§ Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important subject in the wake of relentlessly rising crime and after seven years of failed Government promises on law and order. In 1979, the Tory Government were elected mainly on a law and order ticket. We heard talk about short, sharp sentences. Again in 1983, law and order was a main issue in the Tory manifesto, yet today, seven years later, many thousands in Britain endure the fear of crime—the knock on the door they are frightened to answer, the journey in the dark they are afraid to undertake and streets where they are afraid to let their children play. That is the position today, after seven years of rule by the self-professed law and order party.
To dramatise that more effectively, if the debate takes its full one and a half hours, during that time 24 people will have been victims of violent crime, 114 people will have suffered criminal damage, 180 people will have been burgled, 384 people will have suffered a theft and 744 people will have been victims of some kind of crime. That is the extent to which crime has risen during the past seven years.
Over the years there has been a tendency to trivialise the description of crime and, as a result, some people do not take it so seriously. Mugging, for example, is purely and simply robbery with violence. When I went to school, someone who was mugged was conned. That is a completely different meaning. Old-age pensioners are beaten up for a few coppers. Break-ins to rob gas meters, especially the pre-paid meters that people on low incomes invariably request from the gas board, are prevalent in the area that I represent. As the gas meters are placed near the front door, they are easy targets. If anyone was to stop somebody from smashing into the gas meters, he would be beaten up, as many are.
I heard a case on Saturday in my surgery. Somebody told me that their gas meter had twice been broken into. With it getting near Christmas, they were concerned that the meter was getting full so they contacted the gas board and asked them to have the meter emptied. The gas inspector came along and emptied the meter. Because there was less than £150 in the meter they were charged £13 by the Gas Board when in fact they were looking after the gas board's money. That is what is happening to people on low incomes who have to have pre-paid meters because of their financial position.
When I talk to the people at my surgeries and go around old people's accommodation and talk to old people's organisations they always tell me that they want to see more policemen on the beat, on the estates and in the shopping centre. They tell me that they want to see the same number of uniforms on the estates and shopping centre as they invariably see on the picket lines on the television news. When I was a youngster in Jarrow, I can recall watching the policemen leaving the police station and marching to the various beats and staying there. They were always present and people felt much safer. When I was leader of the council in Jarrow we had a policy of always building six or eight police houses on every council estate so that some police were living in the community with the people on the council estates. Now, because the police are financially better off and buying their own houses, the special police houses are being sold off, so we 935 do not have the police presence on the estates. How on earth can a relationship between the police and the local community be developed if the police no longer live among the people whom they are supposed to protect?
It would be simple to say that the sole cause of crime is unemployment, but to do so would be to cast a slur on every unemployed person. However, unemployment leads to monotony and frustration because of low incomes. That leads to solvent sniffing by many young people and in some cases to drug taking and violent crime. South Tyneside is an area of exceptionally high unemployment; it has the highest level of unemployment in mainland Britain. Solvent sniffing there is prevalent, as is drug taking.
The South Tyneside council has tried to combat solvent abuse and drug taking. The director of social services, Colin Smart, has worked hard to tackle this ever-increasing problem, but the council requires additional Government support. The social services department's resources are used to provide part III accommodation, home helps, assistance to the mentally handicapped and all the other services that it renders to the community. It does not have additional resources with which to combat the drug abuse that is prevalent in the area.
The local authority also requires additional finance to provide more lighting on estates, but the amount of money that it has to spend is restricted. South Tyneside's rate support grant is now approximately £9 million less than the amount it enjoyed when this Government were elected. Consequently, many of our streets are inadequately lighted.
South Tyneside has just begun a central communications scheme. Eventually it will cover every old age pensioner who lives in the south Tyneside area. When it is fully operational every old age pensioner will be covered by a warden system. If pensioners are taken ill during the day or the night a warden will go to see them, if they contact the central communications system, or it will arrange for a doctor to call.
