Fight Against Crime

HC Deb 21 July 1986 vol 102 cc38-76

Mr. Speaker

Before I call the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to move the Opposition motion, I should announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

4.32 pm

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)

I beg to move, That this House, in the light of the collapse of the Government's policies on law and order, calls for the implementation of a national crime prevention programme, including crime prevention grants for owner occupiers and tenants and a safe estates programme, in order to ease the pressure on policing work and so increase levels of detection and therefore deter criminals; and further calls for properly funded Government support for a nationwide system of victim support schemes.

A black cloud of lawlessness hangs over Britain loday. From Caithness to Cornwall, from Ceredigion to Kent, the country is suffering from the worst crime wave ever known. Last year 4,073,853 serious offences were reported in Great Britain. That was a 41 per cent. increase on 1978 — the last full year before the present Prime Minister came to office.

In Thatcher's Britain theft has risen by 30 per cent., violence against the person has risen by 42 per cent., burglaries are up by 52 per cent. and criminal damage is up by 73 per cent. Thatcher's Britain is a Britain in which one crime of violence is committed every four minutes, in which one act of criminal damage is committed ever 51 seconds, in which one burglary is committed ever 32 seconds, in which one case of theft or of handling stolen goods is committed every 15 seconds and in which one serious crime is committed every 8 seconds.

In Thatcher's Britain every family has a 30 per cent. chance of being victims of a serious crime. The crime rate is not only high, but is getting higher. When the Government came to office, 330 serious crimes were being committed every hour. Now, in Thatcher's Britain, not 330 but 465 serious crimes are being committed every hour.

Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman

No. The Government took nearly an hour of our time with their disgraceful statement, and I cannot give way at this point in my speech.

In Thatcher's Britain the number of crimes of violence committed each day has gone up from 258 to 366. In Thatcher's Britain the number of acts of criminal damage has gone up from 979 a day to 1,695. In Thatcher's Britain the number of burglaries has gone up from 1,752 a day to 2,662. In Thatcher's Britain the number of thefts has gone up from 4,406 a day to 5,728. That was the grim position up to December 1985.

For England and Wales the figures for the first quarter of this year show yet another sharp rise, with total crime up 7 per cent., violence against the person up 5 per cent., theft up 5 per cent., burglary up 8 per cent., and criminal damage up 14 per cent.

Crime is not only costly to victims in terms of damage and injury, but it is a terrible financial drain on the nation. It is an enormous cost to the police, who spend an average of £2,350 on clearing up each crime that is solved. It is a cost to the courts, to the probation and after-care services, to the legal aid service, to the prison system and to the criminal injuries compensation system. The sums involved in the current year total £4,500 million—a 43 per cent. increase in real terms since this Government came to office.

There are also costs to the economy and to individuals of losses due to crime and to precautions against crime. Insurance payments to crime amounted to £320 million in 1984, and £40 million was spent on alarm systems. The Home Office estimates that in 1984 the total value of property stolen in offences of theft, burglary and robbery was over £1 billion. The cost of fraud is estimated at £3 billion. Much of that fraud is against the Inland Revenue—a highly appropriate crime against the Government, as it is the ultimate act of privatisation. All told it is probable that crime costs our country £10 billion every year. Year by year that cost is growing.

Those are the material costs, but we must add to those the costs to the security and tranquillity of our society. In addition to the facts of crime, there is the fear of crime. Every survey shows the extent of the fear of crime, even among people who may never become victims of crime. The recent Merseyside survey shows that 39 per cent. of respondents worry a lot about crime, 27 per cent. worry about being burgled, and 24 per cent. worry about vandalism. A total of 57 per cent. of women worry about going out on their own after dark. That is almost the same as the proportion of women in Islington who avoid going out after dark for fear of sexual attack or street robbery.

The Home Office study on the fear of crime published in 1984 showed that 52 per cent. of inner city dwellers seriously worry about becoming victims of crime. It showed that 41 per cent. of women in the inner cities feel very unsafe walking alone at night in their neighbourhoods. It showed that 12 per cent. of all inner city residents never go out at night because of crime. The "British Crime Survey", published by the Home Office last year, showed that 40 per cent. of women under 30 were worried about becoming rape victims. Half the women questioned said that they avoided going out unaccompanied after dark. In high crime areas, 18 per cent. of the elderly said that they never went out after dark, wholly or in part because of fear of crime.

Crime and the fear of crime destroy human rights. Every crime means individual suffering and a loss to the whole community. Every crime takes something away from its individual victims—their freedom, their peace of mind, their property, their health or even their lives. Crime of any sort also takes something away from society as a whole. We all lose when someone smashes a public telephone, burns or defaces a building or defrauds the Revenue. However, the fear of crime also diminishes both individuals and society. Parents grow fearful of letting their children out of their sight. The fear of crime changes people's habits and diminishes their freedom of movement and activity. As a Home Office researcher puts it, crime has the disabling consequence of restricting access to the social and cultural opportunities of society. In this predicament, people rightly look to the police for safety and protection. The police do their very best, but far too often they know that that very best is nowhere near good enough. Clear-up rates for many crimes are low, and they are falling. Since the Government came into office the overall crime clear-up rate in England and Wales has fallen from 42 to 35 per cent.; the clear-up rate for theft has fallen from 40 to 35 per cent.; for burglaries from 32 to 29 per cent.; and for criminal damage from 30 to 23 per cent. Nearly three burglars in every four get clean away with the loot, while almost four vandals in every five evade detection and punishment.

There are more police, but the burden on them is greater than ever before. Under this Government the number of crimes committed per police officer has risen from 24 to 29 a year. If the Government reacted to the statistical success rate of the police in the same way as they treated the coal and shipbuilding industries, by now the Prime Minister would have put Sir Ian MacGregor in charge of closing down police stations throughout the country. That reaction to the police would be as unfair and as illogical as it was to other industries and services.

Much of the burden that hinders the police has been imposed by the Government or is the result of Government policy. Public order duties are increasingly distracting police from the priority job of fighting crime. That was made clear by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report this year on the Metropolitan police. He said: There were … occasions when external demands (for example, for public order duties elsewhere) left insufficient numbers to maintain essential services.

The demands of training for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and other onerous Government legislation are reducing the operational effectiveness of the police. In his report in 1985 the chief constable of Staffordshire said that training commitments for the Act has so far resulted in the loss of over 2,000 man weeks of operational availability. He complained: It is often difficult to find the time for training in new legislation without either having to curtail operational availability or cancelling other, equally important, forms of training.

At the Police Federation conference two months ago Mr. Tony Crowe, the chairman of the sergeants section, said that the Act had taken supervising ranks off the street, leaving inexperienced constables to fend for themselves. He said that reduction in the first line of supervision would bring a generation of constables who had never had the necessary advice and guidance to develop skills.

A report in The London Standard of 10 July quoted police in Brixton as saying: Some detective work is now being done by telephone and residents are going to have to realise the choice we have. Do we take men away from a murder inquiry to investigate something like a stolen car radio? That's what staff shortages mean to us.

A parliamentary answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) last week gave the disturbing news that since this Government came to office the number of police in London and the City engaged in the investigation of company fraud has actually been reduced, at a time when fraud is soaring and is more dangerous a crime than it has ever been.

Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield)

rose—

Mr. Kaufman

I do not have time to give way. The Government took up an enormous amount of time with a disgraceful statement about social security. That has taken time away from the Opposition debate.

In the face of this alarming story of record crime rates, reduced clear-up rates and reduced police efficiency, what we get from this Government is a combination of shrill slogans and ineffable complacency. In their 1979 manifesto, the Conservatives proclaimed: Surer detection means surer deterrence. Detection is less sure now than it was seven years ago. In their 1983 manifesto the Government said vaingloriously: already street crime is being reduced and public confidence improved in some of the worst inner-city areas. Yet in those inner-city areas crime under this Government has risen by two thirds — half as much again as the depressing national average.

The Home Secretary said in a press release last March that the number of burglaries had fallen by 4 per cent. the previous year, which suggested that the crime prevention campaign might be beginning to bear fruit. He spoke too soon, because in the quarter that ended with the very month during which he made that boast burglaries rose by 8 per cent.

In this House two months ago the Home Secretary said: Local authorities can use the housing investment resources available to them for crime prevention and security measures."—[Official Report, 8 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 281.]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be completely unaware that under this Government those housing investment resources have been slashed by 70 per cent. Local authorities do not even have the cash to carry out their most basic housing responsibilities, let alone expand the necessary work of crime prevention.

On 13 March the Prime Minister said, in her most characteristic let-them-eat-cake frame of mind: Most people will and should he able to make their own provision for crime prevention." — [Official Report, 13 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 1079.] We know that that is exactly what the right hon. Lady is preparing to do for herself in her retreat to Fort Dulwich, but surveys such as that in Islington show that income is a major factor in determining whether security devices are installed and that many people who would like to take crime prevention measures cannot afford to do so. It is time for a nationally led and co-ordinated crime prevention campaign. It is clear from their ludicrous amendment to the Labour party motion that no such lead can be expected from this Government.

Already the Government's efforts to show what they are doing about crime prevention have taken on an air of pathos. Earlier this month the Home Secretary planted a question with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that had so little positive to claim about Government action on crime prevention that his answer was reduced to boasting about raising the profile of crime prevention and urging various organisations to identify crime prevention potential. Two seminars have been held at Downing street amid the kind of fanfares that Mr. Bernard Ingham usually reserves for vilifying a Cabinet Minister out of favour. Nothing positive has come from either seminar.

The Government's amendment goes through the usual motions of proclaiming additional resources … devoted to law and order". In fact, expenditure on policing during the current financial year in real terms is due to fall slightly. The report on spending on law and order produced a few months ago by the partly Government funded National Institute of Economic and Social Research states: there is little ostensible association between police resources and recorded clear up rates. The outcome of all the spending has been a 4 per cent. increase in serious crime.

Cuts and spending ceilings imposed by the Government on local authorities—for example, £20,000 million less in rate support grant — mean fewer caretakers, park-keepers and attendants who look after public places and the people who use them. The loss of these public employees means more graffiti, vandalism and petty crime. It means also that public places stay vandalised or derelict for longer periods. That in turn reduces the character of the environment and stimulates further crime.

That is why the Labour Government will launch an immediate programme aimed at preventing crime and making neighbourhoods safer. We want to help city, town and rural areas, tenants and owner-occupiers. Some council estates have suffered especially high crime rates. The fear of crime is both deep and wide, especially in inner city estates, and it causes people to be trapped into their homes from dusk till dawn. They are fearful even of opening their doors to callers.

Many estates face intense problems because of bad design, inadequate maintenance, cuts in caretaking and other staff, insensitive and remote bureaucracy, inadequate provision for children and families, inadequate privacy and insulation, no opportunity for people to meet in safety and insufficient protection for ethnic minorities and other victims of harassment. All these problems can be reduced with the right approach from national Government and local government and from the community as a whole. The Labour party's policy towards crime prevention on local authority housing estates acknowledges that improving security and public safety and reducing crime are linked crucially to increased investment in public sector housing.

