People are desperately concerned about not only crime but disorder. Fear in the streets and in public places inhibits and restricts people's lives and undermines their sense of security and their ability to take an active role in the community. Those points have been stressed, above all, by my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, who has made positive proposals on how to tackle those problems. But instead, the Conservatives have chosen to tackle the victims.

This week, the Home Secretary took a further step towards cutting £700 million from the cash available to compensate the victims of violent crime. Each time that unsavoury and sleazy development is mentioned, the Minister trumpets platitudes about how good the scheme remains, but those are weasel words. The simple truth is that the Conservative Government are cutting the cash available to victims of violent crime by £700 million. 625 No Conservative Member of Parliament will ever again have the slightest credibility when pretending to be interested in the victims of crime.

The same is true of the victim support scheme. Earlier today, the Minister of State had the cheek to claim credit for the increase in finance for the victim and witness support schemes, but he planned to cut the cash available for those schemes until the Labour party embarrassed him into maintaining the figures for development. In 1996 the Minister will give Victim Support just enough money to maintain the schemes developed by the end of this year. The growth was encouraged by the Home Office, but it will grind to a halt. The figure involved is less than £11 million which, as the Minister of State acknowledged in his speech, is a minimal proportion of the Home Office budget.

The families of murder victims are being doubly victimised. Earlier this week I offered to help the Minister bridge the gap for the families of murder victims who had been told that they would receive a bereavement award under the compensation scheme introduced by the Home Secretary last year. Those families are angry that their personal tragedies have been caught up in the Home Secretary's legal battles. They feel that he has added greatly to the grief that they have suffered. We asked him to give compassionate consideration to the families' claims to compensation and to support the plea from the victim support scheme. We offered him time and said that a Labour Back Bencher would introduce legislation to tackle that scandal in private Members' time if the Government would also make time available and provide their support to speed the legislation through the House. The Minister rejected that opportunity earlier this week.

The Conservatives have only two tactics on law and order. First, they search for initiatives that will do nothing to solve the problems of crime but, they hope, will wrong-foot the Labour party. That tactic has come apart in the hands of the present Home Secretary, who should give up because he will not wrong-foot a Labour leader who is serious about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime and who leads a party which, from the shadow Home Secretary to ordinary members at grassroots level, supports him totally in his fight to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.

§ Mr. Maclean

Which tough measures d'd the Labour party leader vote for in the 1980s and whicn Bills on law and order did he vote against? Will the hon. Gentleman give us the answer so that we can make a proper judgment?

§ Mr. Michael

I shall come to that in a moment, but I shall first deal with the Government's tactics.

The Government's second tactic is even more unprincipled; it is to lie. I know that Ministers would not wish to mislead the House and that the information given to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) must be a tactic of Conservative central office rather than a Member of Parliament, but the Home Secretary has been heard to claim that Labour has voted against measures to fight crime and has failed to introduce positive proposals for action against crime. I am sure that no Minister would make such claims in the House because they are two big Tory lies. On the rare occasions when the Home Secretary makes a sensible, coherent proposal, 626 the Labour party supports him, as I have already made clear today. The Home Secretary's record on voting against proposals is one on which any court in the land would convict without hesitation.

The Morgan report on crime prevention is a Home Office report; we proposed that it should be implemented, but the Home Secretary refused. In our document, "Partners Against Crime", we suggested a detailed strategy and a statutory framework for crime prevention, with local authorities working closely with the police and other agencies. The Conservatives paid lip service to it, but voted it down. We proposed early intervention when young people first start to offend, but the Tories voted it down. The Labour party proposed action to tackle those who offend on bail, with bail support and enforcement in every part of the country, but the Conservatives voted it down.

