HC Deb 08 March 1982 vol 19 cc697-704

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Thompson.]

10.10 pm
Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, North-East)

Raising the subject tonight of the role of the citizen in the prevention of crime, I start by drawing attention to worrying reports in the newspapers over the weekend of the sharp rise again in violent street crime in London. The latest figures show that there are now 50 violent street crimes, many of them so-called muggings, committed in London streets each day. That is a very worrying figure.

I have no doubt that inner London is probably one of the worst areas in the country for violent street crime but I also know that other large cities are showing a similar increase, including, I regret to say, my city of Bristol. It is not my purpose tonight to discuss the reasons for the increase in violent crime, most of which is the responsibility of young men. I am sure that the boredom and frustration of unemployment is a contributory recent factor but there is also plenty of evidence to show that there is a relationship between affluence and crime. The United States of America is an outstanding example of that.

As we know, the streets of large cities were dangerous places in the nineteenth century, even after the formation of organised police forces. But the early years of the present century showed a sharp drop in street crime even during the mass unemployment of the 1930s. Now we are returning to the street conditions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when no woman went out alone unescorted and arms for self-defence were carried as a matter of course.

That brings me to the questions about which I wish to speak tonight, and that are being raised increasingly by the law-abiding in this country. How far does the old common law tradition still apply that the power to arrest, detain or even kill in self-defence or in the defence of others, and to keep the peace, are the rights and responsibilities of all citizens? Has that common law principle been eroded by the special statutory responsibilities imposed on the police force over the years since its creation? In short, has professionalism, as in so many other spheres, overwhelmed amateurism?

Out of that question rises another. Do the police welcome the "have a go" citizen? I had an incident in my constituency of a brave, elderly man who did just that. He "had a go" against hooligans who were causing damage to public property. As a result, he was knocked about and afterwards gained the impression from the police that they felt that he should have stood back and informed them instead, even if it had meant losing time until they arrived. If that is the case, the police attitude of "leave it to us" can provide an excuse for those apparently cowardly individuals who see a woman or an elderly person assaulted violently and do nothing to help.

An extreme example of what I mean occurred in 1978 and was widely reported at the time. This was when a woman ran screaming through scores of people thronging a shopping centre in Shepherd's Bush in West London. She was being chased by a man who had held her prisoner for eight hours and raped her four times. She bolted into a crowded betting shop. Her attacker rushed in after her and dragged her, screaming and struggling, back into the street. Eventually, he became afraid and fled. Not one person had helped her. Of course, that may be due to many causes. Some may say it is due to modern urban living, where no one feels any special personal responsibility for any occurrence. In a somewhat similar case, bystanders thought that the couple concerned were married and felt, therefore, that they should not intrude.

I hesitate to believe that the explanation for not helping an attacked person is simply the fear of being hurt oneself. The British have always had a reputation for physical courage, and it is hard to believe that there has been any real change in this respect.

But I believe that the ambivalent and non-committal attitude of authority to general public involvement in dealing with crime causes confusion, and I trust that the Minister of State will be able to make an authoritative statement about his Department's thinking on the subject, because it should be doing a great deal of thinking on the subject.

However much police numbers are increased—and they have increased greatly in recent years—such is the nature of violent personal assault against individuals and the speed of the attack itself that even the policeman on the beat cannot be everywhere at the same time.

I am not advocating private police forces or vigilante groups. There are obvious objections to these, and often the motives of those organising such groups are suspect, because sometimes the motives are political or racial. I am asking that authorities should make it clear that the help and active involvement of the ordinary decent citizen is welcomed in putting down crime and that, if a citizen intervenes in support of the police or to deal with a criminal act immediately, ample compensation will be available for any injury sustained.

As I understand it, there are public funds available for this purpose, but it is not a statutory right. I understand also that if a claimant is involved in legal expenses in making his case for compensation he will have to pay them himself. That is completely wrong. There should be a statutory right to compensation and it should be free of expense once a claim is shown to be genuine.

I come, then, to the right of self-defence. I had always thought that it was part of the social contract of the classical constitutional theorists that we all had the natural right of self-defence and surrendered it, including the right to bear arms, only for the greater security provided by organised society, a system of law and, of course, a police force. If society is incapable of providing or unwilling to provide that collective protection, the right of self-defence returns to the individual. I thought that that was the classical position in common law.

In 1980, however, a woman was charged in West London with carrying an anti-mugging spray contrary, apparently, to the Firearms Act 1968. The case was dismissed, I think because of the good sense of the magistrates, after the woman had explained that she had already been attacked and needed to defend herself in future.