Labour will act to make tenants safer and more secure. We need more resident caretakers, tower-block receptionists and other estate staff who are properly trained, supervised and supported, in conjunction with physical security measures, a responsive repairs service, a sensitive allocation policy and effective neighbourhood policing. Such measures will be planned in accordance with the wishes of the local community. As we say in our motion, Labour will establish "a safe estates programme". With the increased allocations for housing expenditure that Labour will make available, local authorities will be encouraged to place more caretakers, including resident caretakers, and to strengthen front entrance doors, frames, locks and windows.

Mr. Tim Smith

How much will it all cost?

Mr. Kaufman

Much less than the £10 billion that the economy loses as a result of crime.

We shall improve lighting on streets, stairwells, corridors, balconies and walkways. We shall replace breakable fittings and materials with those that cannot be broken. We shall install entryphone systems and closed circuit television surveillance in medium and high-rise blocks. We shall adopt design changes to reduce crime and the fear of it—

Mr. Tim Smith

Unbreakable windows?

Mr. Kaufman

I bet that the Prime Minister has unbreakable windows at Dulwich.

We shall adopt design changes to reduce crime and the fear of it by reducing the number of escape routes for criminals, by removing connecting walkways and by partitioning large blocks. We shall establish carefully located and supervised play areas and introduce regular patrolling on foot by caretakers and other council employees. We shall establish more support for established tenants' and residents' associations.

The Labour Government will take measures also to prevent crime in private housing and in public places. We shall legislate in our first Session to make available crime prevention grants on application by both home owners and tenants. These grants will be available within the rateable value limits that apply to improvement grants and repair grants. Their cost will be contained within the increased housing investment allocations that will be provided to local authorities as part of the Labour Government's drive against bad housing and unemployment. Such grants will be extremely cost-effective. The average cost of clearing up a crime is nearly 50 times more than the cost of basic home security provision. Let it be known throughout the country that tonight Tory Members will be voting against a national system of crime prevention grants.

The Labour Government will ensure that local authorities involve residents in the planning of security and safety measures in homes and in the surrounding streets or courtyards. We shall encourage the provision of safer public transport. We believe that security should be improved by providing alarm buttons and closed-circuit TV at bus and train stations and by closing off little-used passageways, especially on Underground systems. We shall — [Interruption.] I am interested to note that Conservative Members should heckle so much. I am putting forward practical plans to deal with crime, and all we get from Conservative Members and the Government is waffle, seminars and slogans. There is no action and we have the worst crime rate that Britain has ever known.

Mr. John Wheeler (Westminster, North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman

The needs of security and the fears of passengers on public transport—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall not give way to the pathetic hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), who merely rises to toady to the Government on every possible opportunity.

The needs of security and the fears of passengers—

Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) as a pathetic Member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

There is nothing unparliamentary about that.

Mr. Kaufman

There can never be anything unparliamentary about the truth, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The needs of security and the fears of passengers on public transport should be taken into account in planning bus routes, bus stop location and crewing. We shall take measures to reduce the high level of car crime. We shall have discussions with manufacturers to produce design changes—

Mr. Wheeler

That is being done now.

Mr. Kaufman

But nothing is happening, even after seven years.

Mr. Wheeler

It will happen.

Mr. Kaufman

These design changes will be related, for example, to steering column locks and electronic locking and alarms.

Mr. Wheeler

That was done in 1979.

Mr. Kaufman

Are Conservative Members saying that the measures that I am suggesting have been in operation for seven years, bearing in mind the 41 per cent. increase in crime and the highest level of auto crime ever known?

The Government and Conservative Members generally now make many claims and all sorts of promises. They have had seven years in which to keep their promises and yet they have broken every one. Let it be clearly understood that when Conservative Members vote this evening they will be voting against the Labour party's safe estates and crime prevention campaigns.

Even with much more co-ordinated community action in defence of law and order, the Labour Government will still inherit a high level of crime. Many crimes mean many victims and it is time for much more positive action to be taken to support victims at their time of loss and injury. The Government have the impertinence in their amendment to claim credit for the development of victim support schemes, but the victim support movement tells a different story. Government support for the movement amounts to precisely to £286,000.

Mr. Tim Smith

That is more than the Labour Government provided.

Mr. Kaufman

That sum is small enough in itself and it is not even available in the long-term.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

How much did the Labour Government provide?

Mr. Kaufman

In his report, which was issued the week before last, the chairman of the National Association of Victims Support Schemes expressed concern that no Government allocation had been made to extend beyond 1987. He contrasted what he described as the Home Secretary's "fine words" with the absence of secure funding. He said: the last twelve months have been marked by a growing anger at the mis-match between official statements of support for victim support schemes and the level of financial assistance provided. He warned against the Government abdicating their responsibility towards victims.

The association's annual report starkly stated: The precarious position of schemes' finances unquestionably limits their scope to develop a full service to the victims of crimes. Not only the shortage of funds, but also their lack of continuity, continue serving as grievous constraints on the work of many schemes. The Association of Chief Police Officers made the accusation that the effectiveness of victims support schemes is constrained through inadequate and haphazard funding". Set against those facts, today's Government amendment is the rankest hypocrisy. A Labour Government will act to ensure that victims support schemes are available throughout the country. Many parts of Britain entirely lack such schemes, yet the work carried out by those schemes, to counsel, comfort and help crime victims, including abused children, battered wives and rape victims, is beyond price. We will discuss with the National Association of Victims Support Schemes what sums of money it needs to provide the services that it regards as essential. When we have costed them carefully, we will provide the money that is needed. Victim support on a much larger and wider scale calls for sums that are tiny within the national budget. We will enable that support to be provided. When Tory Members vote this evening, they will be voting against positive Government assistance for victim support.

Crime is a disease in our society. Every disease has its causes. The Government fail to address those causes. In fact, they are responsible for some of them. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research gives details of the links between social deprivation and crime. It points out that those authorities that have the highest recorded crime rates include those most densely populated, those with the worst overcrowding and those with high rates of unemployment.

The position was put even more bluntly in the annual report of the chief constable of Greater Manchester, which was published last week. In that report, Mr. James Anderton dealt directly with Greater Manchester, but it applies to the country as a whole. He said: Burdens on police in Greater Manchester have grown against a background of alarming unemployment generally averaging 15 per cent. for all age groups throughout the area, but with a much larger problem in the inner-city. Perhaps of more telling significance, from the standpoint of law and public order, is the fact that the figure for long-term unemployment among the crime-prone younger age groups in the worst affected parts of the conurbation, not just in the inner-city, ranges from 50 per cent. to a staggering 80 per cent. or more. Policing certainly has to be wise, caring and sensible in those distinctive localities where almost the entire population is out of work and living on 'social security.'

High levels of crime tell us not only about the kinds of criminals at large in our society, but about the kind of society that creates the conditions that nurture such criminals. When confrontation is deliberately incited, when bitterness is provoked and envy is stirred up, when more and more people are frustrated, living without hope, and made to feel that society has rejected them, crimes of every kind are more likely to be committed.

Under this Government, Britain has become a family divided against itself. Division is deliberately stirred up between old and young, the retired and those still at work, employed and unemployed, north and south, black and white, inner city and suburbs. No family can prosper when some of its members feel neglected and despised. To have any hope of success, the fight against crime needs a new start. For that new start, we need a new Government.

5.4 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof, 'reaffirms its support for the Government's commitment to pursuing an honest, vigorous and coherent policy in the fight against crime; welcomes the additional resources the Government has devoted to law and order, the success of Government backed crime prevention initiatives such as Neighbourhood Watch and property marking schemes, the encouragement given to local crime prevention initiatives, and the development of victim support schemes; expresses support for the police in their efforts to build closer links with the community; and believes everybody has a responsibility to participate in the fight against crime.'. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) seems to believe that by repeating statistics he can make them less misleading. He repeated statistics that he has cited in the House. They are designed to show that the "black cloud", as he called it, settled over Britain—what he called "Thatcher's Britain" — in the years following 1979. If we are to have a serious discussion, I hope that we can start from the fact that recorded crime has risen steadily—between 5 and 7 per cent.—over the past 30 years.

One can toss about statistics. I could, if I wished to do so, show the right hon. Gentleman that violent crime, which is what concerns most people most of the time, rose substantially faster in what I suppose I must call Wilson's and Callaghan's Britain. Since 1979, that type of crime has slowed down in its rate of increase. Although the right hon. Gentleman spent at least 10 minutes tossing about such statistics, I do not think that it is sensible to do so. I am prepared to agree that the nation faces a major problem that has been mounting over 30 years, and that it requires a major and a national effort to deal with it.

The right hon. Gentleman's party has no credentials or credibility to allow it to join in such an effort. We heard nothing today from the right hon. Gentleman about attacks on the police and on most things that they do which have characterised past debates on the subject, especially the recent debate on policing in London. The right hon. Gentleman made an unfair and an inexact comment or two, especially about police training under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. When there is a major piece of new legislation, there must be a major and a once and for all development of police training. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would be the first to complain if the police were not adequately trained in the law of the land, especially in the safeguards for the citizen which the Act introduced.

Those safeguards were long debated by the right hon. Gentleman and me in Committee and on the Floor of the House. They are extensive and, in some respects, complicated. They would have been much more extensive and complicated if we had accepted the Opposition's amendments. During those debates we tried to keep the scheme and the safeguards as simple as we could, bearing in mind the burden on the police that would inevitably result.

Mr. Wheeler

rose—

Mr. Hurd

I shall give way to my hon. Friend because he was grossly maltreated by the right hon. Member for Gorton.

Mr. Wheeler

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he and I spent 59 sittings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, the Opposition pressed strongly for safeguards concerning liberty and the treatment of individuals, and that my right hon. Friend saw the wisdom of many of them? Does my right hon. Friend not find it curious that the Opposition should now criticise an Act that they played a part in developing for the obligations that it imposes on the police service?

Mr. Hurd

I agree. The right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members generally thrive on a short memory, because if people had long memories, Labour's arguments would rapidly collapse.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned public order duties. I am worried about the way in which the argument is developing. I do not understand the Labour party's position on public order. It seems to boil down to saying that some people deserve protection and others do not, and that, for example, the electricians and others who choose to work at Wapping should be left out of account. I do not know whether the argument is that there should be no policing at Wapping, so that it is impossible for people to exercise their right to work, or whether there should be only enough police to ensure that they are outdone and outnumbered by the pickets. The right hon. Gentleman did not develop that argument. It is an absolutely crucial argument if we are to get the balance right.

The question of the balance in the use of resources inside any police force, including the Metropolitan police, must be left to the chief officer of police. I am deeply concerned that the Labour party's proposals would lead to the politicisation of police forces and political decisions as to who should be protected by the law and the police and who should not. No doubt, there will be occasions on which Labour Members can develop their points.