I am told that the system could also provide all old age pensioners with a burglar alarm. The Government could help the council to provide such a system; its resources are insufficient, without Government help. If all old-age pensioners in south Tyneside were able to go to bed at night knowing that if they were taken ill a doctor would call if they contacted the central communications system, or that if there were an intruder they could use their burglar alarm, it would be a great relief to them.
There are great financial pressures on the Government regarding the police services, but I draw to the Minister's attention another matter that would help to prevent crime. Because of the soaring crime rate, private security firms are in great demand. They are one of the fastest growing industries in this country today. Many hundreds of small firms are being set up, and they ought to provide decent training and working conditions for their employees.
I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the General, Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. The GMBATU is very much involved in the industry and it has tried to obtain decent training and working conditions for employees. Most of the firms are in the guard and patrol sector. Given the ease with which firms can be set up, standards vary considerably. As 936 virtually no restrictions are placed on the firms that enter the industry, the cut-throat competition from cowboy firms is having a severe impact.
Yet again, as in most walks of life, it is the workers who are affected. Earnings in the security industry are particularly low. Official figures from the Department of the Employment's new earnings survey show that many employees rely upon overtime to boost earnings. The average working week for all workers in this country is 42 hours, yet in the security industry it is 49 hours. Even though they work long hours, during the day and night, many firms expect their employees to rely solely on basic pay. This policy by some companies leads to a high turnover in labour, but because of the lengthy dole queues there is always someone to take their place.
The hours in the security industry are tortuous. It is not uncommon for a guard to put in 60 hours a week—indeed, some work much longer hours, because of the poor wage rates and the dependence on overtime. Of the 18 major companies in the security industry, more than one third do not pay any overtime premium. The overtime work in these firms is well beyond what in other industries would warrant premium payments.
Among firms that pay overtime premiums, time and a half is the highest. Extra premiums are not paid even for Sunday work. Although shift work is universal, only a minority of firms pay shift allowance. Of the top 18 companies, ten do not pay any shift allowance. Some pay only a paltry allowance, and one pays only 15p an hour. Yet in most industries where night shift is worked, anything up to time and a third is paid.
I am sure that some hon. Members are under the illusion that the security industry provides a well-trained service. This may be true for some firms, but sadly, in many, training is deficient and they rely totally on drill and discipline. Training is important as it helps to promote a professional image as well as bringing the benefits of good practice. Only half the major firms in this country provide formal training. Of the others, the length of training is variable, ranging from as little as five hours to up to four days. In some of the cowboy firms it is not unusual for a new man to be placed on a night site and left unsupervised for long periods.
Crime prevention is a partnership between central Government, local government, the police force and the community. People have the right to demand to live safely in their homes and communities. It is no good the Government telling the people of this country that they will safeguard the people of the Falkland Islands, 8,000 miles away, when they cannot even safeguard our citizens within a radius of five miles of where we are tonight debating crime in Britain.
We need a well-resourced programme to prevent crime and reduce the fear of it in our communities. We need crime prevention grants for home owners and tenants to create safer homes, better street lighting, and a more reliable public transport service. Through deregulation, people will receive a poorer public transport system, which will put more of them at risk when they try to get from or to their homes. The police should be brought nearer to the communities.
I have already given the Minister instances where the Government could help my local authority with additional resources to combat solvent and drug abuse. Additional resources would allow the local authority to put more street lighting on the estates, and to extend the central 937 communications system so that every pensioner in the borough of South Tyneside could have a burglar alarm system as well as warden coverage in case they were ill.
We need most of all—most people tell me this wherever I go—more policemen on the beat. We do not want policemen sitting in police cars at the side of highways. People want to see policemen patrolling the streets on the estates and in the shopping centres where many crimes are committed. If the Government can give resources to the areas which have these problems, I have no doubt that many people will rest safer in their beds at night, be safer on their estates and have safer living conditions.
§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is right to point out the Government's appalling record on crime. They were, as he rightly says, elected in 1979 on a "get tough" policy. If I had told people at that time that within seven short years we would have the fastest rising crime rate ever in certain key areas of crime, particularly theft, burglary and robbery; that we would have more people in prison than any country in western Europe; that we would have more young people locked up than any other comparable country; and that we would have police in riot gear with riots in our inner cities, in country areas in relation to industrial disputes and in our prisons, people would have said that I was exaggerating. Sadly, that has come true.