The Labour Front Bench ensured the passage of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, allowing the prosecution right of appeal against the granting of bail—Ministers would have allowed that measure to fall. The Labour party demanded additional support to allow the expansion of the victim support and, particularly, the witness support scheme. When Ministers refused to give the police better protection, it was the Labour party that co-operated with the Police Federation for a cross-party presentation of side-handled batons and other alternatives. The Labour party called for rigorous trials but, after long prevarication, the present Home Secretary simply allowed them to be used.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope)

Why, then, did the Labour party vote against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and why has it always opposed renewal of the prevention of terrorism Acts?

§ Mr. Michael

That was a well-rehearsed intervention. It was well scripted, but the Minister knows the answers. The present Leader of the Opposition and shadow Home Secretary offered a cross-party agreement to deal with the problems highlighted in the prevention of terrorism Acts. It was turned down by the Home Secretary for partisan reasons. The Minister can read Hansard for himself to see why we voted against those measures. I know that Ministers do not want to listen to the truth being put on record in the House.

The so-called Tory commitment to effective crime prevention is illustrated by the measures that the Tories voted down during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill in 1993. They include cutting offending while on bail through bail enforcement and support schemes, the expansion of witness support and victim support schemes, making the Crown Prosecution Service consult victims before dropping or reducing charges and putting assets seized from drug users to immediate use in the fight against drug abuse. They opposed proposals for faster action when youngsters first get into trouble by cautioning them, and, after the first caution, for new court orders to make courts more effective in stopping youngsters before they get deeply involved in law breaking and in speeding up the criminal justice system to get quicker court sentences for persistent young offenders.

The Labour party has made so many constructive proposals to tackle crime, yet time and again the Conservatives have voted against them. They voted 627 against the establishment of an independent body to investigate miscarriages of justice. After years of prevarication, it was eventually included in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995—but in a half-hearted way by a Government who did not really believe in it. They voted against creating an offence of racial harassment and stiffer penalties for racially motivated crime. They voted against abolishing the year and a day rule so that we have to waste private Members' time this year to implement a measure that the Home Secretary could have accepted in Committee or on the Floor of the House.

We proposed tighter controls on dangerous weapons and the Government introduced a Bill that did not mention drugs, drug-related crime, weapons or violence. I am not surprised that Ministers wish to gossip among themselves. They do not like the truth of their appalling record of failure in the fight against crime—their failure to accept positive proposals from the Labour party, their failure to think through their own proposals and their failure to listen to Labour Front Benchers when we discussed the issues.

The Government failed to accept the ideas of statutory limits on prison overcrowding. They failed to establish an elected police authority for London, they failed to accept our proposal for a national drug prevention strategy, yet now they have informally proposed precisely the same strategy.

Let us consider another aspect of Conservative failure. The centrepiece of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was the creation of privatised secure training centres. Where are they? That was a smokescreen for lack of Government action in expanding the existing system of secure accommodation. In 1991, Labour extracted a promise of 65 extra secure places, but not one has been provided.

Let me spell that out because, with others and long before I entered the House, I campaigned for secure places to be made available to end the scandal of youngsters aged 15 and 16 being remanded either in inappropriate adult prison accommodation or in unsuitable, insecure local authority homes because there was nowhere else for them to go. In February 1991 the then Home Secretary promised the House that he would end that scandal and we welcomed and supported an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 1991. However, the Government have reneged on that promise. Not only has it not been fulfilled, but the number of secure places has fallen by 18 since 1991. The present Home Secretary could not be tough on a paper bag in a thunderstorm.

The Minister spoke about dealing with crime, but he made no mention of the scandal of those who are harassed and intimidated by violent and abusive neighbours. My hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary is the first senior politician to make genuine, straightforward proposals to tackle that scourge on modern society. If he had the sense of the average Llanelli rugby player, the Home Secretary would have picked up the ball, accepted the constructive suggestion from the Opposition and gained credit for himself by taking action on it.

The police have backed Labour's proposals for tough action on criminal neighbours contained in "A Quiet Life". Local authorities are in favour of it. Members of Parliament and councillors, who have experience of the frustration, anger and misery created by violent neighbours, have welcomed the proposals, yet the Home Secretary has refused to tackle a problem that affects families up and down the country.