The subject of the Opposition's motion is crime prevention and victim support, and I welcome that. Strenuous efforts in crime prevention were begun by my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). Of course, that work had been going on before but he placed new emphasis on it and put new resources into it. Since then, we have always been missionaries in this respect. If the right hon. Member for Gorton and his colleagues are to join in the efforts and activities that are afoot throughout the country, they are welcome. The fact that they have lagged a little behind in the past makes their joining no less welcome now.

Of course, there is a difference in approach, which is illustrated by the Opposition's motion and the Government's amendment. The main difference between us is not on the need for crime prevention but on the attitudes to public spending in relation to it. I could not understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Gorton. Presumably, he was at the gathering at the weekend at Bishop's Stortford and knows what the instructions are. They are clear— that Labour will tax the very rich, which means those on £27,000 a year, which will yield £3.6 billion. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has told us that that money will be used for just four provisions—pensions, child benefit, long-term unemployment pay and tax allowances for low-paid couples, and nothing else. Opposition spokesmen are enjoined not to promise anything else during the first two years in government. That is the distinction— famous in the Labour party— between the pledge and the lightly given promise. We have pledges, which fall within the £3.6 billion, and lightly given promises, which are the rest of the £24 billion so far promised. The schemes of the right hon. Member for Gorton, including those announced today, clearly fall into the category of the lightly given promises. They will not be undertaken in those two years, although the right hon. Gentleman said something very different today. I do not understand therefore how, after what we have heard about the Labour party's priorities, the right hon. Gentleman can pretend that he is giving priority to crime prevention or to victim support.

Once again, by pretending to give priority to everything, the Opposition are clearly showing that they give priority to nothing and that they have not thought matters through. One must therefore turn to the past to see where their real priorities are likely to lie in the future. When one considers the disgraceful state in which my predecessors in 1979 found the prisons and the police, it seems unlikely that the type of activities that the right hon. Member for Gorton now praises will find any decent priority in a Labour Government's programme.

I should like to consider what is being done. I hope that the House will forgive me if I dwell on this, but the main thesis of the right hon. Member for Gorton was that we were doing nothing, except making a few speeches and sermons. I should like to start with the work of the police in crime prevention. I am anxious that this work should be stressed because I am concerned that, in recent weeks, much publicity has been attached to the police and their equipment for use in the last resort if there was a breakdown in public order. It is high time that a little more attention was paid to what the police are doing day by day to prevent crime.

Police work with young people in schools is obviously crucial in view of the peak age of offending — 15 for boys and 14 for girls. Undoubtedly, it is an advantage to have 43 different local police forces, almost all of which are experimenting and innovating. The Staffordshire scheme for young people — SPACE — occupies some 23,000 secondary school pupils for the whole of August each year in more than 2,500 different activities. The signs are that it has contributed to a decrease in offending by youngsters. The West Midlands police have initiated an ambitious project in the Ladywood and Handsworth district of Birmingham — the Ladworth project — in which local agencies work together with community groups to provide recreation and employment opportunities for young people in the inner city.

The Lancashire police run a scheme in the Lake District, which is fully used most weekends of the year in youth activities. The Cumbria and Northamptonshire police forces run more specifically work-orientated schemes to give young people some work experience with the police. The Leicestershire police, whom I recently visited, hope to mount an even more ambitious scheme in the Highfields area of Leicester to give selected youngsters a chance to try a variety of jobs in co-operation with local police.

Those are all police schemes which show how foolish it is to argue that the police neglect this aspect and are interested only in equipment and new powers.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that I have written to him about forensic science problems and the advantage of developing forensic science, especially under Brian Caddy of the university of Strathclyde? Is there not a case for having a forensic department to which defence counsel can turn for second opinions, in view of all the difficulties of the Birmingham six?

Mr. Hurd

Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State could deal with that point in detail. Although it is a serious suggestion, it does not flow immediately from the points I was developing. As regards the Birmingham six, the hon. Gentleman, who takes a serious interest in this matter, knows that I am deliberately taking time to examine whether there is fresh evidence in Mr. Mullins' book.

I shall move now to the activity of other Government agencies involved in the subject which the Opposition chose for their motion and about which the right hon. Member for Gorton said that nothing was being done. We have a programme of measures designed to improve the security of owner — occupiers and tenants. Some of those measures are financial. The Department of the Environment has set aside £50 million of housing capital resources in this financial year for allocation by the urban housing renewal unit to run-down local authority estates. In the 33 cases approved to date, one third of the resources has been spent on crime prevention measures—exactly the sort of point about which the Opposition talk.

The right hon. Member for Gorton may not know about the priority estates programme of the Department of the Environment but it is relevant to his points. That programme is working on measures which help to reduce crime, with special emphasis on the participation of residents — another point made by the right hon. Gentleman. Many of the projects funded through the urban programme contribute to crime prevention. Last year, some £6 million was spent on projects directly concerned with crime. Community programmes involve a substantial commitment of resources to crime prevention projects on housing estates.

Under the national initiative, announced earlier this year, more than 5,000 community programme cases have been approved for crime prevention work. These resources represent a substantial Government investment in safer estates. We are also considering ways of improving the design of estates to deter crime. The Department of the Environment is commissioning consultants to prepare a handbook on improving dwellings and the environmental features of local authority estates with special attention being paid to security and crime prevention. I do not rule out the possibility of developing further action along those lines.

I turn to one aspect which I do not think the right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned but which is crucial in effective crime prevention — the neighbourhood watch scheme. There are now 14,500 schemes in England and Wales—an increase of more than 75 per cent. over the past six months. Properly designed neighbourhood watch schemes can reduce local crime, improve relations between police and the community, reduce the fear of crime—about which the right hon. Member for Gorton is quite right — and provide a new impetus for neighbours to meet and work together.

I suppose, following on from the analysis of the right hon. Member for Gorton, that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of all that. But what is happening, for example, in Manchester under the new leadership of the city council? Far from forging the type of efforts about which the right hon. Member for Gorton made a speech, it is deliberately holding them back. It is making it more difficult for residents to come together with the police to make their streets "safer and more secure", to quote the right hon. Gentleman's objective.

The right hon. Member for Gorton says that more money should be given to local authorities for this purpose. If more money were given to Manchester city council, what would it spend it on? I bet that it would spend the money on producing even glossier and more vicious editions of its disgraceful publication "Police Watch". I say that plucking just one example from the several others that could be used, and there are others in London. If the Labour party is to be taken seriously in the attitude that it has expressed today, it will have to do something to restrain and reverse the policies of those Labour authorities—fortunately, a minority—which are taking exactly the opposite line to that taken by the Labour Front Bench.

We intend to maintain and boost the momentum behind the neighbourhood watch schemes and we shall be launching a new national magazine in co-operation with the private sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will it be a glossy one?"] The difference between what we propose and the behaviour of Manchester city council is that we are helping communities to work with the police to protect their property, whereas Manchester city council is undermining those efforts.

To continue with the list of actions that we are taking, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have told him of the five local schemes that the Home Office is now operating in Swansea, Wellingborough, Croydon, Tyneside and Bolton. A two-week autocrime campaign in Wellingborough concentrating on the major car parks produced a 10 per cent. reduction in thefts of cars in May compared with the same period last year and compared with a 5½ per cent. increase for the Wellingborough subdivision as a whole. Autocrime in the car parks targeted was halved. That is just one small practical example of what is being done through our crime prevention programmes.

The two seminars, which the right hon. Gentleman lightly mocked but which I am glad to say were fully supported by the trade union movement, have produced a whole series of new ventures for preventing crime m both the public sector and the private sector. I hope that we shall be making further announcements about actual decisions in the coming months, but they cover insurance, increased protection against residential burglary and increased security in the design of cars.

The right hon. Gentleman was quite correct to stress that victim support is crucial and that for too long victims have been the forgotten parties in the criminal justice system. The Government have accepted the need to provide the movement with some support from public funds and we have trebled the grant to the National Association of Victims Support Schemes in the past two years, enabling it to increase its staff, to move to larger premises and substantially to expand its work. Contrary to the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman, a survey of 200 local schemes in 1985–86 showed that half were receiving grants from central Government totalling £750,000. This was by far the main source of funds for local schemes, the same 200 receiving £250,000 from local authorities and only £88,000 from private sources such as trusts and charities and their own fund-raising initiatives. There is great scope for expanding and further varying the sources of income for victim support schemes. Nevertheless, this year we are for the first time providing some direct funding for local schemes. We have provided £136,000 to establish a contingency fund administered by the national association to help hard-pressed schemes and 68 schemes have already received grants from that source, which, according to the national association, will serve as a lifeline for many schemes.

The first schemes of this kind were established in Bristol in 1974. There were 30 local schemes when we came to office. There are now 300. In 1985–86, nearly 4,000 trained volunteers dealt with 185,000 victims, mostly referred to them by the police — a sixfold increase. I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should put emphasis on this aspect and we are doing so in this and several other ways. As a further development, we propose to introduce provisions next Session requiring the courts either to make a compensation order when sentencing an offender or to give specific reasons for not doing so, thus shifting the onus and putting a responsibility on the court to make an order or to explain why it is not doing so. We are preparing comprehensive guidelines to help the courts to assess realistic amounts of compensation in personal injury cases.

I hope that I have said enough to show that in the two areas singled out by the Opposition—crime prevention and victim support — major efforts are already in progress, employing not just the resources of the Home Office but the efforts of police, local authorities and a wide range of Government agencies. This should be a national effort and if today's debate, despite the right hon. Gentleman's perverse speech, means that the Opposition now intend to be constructive and put behind them the kind of activity of which I complained in relation to Manchester city council, I welcome them aboard.

In our last debate on these matters I had a rather odd experience. I was chided by the right hon. Gentleman for uttering homilies, but later in his speech he started talking about the need for partnership. For a moment I genuinely thought that he was quoting a speech of mine that I had forgotten so as to mock me further, but he then sat down—having used exactly the type of formulation about partnership that I had used. The Labour party has a long way to go before its credentials in this area are established, but if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends wish to join in a national effort, despite the perversity of their specific proposals, I believe that that will be helpful.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his written answer to my question about the neighbourhood watch scheme in Southampton. I am especially sad that only one of the city's 15 wards has such a scheme and that only four members of the police are currently organising such schemes. Does my right hon. Friend think that there could be a little more publicity and television time devoted to the scheme, as I understand that there is a great deal of literature at the police stations just waiting for people to come forward?

Mr. Hurd

I shall certainly look at the position in Southampton. I think that many cities, having watched the rapid growth of the schemes elsewhere, will now be looking to their laurels to ensure that they compete. The material is certainly readily available from the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may be able to say a little more about Southampton when he winds up, following that useful intervention which illustrates the impetus behind the whole effort. I hope that today's debate will add to that impetus.

5.27 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to a black cloud of lawlessness hanging over the country. The assumption is that crime stems from unemployment, the fragmentation of the family, the glorification of violence on television and, in my view, the example set by the state. I wish to draw attention to one example of that.