The debate is about Government measures to combat crime. I could easily take up more than an hour and a half describing precisely how the Government have made a bad situation worse and created the conditions which increase crime. The Government are more culpable than any other Government I have known, either Tory or Labour. I shall give a few examples that fit in, very appropriately, with the comments made by my hon. Friend a few moments ago.
I have said before that one of the things that the Government have done which will feed the crime rate considerably is to introduce a board and lodging allowance, particularly for young people. In effect, that pushes more and more young people into homelessness and drug and alcohol abuse. All three of those key areas have a link with crime. If that measure alone were to be withdrawn and changed it would at least slow down the rise in crime in certain areas.
My hon. Friend referred to the link between unemployment and crime. It is right that there is no statistical link between crime and unemployment, although there is a clear link between unemployment and imprisonment. But there is clearly a link and it is important to understand the way in which that link works. It means that if a person is just about coping with the demands of society, and the pressure is then increased, social, psychological or economic, that person is more likely to be tipped over the brink into other problems. Those other problems can cover a range of areas, physical and mental ill-health included, but they may also include crime.
Although there is no direct statistical link, there is now growing evidence that there is a link between youth unemployment, particularly long-term youth unemployment, and crime. Certainly I would expect a link between long-term youth unemployment and outbreaks of disorder. In some of the areas where we have had outbreaks of disorder, such as Broadwater Farm, there are 938 high levels of youth unemployment. I believe that I am right in saying that in Broadwater Farm it was close to 40 per cent. In some areas in my constituency it is around 25 per cent.
Such levels of unemployment will clearly be a problem for the police, who will feel that there are difficulties with groups of young people hanging around the street corners during the day and night. That also, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, creates a level of fear among the rest of the population, particularly elderly people who are sometimes unsure and frightened about how to cope with groups of youngsters being rowdy or noisy during the day or at night.
But the housing issue is critical to all that. A few moments ago when I came in at the tail end of the previous debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was saying that the Government had spent more on housing renovation and repair. What he did not say, of course, is that at the same time that Government spending has increased there have been massive cuts for local authorities so that they are not only no longer able to build but are also unable to do the renovation and repair.
One might ask what the link is with crime there. There is a clear and important link. First, there are people in inappropriate housing. I can think of cases in my constituency which much be multiplied around the country. On the Edward Woods estate there are high rise blocks housing families with young children. The children either have to play indoors all day with the parent or parents, with the consequent rise in family tensions, or, frequently and more commonly, they play outside unsupervised. In such circumstances it is not unusual for them to drift into vandalism, graffiti and crime. The area begins to run down, and as the local authority cuts bite even deeper, it deteriorates and not only does the fear of crime increase, but crime increases as well.
In that same estate, the Edward Woods estate in my constituency, I can point to examples such as those that my hon. Friend was thinking about in his area. In blocks of flats, entryphones and things like that have been put on the doors and even entry cards have been given to residents. Those things have proved quite useless, because in a matter of weeks, and sometimes in a shorter period, those entry systems have been broken, the whole of the inside ground floor vandalised, and the walls covered in graffiti. The only way to deal with things like that is to have a 24-hour porterage, but that cannot be done in the face of the cuts that the Government have imposed on housing.
I know that the Minister will be unable to tell us that the Government will allow local authorities to spend the money that they have taken in from the sale of houses. If he cannot tell the House that, at least he should tell his hon. Friend in the Department of the Environment that, if the Government would let local authorities spend that money, at least some of it could be used to provide services in high crime areas to reverse the trend that the Government have set in train.