I can tell the Minister that many women carry these devices in their handbags when they venture abroad. It would be monstrous if any were accused of aggresive intentions when they are concerned only with their own defence and safety, in place of a defence which apparently the State can no longer give. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this matter, because the answer that was given to one of my hon. Friends in the House on 10 February last year was not encouraging. I shall read an extract from Hansard of 10 February 1981, when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the growing number of cases known to the public as `muggings', he will take whatever action necessary to legalise the carrying of protective aerosol sprays by women to enable them to protect themselves from such attacks. The Minister of State, Home Office, gave the following reply: No. We are not persuaded that the legalisation of such devices is the way to bring about a reduction in violence.— [Official Report, 10 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 301.]

That may be so. Nevertheless, there is a great dilemma here which I suggest it is the business of the Home Secretary and the Home Office generally to consider seriously for the public are much troubled by it.

10.21 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison)

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has brought this important and often overlooked question of crime prevention and the role of the citizen to the attention of the House this evening. I shall try to answer some of the significant matters that he raised.

We all agree that law and order are essential to the wellbeing of a stable society. Discussion on crime and its remedies often concentrates on what should be done to apprehend and punish offenders. We came into office determined to restore respect for the rule of law and to do all in our power to provide the framework within which the law may more effectively be enforced. Since then, following our full implementation of the Edmund-Davies Committee's recommendations on police pay, the strength of the police has increased by some 8,000. That is very encouraging. However, we cannot expect the police, who do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances, to act alone in attacking crime. Crime, in particular offences such as robbery and burglary, is on the increase, as the hon. Gentleman said, and we, as citizens of this country, must all play a part in endeavouring to reverse this trend.

An effective response to crime requires the active cooperation of the community as a whole. It is not enough for people to turn a blind eye to criminal activity with the attitude "It's nothing to do with me". It is everything to do with them. The police, who are there to protect the community, cannot operate efficiently without the cooperation of that community, and there are many different ways in which members of the public can assist the police in their task.

One obvious example of this is the "999" emergency telephone system. Often success in apprehending offenders depends on the immediacy of the police response to an incident. If any member of the public witnesses criminal activity or becomes suspicious about anything unusual, he should always contact the police, without hesitation, by dialling "999".

The hon. Member has raised the question of what an individual should do if he witnesses a criminal act. Should he "have a go" and physically attempt to prevent the crime from being carried out? It is difficult to lay down hard and fast rules, but if someone sees a crime being committed it is his duty to take action. This might take one of several forms. Certainly he should dial "999" to call the police, or ask someone else to do so. He might also try, if appropriate, to warn off the offenders or even intervene physically. It is obviously a matter of judgment for the person concerned what is the best action to take in the circumstances. The police would not encourage a citizen to "have a go" unless he was capable of doing so without risking serious injury himself and unless immediate physical intervention was clearly required—for example, to save the victim of an assault from serious injury, or to arrest a thief who would otherwise escape. Under the Criminal Law Act 1967, any citizen is entitled to use reasonable force in the prevention of crime. What is "reasonable" is for the court to decide in all the circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman particularly asks about weapons that may be carried by members of the public for use in self-defence. As he is no doubt aware and has implied, there are two provisions of the law which may affect this issue. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 makes it an offence to have in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any offensive weapon, which is defined as any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him. The prosecution has to prove that the article in question was made or adapted for causing injury to the person, or intended for such use, and even if this is proved the person carrying the article still has the opportunity to show that he had a lawful authority or reasonable excuse for carrying it.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

My right hon. Friend should say "he or she".

Mr. Raison

My hon. Friend is right. However, I think that it is generally agreed that this Act places no unreasonable restriction on law-abiding citizens. For example, self-defence with an ordinary umbrella or walking stick would not be caught by the 1953 Act.

The second legal provision which is relevant is in section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, which makes it an offence to possess, purchase or sell without written authority of the Secretary of State any prohibited weapon designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.

Although I should emphasise that I have no authority to give a ruling on a point of law, and the matter could be decided only by a court, we have taken the view that some of the devices designed for self-defence are prohibited weapons within the meaning of the Act.

Proposals for a change in the law to enable devices such as tear gas or pepper dye sprays to be carried for self defence have been put to the Home Office in the past, but we have felt bound to resist them, not because of any failure to understand why those who feel threatened make the suggestion, but because of the general consequences of such a change. Put simply, such devices would be equally effective in the hands of an assailant, and, no matter how strict a control was exercised over their possession, it would only be a matter of time before they were used by criminals. The result could then well be an escalation rather than a reduction of violence.

We have no plans at present to change the legislative provisions that I have outlined, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the issue remains under review.

Mr. Palmer

I accept that sprays and so on could be used by criminals, but criminals often use knives.

Mr. Raison

That is true, but I am trying to explain that there is considerable technical difficulty in allowing such devices, which could palpably fall into the wrong hands. It would be difficult to know whether they were getting into the right hands.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, West)

Given the increase in muggings which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has brought to our attention, does not my right hon. Friend agree that sprays are probably the most effective weapons? As that form of crime is increasing, should not my right hon. Friend consider some change in the law?