On 7 June on the George Negus interview programme on Radio 2UE in Sydney and Radio 3AK in Melbourne, Australia, Mr. Richard Victor Hall made a number of statements about a book by Mr. Peter Wright, a former employee of M15, referring to lawlessness and law breaking in Britain. According to the Australian media, Mr. Peter Wright claimed that M15 had attempted to bug the French and West German embassies in London, placed microphones behind the cipher machines in the Greek and Indonesian embassies, bugged diplomatic conferences at Lancaster house in the 1950s and 1960s and the Zimbabwe independence negotiations in 1979. Mr. Wright alleges that M15 entered Russian consulates abroad, plotted against Mr. Harold Wilson during his 1974–76 premiership and diverted resources to investigate Left-wing groups in Britain instead of setting its own house in order. He is also believed to have details of a plot to assassinate President Nasser during the Suez crisis and details of meetings between officials from American intelligence agencies, the National Security Agency, the CIA, the FBI, GCHQ and M15. He alleges that M15 was involved in the testing of poison on sheep and in switching number plates on vehicles in this country. He also alleges Nikita Khrushchev's suite at Claridges was bugged during his visit in the 1950s and refers to the opening of diplomatic bags by M15 and other forms of law breaking in Britain.

Mr. Wright, who left M15 in 1976 and lives in Tasmania, cannot be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. Instead, our Government are seeking an injunction to prevent Heinemann's Australian subsidiary from publishing his memoirs by bringing a civil suit for breach of confidence. Sir Robert Armstrong, the Cabinet Secretary, has argued in an affidavit that publication would lose confidence in M15's ability to protect classified information. The Government have refused to tell Mr. Wright's lawyers which extract of the memoirs he has written they believe should remain confidential.

That is law breaking in Britain, and we now see our Government involved in a cover up. The proposition in the Government's amendment, which stands in the Prime Minister's name, is rubbish. The Prime Minister does not believe in containing law and order or in reasonable policies on law and order. She believes that it is right for the state to break the law, and that is why the Attorney-General is using the courts in the way that he is at present. He is hiding the breaking of the law by British civil servants.

5.31 pm

Mr. Julian Critchley (Aldershot)

We are witnessing a splendid irony. At the same moment as the Shadow Home Secretary discovers crime, the chairman of the Conservative party stumbles across sin. We shall not be short of sermons!

The relish which the Labour party has brought to the problems of crime—the legacy of the Thatcher years, and so on—is matched only by the relish with which the chairman of the Conservative party upbraids the British people and attacks the "permissive society". It appears that when it comes to crime, it is everyone's fault but our own.

Faced with the question that from time to time our constituents still put to us — "Why can politicians do nothing about crime?" — we politicians are, for a moment at least, lost for words. The Labour party and the Prince of Wales together are inclined to blame the figures for rising crime on rising unemployment, especially among young people. Who am I to quarrel with the Prince of Wales? There is a good deal in that argument. On the other hand, the chairman of the Conservative party goes into the pulpit and blames the so-called permissive society. Working on the assumption that the Conservative party needs all the friends that it can get, he is enlisting the so-called moral majority—salvationists who are no longer interested in the next world, only in this one. May God preserve us from them!

We all know only too well how the argument runs. The moralists say that rising crime is due to kids staying up late at night and watching the telly; to the BBC for showing so much sex and violence; to easier divorce; to married women going out to work; to the fact that homosexual behaviour between adults is no longer a criminal offence; to the fact that a play in the West End is no longer censored; and to the fact that robbers are no longer flogged and murderers no longer swing.

That is nonsense, or worse. It is worse because, as far as I know, the Conservative party is not committed to doing anything about it. Conservatives are not pledged in any manifesto to reverse any of the social legislation that has been passed by this House over the last 15 to 20 years—in which case it is hypocritical as well. However, it is well known that humbug is the essential lubricant of life—certainly of our life in this place.

There is in fact an answer to the question that our constituents are for ever asking — "What can the politicians do about rising crime?". It is quite simple. We should increase the price of drink. I beg of hon. Members to stay with me. I have no wish to lose all my friends. Let me explain. In 1946, notifiable offences against the person in England and Wales were 4,062, and the real cost of a bottle of whisky at 1985 prices was £16.30. By 1956, under Sir Anthony Eden, the real cost of a bottle of whisky had fallen to £14.60 and violent crime figures had risen to nearly 8,000. I beg hon. Members to stay with me because the story gets better.

In 1961, in the golden days of Lord Stockton, violent crime rose to 15,000, and by 1965, under Lord Wilson, it went up to nearly 30,000. In 1970, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) —the old Pretender—the real cost of the hard stuff had fallen to £12.60 and violent crime against the person had risen to 41,000. By 1975, under the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and Lord Wilson, the cost of a bottle of whisky had fallen to £9.15, and violent crime soared to 71,000. By 1980, the first year of the "counter revolution," the cost of a bottle of Scotch had fallen to £7.70 and the figures for violent crime rose to 97,000. In 1985, whisky still cost £7.70 and violent crime rose to a record 119,000 offences.

I have left the Scots until last. If anything, they have been prepared to take an even more handsome advantage of a 60 per cent. fall in the real cost of whisky over the past 40 years— patriots to a man and woman.

I am no statistician. I know the old joke about statistics, drunks and lamp-posts. But there must be a relationship between drink—particularly the hard stuff—and, violent crime. Ask David Lloyd George or, if he cannot be found, John Grigg. Ask the Russians, the Swedes, the Icelanders or the Finns. Ask anyone. If the Government are really concerned to do something about the remorseless rise in crime—this applies equally to the Opposition—why not increase the tax on booze? I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: was not sobriety a Victorian virtue?

5.38 pm

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

During the first 55 minutes of the debate I was reminded of one of the favourite stories of my children—how the elephant got his trunk. But in the version to which we listened it was difficult to ascertain who was the elephant and who was the crocodile.

On the one hand, the Home Secretary claimed at least some measure of success in his criminal justice policy and the fight against crime which he said the Government were putting up. However, we heard ample evidence of the failure of that policy, in the waterfall of correct statistics that were produced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).

On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Gorton claimed that the Labour party had the recipe for preventing crime; but that comes from a party whose credibility is perhaps not of the highest in this area. It comes from a party that is apparently prepared to palliate the consequences of criminal conviction for miners who were convicted of criminal offences—some of violence—against individuals. It comes from a party that in some areas is not prepared to allow often the most popular visitor—the uniformed police constable who comes as a crime prevention officer—into primary schools. It comes from a party that is not prepared to give the sort of encouragement to responsible neighbourhood watch schemes — and, of course, they need careful control—that it ought to be giving. It comes from a party that even in the city that includes the constituency of the right hon. Member for Gorton—and I saw a copy of this waved at the right hon. Gentleman at a fringe meeting at the Police Federation conference to which he referred — has been issuing a newsletter to the population which frequently contains clear attacks upon the police.

Both the Government and the Labour party seem to have lost sight of the fundamental priorities of which we should be speaking when we discuss the prevention of crime. I hope that the whole House will agree that the priorities of a successful criminal justice and crime prevention policy within a fair system of legal checks and balances are, first, to ensure that people can live in their homes without the fear of those homes being ravaged and looted by burglars and vandals and, secondly, to ensure that people, whether they be young or old, male or female, black or white, can walk the streets without the fear of their peace being disturbed. As we approach the conclusion of the debate, we should be able to show the public that politicians regard those as the fundamental priorities and that they are looking for solutions which will enable those priorities to succeed.

The Labour party motion is commendable so far as it goes. I particularly congratulate the right hon. Member for Gorton on his reference to victim support schemes. I agreed with him wholeheartedly when he criticised the Government for talking humbug in pretending that they had given proper support to those schemes. But the right hon. Gentleman presented the House with a bizzare form of salesmanship of double glazing. In his society of closed-circuit televisions in every public place, of double-glazed houses so that it is harder to break windows, of smash-proof windows, of more caretakers, of strengthened car locks and more cars with alarms, what will the Labour party do to attack the underlying causes of crime?

It is not good enough and it will not satisfy the public to talk about a policy which tinkers around the superficialities of making homes and cars more secure without addressing the more fundamental realities of the crime problem and thus of crime prevention. The Labour party motion does not refer to that. The proposals made by the Labour party, albeit rather gift-wrapped by the right hon. Gentleman, but even in their unwrapped form, obviously go some way towards easing the burden on police officers, although it is questionable whether the programme can be delivered economically. But those proposals do nothing to improve the quality and nature of the attack which we must make on crime.

It is far more important for us to look at the structure, organisation, and accountability of the police to ascertain whether, through promoting and increasing the efficiency of our police forces, we can tackle the wave of crime of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. We could swamp the country with police officers, but that would be unacceptable. We must strike a balance between increasing the numbers of police officers on the streets and overpolicing with consequent reduction of the quality of our police forces.

When we compare the sort of proposals made by the Labour party in its motion with what can be done through conventional policing and enhancing the efficiency of police forces, let us not forget the cost-effectiveness of the ordinary bobby. If all a police constable on the beat achieves in one year is to keep one person out of prison for one year, he has paid his salary and is cost-effective. The fight against crime is being lost because we are not making use of our police officers cost effectively and because we do not have sufficient police officers where they are needed. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but he will know that if the Thames Valley police area, which includes his constituency of Witney, were to have sufficient police officers to meet the average policing rate for England and Wales, its manpower would have to be increased by 25 per cent. The Home Secretary knows that fact, and he knows that the chief constable of the Thames Valley police believes that he should be given more officers in order to be able to mount proper squads of detectives and a full effort in the prevention of crime. It is impossible to understand the Home Secretary's reasons for depriving Thames Valley police of the manpower that it needs merely to be an average sized police force in proportion to the population of its enormous area.

The fight against crime is being lost both in the number of crimes and in the seriousness of the crimes committed. I shall not weary the House by repeating the statistics given by the right hon. Member for Gorton. At times some forces claim an improvement in clear-up rates, or at least evidence of improvement. The Home Secretary will be aware that in The Observer of 13 July 1986 certain allegations were made by PC Ronald Walker of the Kent constabulary about the genuineness of those clear-up rates at least for part of Kent. He will be aware that that was not a new complaint but was already under investigation. I hope that he will agree that it is in the public interest, and certainly in the interests of the police, that genuine clear-up rates should always be available. I trust that he will take steps to ensure that guidelines are issued to police forces so that there is some uniformity in the way in which clear-up rates are prepared, and so that the public and the House are not misled into believing that the police are having greater success in clearing up crime than is the case. I refer in particular to the so-called system of write-offs, in which statements are prepared either by or purporting to be by people in prison convicted of crimes, who accept that they committed many other crimes.

In the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister there is yet another claim by the Government which suggests that the Conservative party has some sort of proprietary interest in law and order, and that it is the only party which is remotely capable of delivering law and order. We have already heard the statistics. It is particularly alarming to see a reference in the amendment to the Government's commitment to pursuing an honest, vigorous and coherent policy in the fight against crime. Does the Home Secretary believe that the 25 per cent. undermanning in the Thames Valley police is evidence of vigour?