In recent years crime would have presented any Government with a problem. That crime is not the result of moral degeneracy or because the British are more wicked or dishonest or violent than the people of other nations, but simply because of the movement of population, as people moved out of the cities and back into the country, reversing a trend that was going on for a couple of hundred years. In our inner cities that has 939 produced people who, at one level, are rich and can afford the housing there, the so-called yuppies—the upwardly mobile professionals who can afford to buy flats or houses and then move on after about five or 10 years in the city, leaving behind a group of people trapped in the housing, not just in the inner cities, which are the most obvious examples, but in other run-down areas as well. Those people become trapped and the problems accumulate.
When one talks to employers in inner cities one finds that it is not rates that drive them out. We know that from Government and university studies, from common sense and from talking to people. The issue that drives out the employers is that they cannot get skilled labour. As a result, the inner city trap goes from bad to worse and as that happens the areas become run down and vandalised and the fear and the reality of crime become worse.
There is only one solution and it is long-term. It was applied by previous Governments, including some previous Conservative Governments, but this Government are guilty to an incredible degree of pushing up crime until it is almost out of control. The situation is desperate and the Government have used the police to cope with the social and economic consequences of their other policies. The only way to reverse this trend is to have a wellresourced crime prevention and victim support policy, and economic policies designed to improve the run-down areas, such as the inner cities. If we do that, many of the problems that my hon. Friend so rightly drew to the attention of the House could begin to be reversed and we might get back to the sort of policing and the sort of society that we had before the Government took office, at which time the problem was serious but not as desperate as it is now.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg)The one party that is quite unfit to criticise the Government's policy on law and order is the Labour party, because its record on these matters is atrocious. The policies and the nature of the Labour party have done more than anything else to lay the foundations for disorder and crime in Britain.
Let us consider the reasons for this. First, there is the policy of individual members of the Labour party. Far too many of them are profoundly hostile to the police and take every kind of opportunity to express that hostility. I am excluding, and do not make this charge against the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). It is not true of him, but it is true of Bernie Grant, Mr. Knight, Mr. Hatton and local authorities dominated by the Labour party throughout this country—not all of them, but many of them. They are hostile to and critical of the police and undermine their activities. If one asks Metropolitan police officers why it is that we experience a wastage of police officers in London, one of the frequently expressed reasons is that they suffer from lack of morale. When one presses them on the lack of morale, they say it is because of the way they are treated and spoken to by Labour authorities and those whom the hon. Member represents.
§ Mr. HoggI will not give way for the moment.
Let us go back to the middle or late 1970s. What happened then, when the Labour party was in 940 Government? I will tell hon. Members. The police were ill-paid and deserting in droves. We had never seen the Metropolitan police at a lower stage of morale. We now have the absurd spectacle of those who presided over such an event parading themselves as the party of law and order. Then consider their attitude to legislation. Quite frequently, indeed usually, the Labour party opposes those pieces of legislation that might enhance the ability of the police to respond to the problems we have heard desribed. Take the example of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, an important Act.
§ Mr. DixonOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I opened this debate I spoke primarily about the problem in the area I represent. There are no Bernie Grants or the people that the Minister has been referring to in the area I represent. There are no local authorities or people on them who attack the police, as the Minister suggests. I ask the Minister to start replying to the debate that I initiated and talk about the problems I have outlined that obtain in the area that I represent.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)This is an intervention and not a point of order for the Chair.
§ Mr. HoggI appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not like taking the medicine. The hon. Gentleman will have to take it. He can either take it or leave the Chamber, I do not mind which. I shall tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a few facts of life about the Labour party and hon. Members had better bear it in silence or leave the Chamber. They can make a fuss if they like but they will have to put up with it.
It is interesting to note how frequently the Labour party undermined those pieces of legislation that enhance the powers of the police to deal with crime. We were dealing with the Prevention of Terrorism Act before the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) rose to his feet in an embarrassed state. It is remarkable that here, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is generally regarded as an important piece of statute law designed to prevent terrorism, should be repeatedly opposed by the Labour party. It is a disgraceful spectacle. Or consider the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which went through 59 sittings in Committee. The Labour party spent much time in unconstructive debate designed to undermine the powers of the police which they need so very much. Then we had the little matter of example. Go back to Grunwick, or go now to Wapping, or go to the miners' strike. These were all deplorable spectacles of violence and abuse. Who supported them? Who was on the picket lines? Who, by their actions, assisted those who rioted and abused the police? Members of the Labour party. There they were, on the picket lines, rioting and abusing the police and sometimes, indeed, being arrested. Are we to believe that they were in some way friends of the police? It is preposterous.