628 Let me quote the president of the Police Superintendents Association, Mr. Brian Mackenzie, whom the Minister quoted in his remarks. In the presence of the Home Secretary he said:

Law and order should not be a party political issue. In an ideal world there would be consensus on how these issues should be tackled, so it is encouraging to see Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition addressing them. We welcome the proposals by…the Shadow Home Secretary, to deal with criminal and intimidating neighbours by a new 'community safety order', with new powers of eviction. This seems an eminently sensible suggestion and we hope you will feel able to work with the Opposition in developing it". Has the Home Secretary worked with us in developing it? No, he has simply rejected it and chosen to ignore the nature of the problem.

The 1995 Queen's Speech was a great disappointment for those of us looking for measures to combat crime. The promise of 5,000 police officers over three years has been greeted with some scepticism, to put it politely. Why should we trust such a promise from the Prime Minister when he broke his promise to the electorate in the 1992 general election? He promised an additional 1,000 police officers, yet their number went down and there is still a shortfall of some 1,300. When the Home Secretary has fulfilled the Conservative 1992 election promise, we might take more seriously the Prime Minister's inflated promise in 1995.

The position is crystal clear. I do not know whether the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have shared the truth with the Minister of State, but I shall let him into the secret: there is no new money.

In the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, the Home Secretary was absolutely adamant that he wanted to give up control over police numbers. Hansard is full of speeches in which he declaimed his new-found belief in the right of chief constables to take their own decisions over the use of resources. He said that it was not for the Home Secretary or the Government to tell chief constables how many police officers to employ and that his job was to hand over the cash and let them get on with it.

It was an incredible performance for those who had followed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's career. Here was the arch-nationaliser, the architect of the poll tax, the Minister who laid waste to local accountability in one public enterprise after another, presenting himself as the defender of local decision making. But we knew what he was doing. He was abrogating responsibility before cutting the cash in order to blame others for his own decision. Then the Prime Minister—another rudderless ship blown here and there by events—announced that an extra 5,000 police officers would be provided by his desperate Government.

We can imagine the panic at the Home Office, where they would say, "But Minister we do not have the money." It is no use applying to the Chancellor as there is no sympathy there. What was to be done? The answer was to cut the cake differently and hope that nobody would notice—to steal from the capital allocations the cash need for revenue allocations and hope that nobody would notice. I am sorry, but anyone with half a brain has noticed. I am sorry for the Minister and others who have to plough on with the farce.

The simple fact is that the Government are willing to steal from tomorrow to survive today. To put it another way, for those who understood Mrs. Thatcher's 629 rudimentary approach to economics, it is as if a family were to steal from their mortgage on their home and melt down the lead on the roof to pay for the food on today's breakfast table. That is the fast track to ruin. That is why the Minister would not answer the straight question: by how much has the capital allocation for police forces been changed for next year? I am not surprised, because it has been cut. Sooner or later there will be a day of reckoning for that then from tomorrow. The Home Secretary hopes that he will have moved up the greasy pole or, more likely, into opposition, by the time that day of reckoning arrives.

§ Mr. Maclean

I will give the hon. Gentleman some simple arithmetic. Uniformed police pay is going up 3 per cent.; civilian police pay is going up 2.5 per cent. The total amount of money being made available to the police next year will be 4 per cent. That is new money.

§ Mr. Michael

The Minister still does not answer the question on capital spending. Nor does he deal with the reduction in real figures in Home Office allocations shown in the Home Secretary's own hand-out on the day of the Budget. It is interesting that some Departments produced a complete breakdown of how that money was to be spent: not the Home Secretary, not the Home Office.