Mr. Hurd

The hon. and learned Gentleman is falling into the increasingly prevalent trick, or trap, of describing as a cut or deprivation an increase which is somewhat smaller than those concerned would like. He will know that among the increases in police forces announced this year are a 73 post increase for Merseyside, a 50 post increase for Thames Valley, a 40 post increase for Norfolk, a 29 post increase for Warwickshire, and an 18 post increase for Devon and Cornwall. Those are the first results of the further increase, on top of the already massive increase, which we propose for the police forces of England and Wales outside London.

Mr. Carlile

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving those figures. He has reminded the House that for the Thames Valley police force, including his own constituency, 50 extra officers are being allowed this year; but he knows perfectly well that in order for Thames Valley to have the same ratio of police to population as the average police force in England and Wales, he should have given it not 50 but 750 extra police officers this year. I do not believe that the Home Secretary can satisfactorily deny that figure. It is indeed a deprivation. Thames Valley is entitled to the same rate of policing as any other part of the country. It is a deprivation of which there is evidence in other areas. Manchester was quoted earlier as another example.

Does the Home Secretary suggest that that kind of deprivation is evidence of a commitment to a vigorous policy of crime prevention? Is it really evidence of a coherent policy on crime prevention? Above all, is it honest for the Government to come to the House and say, "We are making all these efforts to prevent crime," but at the same time to hide in the statistics the fact that they are not giving the chief constables, who know how many police officers they need to have just an average sized force, that size of force? That is what is happening in many police forces, including Thames Valley.

The reality is that it does not need the right hon. Member for Gorton, the Home Secretary, me, or any other hon. Member to tell the Government what policing is needed. The good British public will tell the Government what policing is needed. Not even the wisdom of Lord Scarman is required to tell the Government what is needed to improve policing and prevent crime.

If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were to ask the public of this country what they believe is needed to improve crime prevention, they would give you the right answer, and it would be along these lines: that it is as important for a member of the public to know who is his local police officer as it is for him to know the name of his newsagent, doctor, milkman and chemist; that it is absolutely vital that there should be restored to the streets of this country something which many people of a generation older than I remember well—the local police officer from the local whole-time or part-time police station, according to the needs of his area; that it is absolutely necessary, not only in the inner cities but in the smaller towns and villages of this country, to ensure that the people can see their police in action — not whizzing past in panda cars but, wherever possible, policing on foot. That is not happening now.

In their amendment, the Government express support for the police. Of course the Government expresses support for the police in their efforts to build closer links with the community". Nobody could doubt the truth of those words in the Government's amendment. However, they do not give the support that the police need in their efforts to build closer links with the community". The result is that the morale of the public, as they face increasing crime, and the morale of the police, as they do their best to swim against the tide of increasing crime, is being sapped.

Connected with all this is the problem of the police authorities. Even those who are on police authorities barely know — indeed, some of them do not know—what are their rights and responsibilities. The system of police authorities is in chaos. I shall not dwell on the Stalker case because we have had plenty of opportunities to raise that issue, but the Manchester police authority quite plainly has not understood the responsibilities placed upon it under section 86 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in relation to Mr. Stalker. However, it is not surprising that it has not understood its responsibilities, because they are almost completely incomprehensible.

More than 20 years after the last Royal Commission on the police there is a great need to look once again—in a society that has changed so much and, in the context of policing, in a society that has changed so dramatically—at the role and structure of the police and police authorities. What has been said by the two Front Bench spokesmen in the debate is symptomatic of the fact that neither the Government nor the Labour party are going to the root causes of the malaise in the policy towards policing and, to an extent, in the police themselves. They are simply looking at ways of trying to treat the symptoms as quickly as possible, though superficially.

I ask the Home Secretary to institute a deep and far-ranging, though not a lingering, inquiry into the police along the lines of a Royal Commission. It is quite clear from reading the Scarman report on the Brixton disturbances that there are many aspects of policing that we ought to look at from scratch.

I should like to make two other brief points to the Home Secretary, which I am sure he will accept are important. The first relates to our prisons. I was pleased to read that slopping out is to end in Wormwood Scrubs prison. I wish that we could say the same about many other prisons where slopping out still takes place. There is an abundance of evidence that savage or insanitary prisons do not prevent crime; they simply harden criminals. We have all heard and read about the Government's prison building programme. However, I ask the Home Secretary to look once again at that programme to ensure, even if he remains committed to building additional spaces into the prison system, which I believe is wrong, that there are far greater and far quicker improvements in local prisons, where many of the insanitary places are to be found, so that soon we may have at least a moderately civilised prison system.

The other specific point that I wish to mention to he Home Secretary, which I hope that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), will be able to deal with, relates to forensic science services. There was a time when, if the police went to the scene of a crime and wanted to call in forensic, as they called them, forensic came to the scene and took their samples, and within a couple of weeks, at the most, the basics of a forensic report were available for the investigating officers. Those reports could form, and often have formed, the basis of further interviews of suspects.

One cannot underestimate the importance of forensic evidence in the investigation of a crime. Sometimes it seems to be thought that it is important only in the presentation of the case to the court, but that is not correct. When murders are committed in England and Wales and when the police inevitably have to call for forensic evidence, the fact is that nowadays they are having to wait for weeks and weeks for reports, that forensic inquiries into murder cases and other serious crimes are being stockpiled at the laboratories and that there are insufficient Home Office forensic scientists of sufficient seniority and experience to deal with all the inquiries that are made of them by the police alone.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who believes that forensic science laboratories should be truly independent and fully available to both prosecution and defence. At the moment, those laboratories cannot begin to deal properly with prosecution, let alone defence. This is a scandal, because it is affecting detection rates and thus the prevention of crime. I hope that the Minister will give us some real evidence of the Government's determination to deal with the problem.

6 pm

Mr. Mike Woodcock (Ellesmere Port and Neston)

This debate is of necessity brief, and I shall conform by being as brief as I can in my speech. The debate is about putting people first, and all kinds of people are involved in the judicial process. I share with Opposition Members a great concern about the rise in crime. However, I believe that the Government have done a great deal to strengthen and support the police, to give at least some relief to the victims of crime and to make life more difficult for the offenders. I hope that all of us are concerned about the rise in crime, and more concerned with solving the problem than in scoring political points.

The administration of justice involves more than the police, the victim and the offender. The police alone cannot prevent crime. They cannot observe every house, factory or shop, or even every motoring offence. They need the help of the public, and the success of the various home watch schemes demonstrates the potential pay-off. Justice requires the active co-operation of the public, and that demands a public that is ready and willing to help, not one that prefers to look the other way. A great deal more could be done to secure such co-operation.

I have five simple suggestions about what to do to secure more co-operation from the general public in the fight against crime. The first is the way in which we treat our civilian witnesses in the courts. Many hon. Members may have been witnesses in criminal or even civil cases and may have had experience of the treatment that we hand out to those who are giving their time to help the judicial process. Usually, witnesses are told to arrive at a court at 10 o'clock in the morning, although they may not be required by the court for hours. Often, there are no decent facilities in which to wait. They share over-crowded waiting rooms with offenders, chain smokers, and screaming children. There is nowhere comfortable to sit and coffee or tea is not made available. There is little information, even about when they will be required to give evidence to the court.

After they have waited for so long, cases are brought on largely for the convenience of the court and the professional lawyers, with little or no regard for the convenience of those who are giving their time in the fight against crime. If such witnesses are unfortunate enough to be there at lunchtime, they find that, while the prisoners go back to their cells and are given a free meal, the police retire to their staff canteens and the lawyers go back to their offices, they are left behind to fend for themselves, usually without the simplest form of guidance on where they can obtain a quick meal.

Eventually, when witnesses are called, many of them frightened, even petrified, by the experience of giving evidence, they face rigorous cross-examination, which often makes them feel that they are the criminals rather than those who are being tried. At the end, when they put in a relatively modest claim for expenses, which almost certainly will not cover their full costs, again they may be faced with cross-examination and made to feel that they are claiming something to which they are not entitled. When that ordeal is over, as Mr. Average Citizen walks out of the court, he says, "Never again. The next time I see a crime or suspicious circumstances, I shall look the other way." Witnesses in our judicial system need to feel that they are valued, well-treated and according society a privilege. All too often, the feelings engendered are the reverse.

Secondly, the public needs to have much more confidence in punishments fitting the crime. Too often offenders walk away from our courts laughing about the leniency of the sentences that are handed out. After 15 years as a magistrate, I can confidently say that this is not always the fault of the courts. Magistrates need much more freedom in selecting appropriate punishments. The short, sharp, shock treatment of detention centres for young offenders needs to be used much earlier in the hierarchy of punishment. Community service, which is excellent in concept, needs much more rigorous supervision, and, if necessary, administration by police rather than the probation service, which is often more reluctant to apply proper standards of discipline. The Home Office may believe that community service orders are alternatives to custodial sentences, but the number of hours recommended and the supervision of these schemes mean that they are no effective alternative.

Probation orders need to be more tightly supervised by a probation service that recognises that, while help is the substance of probation orders, punishment is also important. We need to move much further towards offenders paying the full cost of their crimes, particularly with vandalism, with parents being responsible for the full cost of restitution for damage by children.

Thirdly, we need, as many people have suggested, independent investigation of serious complaints against the police. I have nothing but admiration for our excellent police service. It is deservedly the envy of the world, but where corruption is involved, the public needs to have confidence that complaints are being independently investigated. Justice must be seen to be done, and that is as true in the police force as it is in the wider community.

Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the independent Police Complaints Authority is already able to oversee any investigation of any crime alleged against any police officer, and must be satisfied that the investigation is being conducted properly or else it can order another one?

Mr. Woodcock

I understand that that is the case. However, my hon. Friend knows that that process is not seen to be independent by members of the public. There is a great deal of support within the police force for an independent investigation system.

Mr. Alex Carlile

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Police Federation — which I thought that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds represented in the House —is in favour of his views?

Mr. Woodcock

I was not aware of that fact, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) will make himself aware of that fact, if he was not already so aware. However, time is short and I do not want this to turn into a debate about the pros and cons of the investigation of police complaints.

My fourth point is that I believe that there should be a separation of police traffic duties from other duties. Nothing alienates the public more from the police than their involvement in minor traffic offences and nothing alienates the public from the courts more than the perceived disparity in fines that are handed out for minor motoring offences and those handed out for what the public perceives as the much more serious offences of dishonesty, violence and vandalism. I do not know how that division could be brought about, but the Home Secretary should examine this carefully, because it would greatly raise the standing of the police in the eyes of the public.

Fifthly, there is a need for much better feedback from the police to those assisting and those reporting crime. Too often offences are reported by the public, who gain the impression, probably wrongly, that the police are not interested, particularly in cases of neighbourhood disputes, vandalism and nuisance. When the police take further action, there is a lack of information on what action has been taken. A short letter to those who report crimes, after the event, telling them the outcome of the investigations and thanking them for their help would be a simple matter of good public relations.

Our judicial system is the envy of the world. Our police force is second to none. But the whole judicial process demands the public's active co-operation. Much more must be done to assure the public that their help is needed and valued, and, perhaps even more importantly, that, if they give it, they will be treated with the consideration and respect that is due to them.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It may help the House if I say that the first Front-Bench speaker hopes to catch my eye at 6.40 pm.