Let us consider a much more fundamental matter. What is the Labour party's attitude to society? For far too long, the Labour party has preached the message of entitlement and has forgotten the message of obligation. It believes that people owe no obligation to their 941 neighbours or to society. For 20 years or more, Labour Members have sought to undermine the moral basis of society, and then they complain when the result is crime and lawlessness. The truth, unpleasant though it may be for the Labour party, is that consistently and persistently—certainly for as long as I have been actively engaged in politics—the Labour party has created the circumstances that have given rise to the present problems. They are the paramount cause. Labour Members do not like it; they protest. I am not surprised that they do not like it, but they will have to learn a few lessons.
The hon. Member for Jarrow wanted me to come to his speech. I shall do so, although I must say that it was not a helpful contribution. I listened to it carefully—perhaps I was kinder than I should have been. It did not address itself to any of the major issues. Much more to the point, it did not endeavour to give any solutions to the problems.
§ Mr. HoggThe hon. Gentleman says that it did. We shall both read the record tomorrow and we shall see who is right.
The first thing that we must understand is that the increase in crime is international and prolonged. It is international in the sense that we are experiencing the problems that are being experienced in almost every developed country, although much less in kind than, for example, in the United States. The trend has existed since the 1950s. The crime rate increased by between 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. in the 1980s, which was very similar to the increase in the 1950s. Between 1974 and 1979, violent crime increased by 49 per cent. Between 1979 and 1985, it increased by 28 per cent. I do not make a point of this, but I merely emphasise that the present position is consistent with what we have seen for many years past. To suggest that it is attributable to the Conservative Government is preposterous.
The hon. Member for Jarrow talked about fear and risk. Although there is fear, the risk is very slight. The hon. Gentleman would do much better to reassure his constituents and to take some time to explain to them that the Government have introduced a broadly based coherent policy—the first such policy since the war. Although the Labour party may not wish me to do so, I shall develop the five main elements of our policies. First, we are taking positive action on crime prevention, for which the hon. Member called, although he did not cite examples of what we should do. Secondly, we are increasing the resources of the police. I shall mention that at length, because the hon. Gentleman is very interested in it. Thirdly, we are strengthening the powers of the police and the courts while maintaining the safeguards for individuals. My experience of the Labour party is that it has always been anxious to resist any attempts to extend the powers of the police and the courts. Fourthly, we are seeking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of all parts of the criminal justice system, an objective which the Labour party spends a great deal of time seeking to frustrate. Fifthly, we are seeking to provide a more effective support system and reassurance for victims of crime.
The first element is police manpower and police finance—
§ Mr. HoggI shall take the elements in the order which I think appropriate, and the hon. Gentleman will have to bear with me. I shall start with the police. Since 1979, we have increased the manpower that is available to the police service, inclusive of civilians, by about 15,000 men. Since 1979, spending in real terms has increased by about 38 per cent.
§ Mr. HoggThat is another aspect of Labour party policy. It seems that it does not want us to increase police numbers and spending on the police. I am glad to know that. I say to the hon. Gentleman that increasing police manpower and spending on the police make a difference, and that the Government are proud to have a record of increasing spending on the police and increasing the numbers of police officers. I am sorry that we do not have the support of the Opposition Front Bench.
§ Mr. SoleyWhy is it that the police accept my view that increasing spending on the police makes little odds? They say that throwing police officers at the problem will not solve it and that they need other measures to be taken. Five points are being put to the House, four of which are entirely irrelevant to the prevention of crime, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) was talking about, while one is an empty gesture. The Minister is really saying that people should be told not to worry about crime, even though they are worried, because the Government cannot do anything about it, are not prepared to do anything about it and want to blame crime on the Opposition. It is a unique experience for a Government to blame their policies on the Opposition.