Mr. Raison

We are not intransigent, but if we were to do that there might, in addition to muggings, be a problem of sprayings. We could not permit sprays to be used only by those who we know would behave well. They would come on to the market and it would be difficult to control their ownership. We might end up in an even worse position.

Of course it is quite permissible to use personal warning devices such as the "shrill" alarms now on sale. These may be of limited usefulness in certain situations. For example, they might provoke an attacker, particularly a determined one, into becoming more aggessive, although they might well frighten off a less determined assailant. Some attackers come unexpectedly and from behind, and it is doubtful whether the victim would necessarily have time to activate the alarm. However, we are currently evaluating the use and value of those devices.

I share fairly widespread disapproval of the formation of so-called "vigilante groups". As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in a written answer on 29 January, we are opposed to their formation. While the Government have no powers to proscribe them, if such groups act in breach of the criminal law the police will take appropriate action.

Members of the public can assist greatly in the prevention of crime by taking steps to avoid becoming its victims. For example, property owners and occupiers can take reasonable measures to secure their premises against intruders. Such simple precautions as adequate door and window locks are especially useful, since offences of burglary are often committed by opportunist thieves who would be deterred by even a modest level of security.

The Home Office is also active in disseminating publicity on all aspects of crime prevention through television, radio and press campaigns, and through the production of films, posters, leaflets and booklets.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark

This is all terribly interesting. Will my right hon. Friend not agree that a disturbing aspect of some of the economies that are being made at present—which all the dissemination, the films and the publicity will do nothing to prevent—is that my own authority in the West Midlands is being forced to make a £2 million saving on its police budget, which I was told it would not have to do? It means that many thousands of hours of overtime have been cut. To be effective, a police force should not be cut. I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to the fact that exhortation is not half as effective as the police working full belt to stop the criminals in the streets of our cities. Shall we get a pledge, that will be kept, that the police will not be cut?

Mr. Raison

My hon. Friend is a little wide of the subject of the debate raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East who was talking more specifically about crime prevention measures and the role of the citizen. I said at the beginning of my reply to the hon. Gentleman's speech that we have already managed to raise police numbers to the level that I do not think has been approached for a long time, if at all. That is something that I should have thought was to our credit. We have clearly made the law and order programmes a priority in a period of admittedly curtailed public spending. I do not think my hon. Friend can suggest that the Government are anything other than determined to attack the problem of law and order and that the facts bear that out.

I return to the question of publicity that I was referring to a minute ago. We are trying to offer guidance to citizens on, for example, protecting their homes and their cars, on measures they can take to avoid property being vandalised, and to give advice to children on the dangers of going with strangers. Advice is, of course, also readily available from the local police crime prevention officer, who will have the advantage of knowing the particular crime risks in his locality.

Another way in which citizens have become involved in the prevention of crime is through local crime prevention panels, and I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the valuable voluntary work they undertake. Since their inception in 1968, over 170 local panels have been formed by police forces in England and Wales to promote and harness local effort in the prevention of crime. They typically include a wide range of local community representatives and police officers. They carry out a variety of crime prevention work. It involves such things as quizzes and poster competitions among school children; arranging crime prevention exhibitions, seminars and publicity exercises; fitting security devices to the homes of elderly people; and establishing arrangements for shops to inform each other on an organised basis of the activities of shoplifters in the area. The quarterly Home Office magazine "Crime Prevention News" features articles on the work of panels as well as crime prevention activity generally.

I cannot conclude my speech without referring to the vital need for parents to play their part in maintaining and encouraging respect for the law. Too often children are allowed to roam the streets and to become drawn into crime, or even become its victims. Parents perhaps more than any other group are in a position to help prevent crime, both in the short term by proper supervision of their children and in the longer term by teaching respect for the law and so laying the foundation for a responsible and law-abiding new generation of adults.

Mr. Palmer

I made my speech deliberately short so that the Minister could have the maximum time for his reply. I hope that he will not overlook the point about compensation for those who help the police or intervene to stop crime.

Mr. Raison

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The position is probably as he outlined it but, in fairness to him rather than trying to give a fuller reply off the cuff, I think that I should write to him about that point.

This short debate, as I said at the beginning, has raised a very important topic. The hon. Gentleman's anxiety and—if I may say so—uncertainty about exactly what the citizen can and cannot do in the circumstances that he has described are shared by many people. Although, in a sense, one is inhibited from giving the kind of broad and sweeping answer that one might like to give, I hope that what I have said shows clearly that under the law there is real scope and real opportunity, as well as a duty, for citizens to play their part in the prevention of crime.

There are certain complexities which I have tried briefly to illustrate, but it remains the view of the Government that we shall not deal with crime without full scale participation from all our citizens, and the more people are able to understand the position, the better it wall be.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.