6.10 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I happened to believe that the Home Secretary, the Minister of State and senior officials at the Home Office take the difficult problems of the Birmingham six extremely seriously and conscientiously. Can they say when they hope to give any response to Chris Mullin's well thought out case?

I and others have been asking questions about the forensic side of that story and about Dr. Frank Skuse. There is also the basic question whether the defence should have access to forensic science advice and expertise. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in asking for a comment, particularly in the light of the constructive proposals put forward by Dr. Brian Caddy and the University of Strathclyde for a centre in Glasgow that would meet some of these requirements. If no response is made during questions to the Home Office, when is there likely to be one?

Some of us would be interested to hear the Home Office's view not only on the costs of the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) but on the many savings that could result if some of them were put into practice. We often forget that the cost of crime is simply enormous.

I turn to a case that involved the knowing waste of police time. Detective Superintendent Ron Hardy and Detective Sergeant Mike Ashdown were dispatched to the West Indies to try to find out about the log book of HMS Conqueror at the time of the Ponting trial. For the sake of conciseness, I refer to the Official Report for 24 October 1985. I asked the Attorney-General: what was the cost of Detective Superintendent Hardy's visit to the West Indies with a colleague on the investigation relating to the loss of HMS Conqueror's log book." — [Official Report, 24 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 191.] The Solicitor-General replied that it was £6,940.82. That might have been justified if the Government had not known full well that the man whom they were investigating had left the Navy in July 1982, and if the then Secretary of State for Defence had not said, in reply to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower): I regret to announce that our inquiries so far have failed to locate the missing logs or to identify a proven explanation for their disappearance. It is clear that the logs were compiled and probably remained on board the submarine until October or November 1982."—[Official Report, 30 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 593.] The logs were all bound so they could not possibly have been missing until September 1982 at the very earliest. I happen to believe that no log went missing from that submarine, but the point is that the Ministry of Defence knew that the man whom it was investigating, the supplies officer of HMS Conqueror, Lieutenant Mahendra Sethia, had left the Navy in July 1982. In September 1982 he was known to be sailing round the coast of Europe in a yacht. Will the Home Office and those responsible for the police find out who authorised such a visit? Those policemen were knowingly sent on a wild-goose chase. I shall not detain the House by saying why the Government, or certain Ministers, wanted that. I merely want to know on what authority Detective Superintendent Hardy and Detective Sergeant Mike Ashdown went to the West Indies. Was it direct ministerial authority?

My last point will take a little longer. In any discussion of the fight against crime it is common ground that Ministers must be seen to be beyond reproach. Charges have been made against the Attorney-General, the Government chief Law Officer, that he knew that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) had authorised the leak of a letter from the Solicitor-General even before the inquiry had been formally set up. I shall quote from "The Attorney General, Politics and the Public Interest" by Professor John Edwards. Professor Edwards said: The Attorney General, whoever he may be, is not only the legal adviser to the Crown and to the government. He is also a servant of this House. It is, from time to time, his duty to advise the House on legal matters—a duty going beyond his responsibility to this government and the Crown". The charges are said to emanate from a Select Committee. I regard the Attorney-General as an honourable man who has given truthful answers. In fairness to him, I should be interested to know why the Select Committee did riot call him if it contemplated making such accusations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into details that have nothing to do with the motion before us.

Mr. Dalyell

The problem is that such charges or slurs cannot be allowed to rest in limbo when a senior Minister is involved. I say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That may be so, but this is not the time for going into details on the work of the Select Committee or on the charges that may have been made.

Mr. Dalyell

In that case, I have a question about the circumstances in which indemnity is granted. I speak as the Member of Parliament who, rightly or wrongly, named Collette Bowe in the House. The fact is that indemnity was given before 16 January. It may have been given on 13, 14 or 15 January, but it was certainly before 16 January. On 30 January the Attorney-General said: On 22 January, when I was given a summary shortly before receiving the report of the inquiry carried out by the head of the Civil Service." — [Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 586.] That is when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was first informed of the direct involvement of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks.

In what circumstances does an Attorney-General give indemnity to civil servants, however senior, when Ministers, however exhalted, are involved? It seems extraordinary that indemnity was given by a senior Minister when he apparently did not know the details of the circumstances in which he gave it. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that it was not until 22 January that he knew the full circumstances. I happen to think that when I questioned the Attorney-General last Monday about whether he was consulted about the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Once again the hon. Gentleman is going into details that are not relevant to the motion about crime which is before us. He can indulge in generalities, but he should not go into such detail.

Mr. Dalyell

This is part of the trouble. When a Member of Parliament wants to ask a senior Law Officer to make a statement to the House that involves his honour, he had better be very clear about the details before doing so. Consequently, I do not apologise for going into the details. In the light of all this, there is a solemn obligation on the Attorney-General to give his side of the story in a statement before we go into recess. I have never meant anything more than that which I have just said. I do not doubt that there is a side to the story that he can give. I do not think that he was consulted, and referring to last Monday's question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman persists in pursuing the detail. There are ample opportunities in the House for raising details at Question Time and so on, but this is not the occasion for the hon. Gentleman to pursue this matter.

Mr. Dalyell

I shall have opportunities, and I look forward to making use of them.

6.20 pm

Mr. John Wheeler (Westminster, North)

The hon. Baronet and Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will appreciate that I cannot follow his comments but I shall speak about the Opposition motion and the Government amendment. When I first read the Opposition motion I was much encouraged because there seemed to be in all parts of the House a genuine commitment towards the objective of crime prevention.

The Opposition motion refers to a crime prevention programme, crime prevention grants, a safe estates programme and victim support schemes. The Government are already pursuing these objectives. Since the 1970s the potential for crime prevention has become increasingly apparent, especially to the Home Office, and in 1983 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) set up the crime prevention unit which is enthusiastically supported by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary.

The contribution towards crime prevention in various and necessary forms has been extensive. The Department of the Environment is making £50 million available, much of it through the run-down and priority estates programme. The Manpower Services Commission is making £42 million available for various initiatives in the field of crime prevention measures. That is welcome and important because, as the House knows, 95 per cent. of crime relates to property and is controllable, if not preventable, by the interaction of local authorities, the community and the police working together.

The plausibility of the Opposition comes into question when one examines the activities of the Labour party outside the House. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has left the Chamber. He does not want to hear this or to answer the accusations that I shall make. It is extraordinary that his own local authority in the city of Manchester, which is not responsible for the police, should be so against the police service that it spends large sums of ratepayers' money on anti-police campaigns. It is against the creation of police neighbourhood watch schemes that are designed to prevent crime. Why is it that in recent years the Labour party in London has spent million of pounds on antipolice propaganda? Why do many of the London boroughs still spend large sums of money on the publication of literature against the police and do not encourage them to police council estates or to visit local authority schools?

If the Opposition motion is to have any credibility, the Opposition must address themselves to those points. They cannot escape their responsibilities, and equally if they want to see, as they suggest in their motion, an easement of pressure on the police so that they can be deployed to help the community they should say to their own supporters that the resources of the police should not have to be used at places like Wapping and should not have had to be used during the miners' dispute or today in demonstrations. The Opposition cannot have it both ways and those points must be considered in some detail and answered.

The Government have a remarkable record on the prevention of crime. That record is being sustained and increasingly the fruits are being seen. Because of the work done by and through the Department of the Environment and by many local authorities, we have seen a transformation in some of our inner city estates. In my own city of Westminster the local housing department has removed walkways and has created blocks of flats as individual homes. It has provided gardens and has cut off blocks of flats from the general neighbourhood. As a result, it is able to report a dramatic downturn in property crime such as residential burglaries. In some instances crime has been eliminated. If it can be done in the city of Westminster and elsewhere in London through the priority estate schemes, some of them in Labour boroughs, that clearly must be the way forward. Allied to that is the need to ensure that the local authority properly manages its estate. It must collect the rents and not allow arrears to accumulate, giving the impression that lawlessness is acceptable. The money must be collected so that there can be a proper maintenance and caretaker service. Where local authorities do that there is a marked downturn in crime and that benefits the community. If the Opposition believe in crime prevention, they must say to the local authorities that are Labour-controlled that this is the way forward.

The House will recall that in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 the centuries-old priority for fines to be paid by the courts to the Crown in the first instance was reversed and priority was placed upon the money collected from offenders being used in favour of victims through orders that were given absolute priority. In that instance the Government reversed the centuries-old tradition and they have also supported the National Association of Victims Support Schemes with fairly generous funding. We would all like to see more being done, but we do not want to see another form of bureaucracy being created. I urge upon my right hon. Friend the need to look at the way in which the head office of the association makes its disbursements to ensure that we do not promote bureaucracy but provide adequate funding to ensure that in the key inner city areas such schemes can be created.

I also welcome the news about the neighbourhood watch schemes. They are an undoubted success story and are to be further encouraged by the availability of a neighbourhood watch newspaper. That must be good news.

Autocrime makes up some 30 per cent. of all crime in Britain. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is working with the Home Office to improve the design of motor vehicles to design out crime and that must be the way forward, just as the steering column lock that was introduced in the 1960s contributed substantially to the reduction in autocrime. It is via such strategies that we shall tackle that great block of crime.

I find it curious that in their statements the Opposition should ignore their own commitment to repeal the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We ought to know what the Opposition will replace it with because that Act also provides for crime prevention and sets out the police powers throughout England and Wales. What is to be done about the prevention of terrorism if the Opposition succeed in their ambition to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984? That Act makes a major contribution to the prevention of crime of serious violence.

All those questions remain to be answered and if the Opposition motion is to be credible, they will have to deal with those points, I hope when their spokesman winds up. The way forward is through the crime prevention strategies of the Government and I have no hesitation in supporting the Government amendment.

6.29 pm

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, but I am acutely conscious of the importance of the subject and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate.

Earlier this year, the London borough of Islington carried out a comprehensive study of about 2,000 households in its area. The results were published in preliminary form some months ago and are due to be published next month as a book, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has provided a preface.

The results of that survey demonstrate clearly how important crime and the fear of crime are to many thousands of people in my constituency. They showed, for example, that about 70 per cent. of the population of my constituency regard crime as a problem second only in the scale of problems to unemployment — 87 per cent. of people said that unemployment was the worst problem. That shows how seriously people take the problem of crime in their areas.

Here I must take issue with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who criticised the Labour party and said that we would treat the symptoms, not the underlying causes. I listened carefully to his speech to see whether it contained anything about the underlying causes, and of course it did not. He mentioned only one of the symptoms—the different forms of policing. I shall return to that in a moment, because it is an important point. It ill-behoves him to criticise either of the two other parties which participated in this debate for not addressing the underlying causes when he put forward nothing that would tackle the underlying causes of crime and the genuine fear of crime among millions of people.

One answer to the problem of crime is good policing. Indeed, it is the only answer that the Government give. But the police must have, above all, the confidence of the community that they serve because that is the key to effective policing. In my constituency, the tenants on many estates meet their neighbourhood police officers arid members and officers of the local authority on a close arid regular basis to work out how their areas should be policed and what should happen to their estates to improve policing in the area.