§ Mr. HoggThe hon. Gentleman has made an interesting intervention. He is saying to the House that he does not believe that increased police resources make any difference. If he takes that view, I presume that it will become part of Labour party policy, if it is not already, to cut the number of police. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that increased police resources make no difference, I assume that he would adopt such a policy. If that is not the position, he is talking even more nonsense than he customarily does.
We have had an interesting revelation this evening, and that is the reluctance on the part of the Labour party to embark on the policy of increasing police resources. The Conservative party does not take the same approach. The Government are embarking on a consistent and persistent policy of expanding police numbers and the resourcees didicated to the police service. I hope that we would have the support of the Labour party, but that seems not to be forthcoming.
Secondly, we are determined that we should be in a position to fund the increases to which I have referred. I heard no recognition from the Opposition Benches of the Conservative Government's fine record of funding the police service. I have talked about the real increases which have been achieved. Let us consider the policy changes which have been made. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith knows, we have increased the specific police grant. Thus, central Government contribute yet more to the cost of funding the police service. When we consider the method of funding the police service through the rate support grant, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have made adjustments of the greatest importance, 943 For example, grant-related expenditure assessments are now related to establishments. I hope that we have the hon. Gentleman's support for that great development.
§ Mr. HoggWe do not have the hon. Gentleman's support. I am sorry about that, but that is another example of the Labour party not being willing to accept and support constructive measures that will take us forward. At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be incorporated in the settlement a realistic assessment of police pay. Again, that is a valuable step forward. The hon. Gentleman will know of the concept of the unallocated margin and that police spending is exempt from it. In all these respects the Conservative Government are showing positively that they place great emphasis on practical ways of funding increases in police resources and not merely in the conceptual idea of expanding the police service. I am sorry that, in these matters we do not have the support of the Labour party.
§ Mr. HoggI have given way to the hon. Gentleman at least once. I am sorry, but he will have to wait just a little longer. We have concentrated very substantially on the enforcement and reinforcement of the resources dedicated to the police. At the same time, the Government recognise—I accept that the hon. Member for Jarrow also made this point—that crime prevention is of great importance.
§ Mr. SoleyI wish to ask the Minister a simple question to elucidate his argument. Twenty years ago, there was one police officer to every 603 citizens. Today, there is one police officer to every 390 citizens. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the crime rate has gone up dramatically. The police tell me that that statistic is largely irrelevant to the prevention of crime and might, in some ways, actually lead to an increase. What will the Minister do? Will he further increase the population of police officers? At what stage will the hon. Gentleman stop? When one in two citizens are police officers? Is that his answer? If it is not, will he kindly address the question that was put to him about crime prevention, about which he said virtually nothing?
§ Mr. HoggI was about to refer to crime prevention, but I was interrupted. The hon. Gentleman has fouled his nest once, and he shows a remarkable desire to foul it again. It is quite plain from what he said earlier, and even plainer from his intervention, that he is unwilling to see the police service increased either in terms of numbers or resources. That is an astonishing performance for a Front Bench spokesman. [Interruption.] He says that he did not say it, but his argument is that it does not make any difference. If that is what he believes, I assume that he will act on it. If not, he is in a bizarre position. However, that does not surprise me.
As the hon. Member for Jarrow rightly said, crime prevention is an important part of our policy. I am grateful to him for his limited support. It is an important part of our policy for a number of reasons. Much crime is opportunistic. About 25 per cent. of burglaries, for example, do not involve forced entry. About 20 per cent. of cars, for example, are not locked. Therefore, there is a great liability on the part of the citizen simply by exercising 944 a little more care. The Government have adopted a high profile in the area of crime prevention. We are making crime prevention a very important aspect of our policy.
§ Mr. HoggThe hon. Gentleman intervenes again. I do not in the least mind his intervening. He simply makes the point that we are the first Government to adopt a coherent crime prevention policy. That is not a policy that the party of which he is such a prominent member ever espoused when it was in office.