The Labour party has been in the forefront of promoting closed circuit television as an instrument in the fight against crime. Partnerships between Labour local authorities, the police and local business communities have shown the way forward. I am glad that the Home Secretary has joined us in promoting such schemes. I have helped to promote some of them myself. I must sound a note of caution. CCTV schemes work only if they are well designed, utilise the right equipment installed in the right locations and if monitoring is well planned and each partner feels that he has some ownership of the scheme.

I warn the Minister that the public's continued support is essential. The Government's commitment to CCTV is weakened by their failure to support Labour proposals for statutory regulation to monitor its use. In that, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in his earlier intervention. If CCTV schemes are to be effective, the public must be confident that they are used honestly and effectively. Last week, I offered the Minister the chance of a Bill to pass through the House quickly, to outlaw the sale of video tapes from surveillance operations of any sort undertaken by the police, local authorities, private companies or individuals—unless the Home Secretary decided that their publication was in the public interest. After the sale of video tapes offering cheap gratification—whether through scenes of violence, sexual passion in a lift or thrilling car chases—who doubts that control is needed? Nobody outside the Home Office. I repeat our offer, for the day that the Minister catches up with the rest of us on that particular issue.

The need for legislation to regulate the private security industry falls into the same category. The Minister has promised to allow access by employers to police records, so that staff can be vetted. What about the employers themselves? I am not talking about decent firms in the private security industry, because they share our concerns; they want statutory regulation as much as we do. Police officers at every level have told me of their concerns. Crooks with records of violent crime, having partners 630 whose record of fraud is as long as your arm, are running private security companies. Not only does the Home Secretary refuse to take a grip on that scandal but he wants to give those crooks ready access to police computer records, which is insane. Is that what the Conservative party means by a policy against crime?

Conservative dogma has overruled public safety. Home Office ideas about regulating the private security industry and the recommendations of the Opposition and of the Select Committee have been overruled by the Department of Trade and Industry on the ground that regulation would constitute a restraint on trade. I have news for the Home Secretary. If regulation is needed to protect the British public against crooks and rip-off merchants, the British public would rather have regulation than Conservative dogma that protects people who live off violence, bullying, burglary and theft.

Most offenders remain in the community. This week, the House of Lords condemned the Home Secretary's bid to end all training requirements for probation officers. I am not surprised that the Minister went through his lengthy speech without mentioning that fact, but it is one of this week's scandals. The Government suffered a humiliating defeat in the other place. Former Home Secretaries, Labour and Conservative, joined to tell the Home Secretary that he was wrong. A former permanent secretary at the Home Office, a former senior police officer, the chairman of the Royal Commission on criminal justice and many other peers emphasised the need for high-quality training and for the Home Secretary to change his policy. Fifteen speeches were made against the abolition of probation service training requirements. Only the lonely, battered Minister spoke in favour of that crazy change.

The Minister, for failing to provide relevant professional qualifications and training for probation officers, has rightly been attacked by Labour and all the relevant professional bodies, which recognise the need for specialist training. Entrants to the probation service from the police or armed services are the first to recognise that they need specialist training, and they want a proper qualification in their new profession. Each year, the probation service deals with offenders who are more difficult, damaged and dangerous. Failing to ensure adequate training and qualifications for new entrants through a national scheme means that the Home Secretary is putting at risk the safety of the public and of new probation officers.

Today, the Minister had a chance to present new ideas and positive policies, but where are the real measures to combat crime? The Government have little to say. They are not implementing the proposals that we have made over the years or measures to tackle disorder on our streets, criminal neighbours, delay at every stage of the criminal justice process or the delays that bedevil our court system.

Where in the Minister's speech were the measures to tackle youth crime? We have made proposal after proposal to nip offending in the bud and to prevent young offenders from becoming repeat offenders. The Government have rejected them all. In recent years, the Government have cut the youth service, which a report produced by Coopers and Lybrand last year showed is cost-effective in preventing crime.

Where are the proposals to regulate the private security industry? Where are the measures to help victims of crime? We have heard a whimper of future proposals from