The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) criticised Labour-controlled local authorities. I would have accepted that criticism readily had he, in the same breath, praised Labour-controlled local authorities such as the one that I represent, which has sat down with the police, wished to work closely with the police, invited the police on to the council estates and engineered the close co-operation that can lead to good policing. If that credit is given, perhaps we can have a more effective and constructive dialogue about the way in which local authorities and communities interact with the police in their areas.

However, when discussing crime, we must talk about much more than policing. Even more important than policing, which tries to deter and to catch criminals after the event, is crime prevention. During the past seven years, the Government have let the country down badly on crime prevention. No endless series of seminars at 10 Downing street will make up for the fact that, through the withdrawal of rate support grant, the operation of rate capping and the savage reductions in housing expenditure which the Government have inflicted on Britain, the ability of local authorities and of the agencies in the areas where crime prevention is desperately needed to carry out proper, full crime prevention measures has been destroyed.

The hon. Member for Westminster, North mentioned the improvements on some estates in his area. Of course, some local authorities of all political colours have made valiant efforts to improve conditions, including the provision of better lighting, the removal of dark corners and better security on the estates. But most local authorities have been hampered by the withdrawal of funds by the Government. During the past seven years, the Government have increased public expenditure on the forces of control after the event—the police, the judicial system and the prisons—by about 30 per cent. in real terms. In the same period, they reduced expenditure on housing by 70 per cent. in real terms. The Government's priorities are completely wrong.

To tackle the root causes of the crime wave which so many people fear and have experienced will mean tackling the deprivation, poverty and unemployment that are the generating forces behind the increase in crime and lawlessness. There is no evidence that the Government will provide constructive measures to tackle those root causes, and we shall not get them from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the Liberal party either.

6.36 pm

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

The hyperbole, exaggeration, malice and sheer abuse from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was nothing new. It was vintage right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. What is new is the Labour party's new-found concern for law and order.

When in power, the Labour party presided over the loss of 9,000 policemen, the lowering of morale to the stage where there was almost a police strike, and the withdrawal of police officers from the beat. In opposition, they have advocated political interference with policing, denigrated the police to an enormous extent, especially in London, voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which probably did more than anything to stop the summer bombing campaign of the IRA, voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which has equipped the police with more sensible powers to fight crime, and voted against the Public Order Bill, which will protect the elderly and other vulnerable people, whom they always say they want to protect, from violence in the street. If one adds to that their demonstrations against the rate-capping legislation, the miners' strike and the occasional utterances in favour of terrorists from some representatives of the Labour party, the public will come to the conclusion that the speech of the right hon. Member for Gorton was nothing but a pathetic joke.

What really rattles the Labour party is the fact that the Government have done so much about crime. Hardly a day goes by without some constructive action being taken. They include 14,000 more policemen; more civilian staff; a 30 per cent. increase in police resources; the implementation of most of the Scarman recommendations; the independent Police Complaints Authority; the overhaul of police training; more deterrent sentences for firearms offences, drugs traffickers, murderers of police and prison officers, child murderers and sexual offenders; the wider armoury for magistrates' courts to deal with juvenile offenders; the biggest prison building programme in history, with three new prisons built and 15 to go; the major refurbishment of 100 other prisons; the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; the Public Order Bill; the Prevention of Terrorism Act; and the subject of this debate — crime prevention — where the Government have involved the public with great success and where they ha' e taken steps to help victims of crime, which are long overdue, with victim support schemes and extended compensation.

To say that the Government have not taken positive and effective measures against crime is nonsense. But the fact is that crime is still growing and we must face that unpleasant fact. Although there has been a most welcome reduction in some areas, such as burglary, a lot more needs to be done. The fight against crime is not being lost but it is being won too slowly. It would be won more quickly if our trials were more efficient and if we had tape-recorded interviews. What has happened to that proposal?

But there is one step which, more quickly than any other, would change the climate of crime, particularly violent crime, a step which would meet with the support of the overwhelming majority of the nation — the restoration of capital punishment. When will the Government take that important, urgent and long overdue step?

6.40 pm

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

The Government's amendment to the Labour party's motion is incredible. For a start, they now refer to an "honest policy". But what did they have before the Home Secretary did an about-turn on crime — a dishonest policy? Is that what the previous Home Secretary had? The Government's policy is supposed to be well-funded, "vigorous and coherent". It is neither. What we have had from the Government is a rapid about-turn when the present Home Secretary took over. That was done in a fit of desperation because the Government knew that they were losing the argument, and losing it badly. The tragedy is that they are continuing to lose it because the Government's underlying social and economic policies are guaranteed to make a difficult situation far worse.

The Home Secretary said that crime has been going up for some 30 years. The Labour party, inside and outside the House, has agreed that there is a problem for any Government of any political colour in Britain precisely because of structural changes, particularly in the inner city areas. What the Government did which was so bad and counter-productive was to rip off the sticking plaster of public expenditure, to create long-term mass youth unemployment and to introduce a series of other policies, some of which were referred to a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and many of which were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), of general cuts in local authority expenditure which have such a profound effect on crime prevention.

I am even more amazed at the Liberal party's amendment. It calls upon the Government to set up a committee to look into the functioning and structure of the police. At last, the Liberal party is acknowledging that something is wrong with policing in Britain, but it does not have the courage to come forward and say what needs to be done. The Labour party has been saying that for some years and some years ago it was not very popular. Now we know that a majority of British people support better police accountability. We know that a majority of people, including the Police Federation, which did an about-turn, support an independent police complaints system. We have won two of the most crucial arguments.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), unusually for him, said the Labour party would not produce resources, but what do we read in the Liberal amendment? The Liberal party will provide immediately the resources necessary for an effective nationwide system of community based policing. If a party's second task in government is to decide who will lead it, it will need a good system of community policing before trying to sort that out.

What have the Government done that has been such a failure? They talk about crime prevention. The cuts to the housing programme, pinpointed so specifically by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, are crucial. If renovation, repair and rebuild are cut out, not only can the changing population of the inner cities not be dealt with, but the older properties, which abound in our inner cities because so many of them were built in the last century, are allowed to deteriorate. That makes it easier for burglars to enter them and for them to become rundown and vandalised. Because of the Government cuts, many local authorities have had to remove people such as caretakers, public toilet attendants, park keepers and people in public transport, who not only help to prevent crime by their presence but also help to clear up the effects of vandalism and crime. The Government have cut the lot.

The Labour party is in favour of putting cameras, security locks and so on on doors, but if we only do that, as we have pointed out on many occasions, we simply create the drawbridge behind which people retreat into their own houses and take no notice of what goes on outside because there is fear outside. Those areas with a particularly high and frightening level of crime, particularly some of our high-rise blocks, need resident caretakers. That is the sort of sophisticated structure for which we are looking.

Look at what the Government have done to education. Nursery education, one o'clock clubs, polytechnics, universities and training colleges have all been cut by the Government. It is now much more difficult to enter those education structures than it was before. Now that we have long-term youth unemployment it is impossible to get those young unemployed people the places that they need.

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Warrington, South)

rose—

Mr. Soley

No, I am sorry, I am not giving way at this time. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been here throughout the debate he would know that we have been short of time and I want to give the Minister time to reply. He can deal with the matter if he wishes. However, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was about to say that there have not been cuts in education, we know that there have, right the way down the line, and that has affected everything from nursery education through to the polytechnics and the universities. Cuts have also had an effect on leisure and recreation generally.

If we want to see what the Government have done to make the crime situation worse, we can take no better example than the increase in the board and lodging allowance. In doing that, the Government have increased homelessness among young people. There is a direct link between crime and homelessness, alcohol abuse and homelessness and drug abuse and homelessness. Yet the Government have introduced a board and lodging scheme which is guaranteed to make homelessness worse. In doing so, they will push more young people into crime, drug addiction and alcohol abuse.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) talked about the problem of alcohol abuse. Again, the Government have no coherent policy on alcohol or drug abuse. They have no policy on fraud either for that matter, yet the impact of fraud on Britain is terrifying. The double standards of the Government can be seen by looking at the rates of imprisonment for people caught fiddling their social security claims and those people caught fiddling their income tax. There is a terrible discrepancy in the amount of money involved and between those who go to prison and those who do not.

We have heard nothing from the Government about how, in six short years, they have managed to turn the British police force, once the pride of the world, into a semi-paramilitary police force. Conservative Members talk about Wapping, but no other post-war Government would have allowed Rupert Murdoch to go on being protected by the police at the expense of the ratepayer while no effort was made to force him to negotiate. Indeed, no other Government would have looked happily on the way that he has turned his monopoly powers in the press into such an important and powerful base at the same time as being an overseas citizen.

One of the Labour party's fundamental criticisms—indeed it is one that is growing in the police force—is that the Government, more than any other, have tried to use the police as though they were their own private army. They have done that in industrial relations and the inner cities, where they hope the police will cope with the consequences of their social and economic policies.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

rose—

Mr. Soley

What about the training of police officers? We know from the Metropolitan police commissioner's report that training has suffered. People have been taken off training courses concerned with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, for which, in some cases, police are given only one or two days' training, yet the Labour party is recommending a minimum of six months' training as soon as possible, eventually aiming for much longer—I hope two years.

The Government lack a policy on community policing. They will often say how marvellous community policing is, but what resources do they put into it? What are the incentives for a young officer to stay on as a community police officer? They are almost non-existent. If a police officer wants to improve his income or be promoted he must move out into car driving, to the courts, the police station or even the House of Commons. Despite that, the Government say that community policing is all-important. Let us see the colour of their money.

What about the lack of a strong inspectorate? We read the other week allegations concerning the clear-up rates in Kent. Anyone involved in the legal system knows what happens and yet we do not have an independent and strong police inspectorate to deal with it.

It is no good the Government saying that we must back the police because the public are worried, not because of one bad apple in the barrel, but because an officer who chooses to do something about what is happening cannot use the system without being made vulnerable. That has happened in the Kent constabulary and elsewhere. Until we have a strong police inspectorate, backed by a strong ombudsman, there will be trouble.

An effective system of accountability completes the package. The Government claim that neighbourhood watch, property marking and victim support are all that is needed. I am not against those schemes, but the Government know that neighbourhood watch does not work well in high crime areas. It can help to build up the community a little, but that can be successful only in conjunction with all the other schemes. Until the Government reverse their social and economic policies it will not be sufficient to wheel out a Home Secretary to deal with the faults of the previous Home Secretary.

The Government must reverse their policies and put resources into our inner cities and crime prevention. They must introduce proper police accountability, police training and an independent Police Complaints Authority. Then we might begin to reverse the damage that the Government have done to the fabric of our society.

6.52 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw)

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) exceeded the time agreed, but I thought it worthwhile for the House to hear the threadbare nature of the Opposition's case. The hon. Gentleman wants more accountability, a different Police Complaints Authority, more control over the police, more bureaucracy and less effort for those really concerned. The Opposition have the temerity to talk about putting the people first. They do not want to put people first, but they do want political control over the police. Let no one be under any illusion about that.