Let us now consider the main aspects of our crime prevention policy. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention. The standing conference is a vehicle by which we set up standing committees and working parties to report on specific aspects of crime. As the hon. Gentleman would have noticed, last month we received the five working party reports on residential burglary, commercial robbery, shop theft and violence associated with licensed premises, and car security. These matters involve important recommendations, many of which are to be acted upon. We also commissioned three more working parties for next year to examine juvenile crime, child abuse and molestation, publicity, and young people and alcohol.
At the same time, we are working on new British standards on car locks and alarms, which arose from the Downing street seminars. The National Housebuilding Council has produced a guidance note to assist builders to produce more secure homes. Through the mechanism of the standing conference and the working parties, we are seeking to extract ideas and lessons to apply to crime prevention.
However, crime prevention is essentially a local activity if it is to be successful. I agree with the hon. Member for Jarrow that, if crime prevention is to be successful, it must be a partnership. It cannot be in a vacuum. It involves a partnership between the formal institutions of society—the police, and the local authorities—and individual citizens. There is no way that one can combat crime by using simply one part of that relationship. All of it must be involved if it is to be successful.
Again, the Conservative Government have achieved a considerable success. To start with, we have the neighbourhood watch schemes. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith will know, they commenced in 1982 with two schemes. There are now some 17,500. In the past 12 months, they have doubled in number. They are a positive way of tackling crime at the grass roots. People come up with projects, the relationship between the police and the community is improved, and the schemes are simply good for the environments where they are sited. They are an important aspect in crime prevention policy, as are the crime prevention panels, which are increasing in number and in importance as part of our deliberate approach.
The crime prevention panels are the catalyst that can stir and direct local action. They are organisations upon which we place great importance. The hon. Member for Hammersmith will know that we set up five project areas in England and Wales where schemes are being adopted and tried out for the combating of crime. We are seeking to learn from the projects and circulate that information to other neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels.
In essence, what we are seeking to do is unite the local community, and the local and formal institutions of 945 society, in a common war against crime. I should like to mention other aspects of our crime prevention policy, for example, publicity. I was pleased to be able to announce last month a virtual doubling in our budget allocated to publicity. Opposition Members will know about the Magpies campaign. Publicity is an effective way of raising alertness to and awareness of the issue of crime. It gives guidance and makes people more conscious of what can be done.
We also have the involvement of the community programme. The hon. Member for Hammersmith will know that about 6,000 places have been approved under the community prgramme, some of target hardening, to use the jargon. The hon. Member for Jarrow raised this point. We are improving lighting, layout and environment in estates—
§ Mr. HoggI was about to emphasise that we were doing that. For example, the urban programme is a vehicle by which we are using substantial sums of money for security on the estates. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hammersmith may not like those facts. I understand that they make him uncomfortable. None the less, they are facts that he would do well to observe.
Some £6.3 million was allocated under the urban programme in support of a wide range of programmes to prevent crime during the current year. For example, the urban housing renewal programme is also a vehicle to channel money in ways that are designed to reduce crime and improve security.
I could go on in a similar way. Let us see where we stand. Of course, crime is a problem. It is a problem of international dimensions, and it is of long standing. Recorded offences have been going up for a long time. The Government attach high importance to the matter. We have increased and are increasing the numbers and resources of the police service. I am sorry to learn that we do not enjoy the Labour party's support. At the same time, we have enhanced the powers of the courts and of the police. I am sorry to have to say that, in these respects, our policies have always been attacked by the Labour party. We have pursued a crime prevention policy which is coherent and funded in a way that no other Government at any other time have done. I am sorry that we did not even get grudging approval for that. In matters of crime prevention and in fighting the criminal, the Government have no apology to make.
I return to the point with which I began: the Labour party has a great deal for which to answer when we discuss the problm of lawlessness. Hon. Members from parties that stand on picket lines, riot, and abuse the police and encourage those who use violence, or at least do not condemn it, are in no position to talk in this place about lawlessness, when they are, at least in part, responsible for it.