We were grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) for his modest sermon. I assure him that we are worried about the connection between alcohol and crime. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already taken an initiative and the issue is being examined by one of the working groups that we have set up in the crime prevention standing conference.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to the forensic science service, as did the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I accept that the forensic science service is under great stress because of the demands upon it. There are staff vacancies. I have visited some forensic science establishments to see what might be done. Our intention is to provide the service required and to maintain the high standards of skill for which it has a high reputation.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow also mentioned other matters in connection with correspondence with my right hon. Friend. The Home Secretary has replied to him today about the forensic science service. He will also respond to the hon. Gentleman's queries about the Birmingham six. That is a complicated issue, which might require more evaluation than is involved in a mere letter sent within such a short time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) has apologised because he has to be elsewhere at this time. He mentioned court buildings and facilities for witnesses. I shall write to him. I recognise that such issues pose major problems in handling court work sensitively and sensibly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) presented a robust view of crime prevention and of the wide range of activities in which we are engaged.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to the importance of the consultative groups. Today I met Islington's consultative group and had an interesting exchange of views. I gave it substantial support for its work. With full police agreement it has set out on a range of issues which will be wholly beneficial to the community.

I cannot deal with all the issues in the few minutes remaining to me. I must deal with the main thrust of the Opposition case. They claim that the Government have failed to take any initiative to improve the climate in which crime and the fear of crime can be dealt with. This Government have virtually revolutionised the attitude towards crime prevention. Crime prevention as a policy did not exist when we came to office.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Westminster, North reminded the House, this Government set up the crime prevention unit and in a relatively short period a massive range of initiatives have been taken, which even the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) should understand. We have established an evaluation of crime patterns. We have done research into individual criminal activity, into the background of crime and into particular aspects of criminal activity such as shop crime, theft and autocrime. We have changed the standing committee on crime prevention to a standing conference. Working groups are examining the whole range of criminal activity to cover autocrime, licensed premises, crimes of violence, crime on transport and so on. We have agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers that it should set up a sub-committee on crime prevention to be chaired by the current president, Sir Stanley Bailey. The secretary will be James Anderton, the chief constable of Greater Manchester.

I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the strong input from Greater Manchester in our crime prevention initiatives. They will certainly help to offset the deleterious activities of the right hon. Gentleman's own police committee which seems to do little else but provide outrageous documentation and to undermine crime prevention.

Two national seminars have taken place at No. 10 Downing street, the first of which was run by the Prime Minister and the second of which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. A range of agencies participated. This has already resulted in a number of new initiatives which will significantly affect criminal activity.

Mr. Kaufman

Such as?

Mr. Shaw

It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that. I am thinking of the decision by the British motor industry to accept a new standard for car security, the decision by the insurance industry to agree to examine reduced premiums and the decision by local authorities to take a greater interest in the provision of security systems in housing estates. I accept that Councillor Layden of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities made a contribution and we shall examine his proposition with care in the hope that we can do something akin to it.

Most crime prevention activities do not involve local authorities spending large amounts. I visited a large block of flats at Swansea recently. Caretakers have been brought back at a cost to the tenants of 40p per week, which the tenants pay willingly so that their homes are better protected and kept in better order. The environment of that estate in Swansea is an eloquent testimony to what can be done.

I visited the crime prevention project at Wellingborough. A major improvement has been made to the town centre car park there by employing staff to look after it, at a charge. We need such projects so that crime prevention activities are rooted in the community and people are helped to help themselves. We believe in putting people first.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 286.

Division No. 268]	[7.00 pm
AYES
Abse, Leo	Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Alton, David	Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Anderson, Donald	Barnett, Guy
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Barron, Kevin
Ashdown, Paddy	Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Beith, A. J.
Ashton, Joe	Bell, Stuart
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Home Robertson, John
Bermingham, Gerald	Hoyle, Douglas
Bidwell, Sydney	Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Blair, Anthony	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Boyes, Roland	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Janner, Hon Greville
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Kennedy, Charles
Caborn, Richard	Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.	Kirkwood, Archy
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Lambie, David
Campbell, Ian	Lamond, James
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Leadbitter, Ted
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Leighton, Ronald
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Cartwright, John	Litherland, Robert
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Clarke, Thomas	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Clay, Robert	Loyden, Edward
Clelland, David Gordon	McCartney, Hugh
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cohen, Harry	McKelvey, William
Coleman, Donald	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Conlan, Bernard	McTaggart, Robert
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Madden, Max
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	Marek, Dr John
Corbett, Robin	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Martin, Michael
Craigen, J. M.	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Crowther, Stan	Maynard, Miss Joan
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Meacher, Michael
Dalyell, Tam	Michie, William
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)	Mikardo, Ian
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Deakins, Eric	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Dewar, Donald	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Dixon, Donald	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Dobson, Frank	Nellist, David
Dormand, Jack	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Douglas, Dick	O'Brien, William
Dubs, Alfred	O'Neill, Martin
Duffy, A. E. P.	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Park, George
Eadie, Alex	Patchett, Terry
Eastham, Ken	Pavitt, Laurie
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)	Pendry, Tom
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Pike, Peter
Ewing, Harry	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Fatchett, Derek	Prescott, John
Faulds, Andrew	Radice, Giles
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Randall, Stuart
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)	Raynsford, Nick
Fisher, Mark	Redmond, Martin
Flannery, Martin	Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Richardson, Ms Jo
Foster, Derek	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Foulkes, George	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)	Robertson, George
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Rogers, Allan
Freud, Clement	Rooker, J. W.
Garrett, W. E.	Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
George, Bruce	Rowlands, Ted
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Sedgemore, Brian
Gould, Bryan	Sheerman, Barry
Gourlay, Harry	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Hamilton, James (M'well N)	Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hancock, Michael	Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Hardy, Peter	Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Harman, Ms Harriet	Skinner, Dennis
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith	Snape, Peter
Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Soley, Clive
Heffer, Eric S.	Spearing, Nigel
Hogg, N. (Cnauld & Kilsyth)	Steel, Rt Hon David
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Strang, Gavin	Wigley, Dafydd
Straw, Jack	Williams, Rt Hon A.
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)	Wilson, Gordon
Thorne, Stan (Preston)	Winnick, David
Tinn, James	Woodall, Alec
Torney, Tom	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Wallace, James	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wareing, Robert	Tellers for the Ayes:
Welsh, Michael	Mr. Chris Smith and
White, James	Mr. John McWilliam.
NOES
Adley, Robert	du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Aitken, Jonathan	Dunn, Robert
Alexander, Richard	Durant, Tony
Amess, David	Dykes, Hugh
Ancram, Michael	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Ashby, David	Eggar, Tim
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.	Emery, Sir Peter
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Evennett, David
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Eyre, Sir Reginald
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Fallon, Michael
Baldry, Tony	Farr, Sir John
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Favell, Anthony
Batiste, Spencer	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Fletcher, Alexander
Bellingham, Henry	Fookes, Miss Janet
Bendall, Vivian	Forman, Nigel
Benyon, William	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Bevan, David Gilroy	Fox, Sir Marcus
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Franks, Cecil
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Fry, Peter
Blackburn, John	Gale, Roger
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Glyn, Dr Alan
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Gow, Ian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Gower, Sir Raymond
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Greenway, Harry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gregory, Conal
Bright, Graham	Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Brinton, Tim	Grist, Ian
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Ground, Patrick
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Grylls, Michael
Bruinvels, Peter	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Bryan, Sir Paul	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Hampson, Dr Keith
Buck, Sir Antony	Hannam, John
Budgen, Nick	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Bulmer, Esmond	Harris, David
Burt, Alistair	Haselhurst, Alan
Butcher, John	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Butterfill, John	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Carlisle, John (Luton N)	Heddle, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Henderson, Barry
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)	Hickmet, Richard
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Chapman, Sydney	Hill, James
Chope, Christopher	Hirst, Michael
Churchill, W. S.	Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Holt, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Cockeram, Eric	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Colvin, Michael	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Coombs, Simon	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Cope, John	Hunter, Andrew
Corrie, John	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Couchman, James	Irving, Charles
Cranborne, Viscount	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Critchley, Julian	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Crouch, David	Key, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Dickens, Geoffrey	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Dorrell, Stephen	Knowles, Michael
Dover, Den	Lawler, Geoffrey

Lawrence, Ivan	Osborn, Sir John
Lee, John (Pendle)	Ottaway, Richard
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Lester, Jim	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)	Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Lightbown, David	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Lilley, Peter	Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Pawsey, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Pollock, Alexander
Lord, Michael	Porter, Barry
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Portillo, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas	Powell, William (Corby)
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Powley, John
Macfarlane, Neil	Price, Sir David
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Proctor, K. Harvey
Maclean, David John	Raffan, Keith
McLoughlin, Patrick	Rathbone, Tim
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)	Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)	Renton, Tim
Major, John	Rhodes James, Robert
Malins, Humfrey	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Maples, John	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Marland, Paul	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mates, Michael	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mather, Carol	Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Roe, Mrs Marion
Mellor, David	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Merchant, Piers	Rost, Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Rowe, Andrew
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)	Ryder, Richard
Miscampbell, Norman	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Moate, Roger	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Monro, Sir Hector	Sayeed, Jonathan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Moore, Rt Hon John	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Moynihan, Hon C.	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mudd, David	Shersby, Michael
Murphy, Christopher	Silvester, Fred
Neale, Gerrard	Sims, Roger
Nelson, Anthony	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Neubert, Michael	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Newton, Tony	Speed, Keith
Nicholls, Patrick	Speller, Tony
Norris, Steven	Spencer, Derek
Onslow, Cranley	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.	Squire, Robin

Stanbrook, Ivor	Walden, George
Steen, Anthony	Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Stern, Michael	Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)	Wall, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)	Waller, Gary
Stokes, John	Walters, Dennis
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Ward, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Warren, Kenneth
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman	Watson, John
Temple-Morris, Peter	Watts, John
Terlezki, Stefan	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)	Wheeler, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)	Whitfield, John
Thorne, Neil (Word S)	Wiggin, Jerry
Thornton, Malcolm	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Townend, John (Bridlington)	Winterton, Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)	Wolfson, Mark
Tracey, Richard	Wood, Timothy
Trippier, David	Woodcock, Michael
Trotter, Neville	Yeo, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian	Young, Sir George (Acton)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.	Younger, Rt Hon George
Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Viggers, Peter	Tellers for the Noes:
Wakeham, Rt Hon John	Mr. Gerald Malone and
Waldegrave, Hon William	Mr. Francis Maude.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved, That this House reaffirms its support for the Government's commitment to pursuing an honest, vigorous and coherent policy in the fight against crime; welcomes the additional resources the Government has devoted to law and order, the success of Government backed crime prevention initiatives such as Neighbourhood Watch and property marking schemes, the encouragement given to local crime prevention initiatives, and the development of victim support schemes; expresses support for the police in their efforts to build closer links with the community; and believes everybody has a responsibility to participate in the fight against crime.