HC Deb 28 October 1986 vol 103 cc296-302

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

12.27 am
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I have the opportunity to raise the problems of crime prevention and the need to warn citizens not to admit strangers into their homes without full identification. At the same time I refer to the problems of crime which are growing throughout the country, not least in Leicester and Leicestershire, and the need to combat crime by adding to the resources of police forces and providing full information to and obtaining full information from the public.

The Government's failure to deal with crime is best illustrated by figures that show that there has been a 55 per cent. increase in crime in Leicestershire since the Government came to power. This means that one reported crime is committed every 11 minutes. Of these crimes, 2,105 are crimes of violence against the person, which have also increased by 55 per cent. since 1978 and are now taking place once every four hours. There were 10,042 burglaries in 1985, an increase of 62 per cent. They are taking place now at the rate of one every 52 minutes. Some of the nastiest, meanest, shabbiest and most disgraceful crimes are those committed against the elderly in their own homes.

I have a sheaf of cuttings from the Leicester Mercury about offences against the elderly. I pay tribute to the Leicester Mercury for its persistence and the accuracy of its reporting in this sphere, and for the help which it has kindly given me in the preparation of material for the debate. I shall quote a few of the cases, all typical. One story reads: Police were yesterday called to the home of an 81-yearold Leicester woman who had been living in silence and fear since she was assaulted and robbed a week ago. The woman, who lives alone, was attacked last Wednesday when she opened her door to a youth. Another story headed, "Woman, 72, conned" reads: Two teenage tricksters conned their way into the home of a 72-year-old Braunstone woman and stole £70. The couple called at the woman's home in Medwell Road posing as officials from the local Water Authority. Next: A con man tricked his way into the home of an 86-yearold Leicester woman and stole £85 last night. An item headed "Theft" reads: At 5 pm in Doncaster Road on Wednesday—it was his third attempt in 24 hours—a man tricked his way into the home of an 82-year-old woman and 10 minutes later repeated the trick on an 86-year-old woman. Another headline: Cruel thief cons widow—for £30. The story reads: A thief conned an 87-year-old Braunstone widow … produced City Council identification and claimed he was making a New Year check of her lighting. Yet another story: Conmen preying on pensioners stole more than £400 in five separate incidents. So the stories go on. "Man attacked for £74" reads a headline, and others say, Robber threatens woman in own home and Youth robs woman, 72, of £100". In every case there is the nastiness and evil of people making attacks on the elderly, not merely in their own homes so as to take money from them at the time, but putting them in a state of fear from which many of them do not recover.

Man plundered the old gets five years jail states a headline, and the story reads: A 23-year-old was convicted of tricking his way into pensioners' homes. Then there are stories of charity frauds, with people posing as charity collectors. One story tells of a con man who tricked a woman by convincing her that he had come to mend the roof, and he stole £65. An article tells of the way in which the Severn-Trent water authority warned householders to guard against con men posing as officials.

Tricksters steals £500 from man, 78 declares another headline, and the story reads: Hinckley police are investigating two reports of bogus callers preying on old people. Another headline declares: Elderly fall prey to teen con gang. I have pages of cuttings of the same wickedness and evil, all committed in recent months and all in the city part of which I am privileged to represent.

This morning I called on a constituent, a man in his early forties but looking much older. He is disabled, suffering from epilepsy. Some time ago his wife answered a knock on the door to see a neighbour standing there, and immediately two young men rushed in and beat her up. The man, because of his disability, could not help to rescue her. The men raided the house in search of money, but there was none. They were caught and convicted.

How can we deal with this kind of filthy crime? We could start by increasing the resources available to the police. I pay tribute to the work of community policemen throughout the country, by policemen on the beat to whom the elderly and others can turn. We have many complaints against the police and complaints about the way in which complaints are dealt with by police forces. Like all other groups of people, there are good and bad among them. But the good are very good and they should be strengthened.

At a time when crime has increased so much, it is wrong that police forces should still be starved of the resources they need. The Government rightly say that they are recruiting more policemen, but under Conservative rule the crime rate has increased so greatly that those increases are insufficient.

When Leicester police ask for more men and women to be on the beat and the request is turned down, we must all worry. I pay my respects to Mr. Goodson, the previous chief constable of Leicestershire, for the work he did, and I regret that he did not receive the resources that he needed. I pay tribute to our new chief constable, Mr. Michael Hirst, and I hope that when he asks for help he will receive it, because it will not be for himself but for the people who live in the city and who are afraid to go out at night.

It will be for the people who are afraid even in what should he the safety of their own homes, their castles — the places where they should feel secure, but they are not. We should provide the resources that the police need, and they should be enabled to help citizens to live in the shelter of their own homes and cities without fear.

Unfortunately, that is not happening, and nor would it be enough. In addition, it is vital that people should be warned not to allow strangers into their home without full and proper identification. Even with identification, they may still run into trouble. If there is any doubt, people should be helped and encouraged to inquire before anyone is allowed into their home.

One of the tragedies which have occurred under this Government is the removal of resources in servicing elderly people — for example, by providing them with telephones so they can get through to others. I understand that Age Concern is promoting a number of schemes to help elderly people to make their houses burglar-proof. It is providing advice for old-age pensioners, crime alert cards and cards which advise on safe ways to deal with callers which can be attached to the inside of doors. Public information campaigns are run not only by Age Concern, which is a wonderful organisation that deserves the support of all hon. Members, but by the Leicester city council.

There is a lack of overall co-ordination from the centre. There are no national policies. Some areas have no policy at all. Many districts could take advice from what has been learnt in other areas. I call on the Government to produce an overall plan for coping with the spread of crime, of attacks, of violence and of theft from people in their own homes, and not to rely, as they have done too much, on the voluntary effort of organisations of which Age Concern is only one.

There is room for help by organisations such as the Leicester Victims of Crime organisation, which is run by Mr. Maurice Jones and his colleagues, which do their best to give elderly people a greater perception of danger, leading to proper care and not merely to greater fear. Elderly people should have the advantage of advanced technology, such as emergency telephone systems and apparatus that can be hung around their necks, for example, enabling them to give warnings of dangers which they fear to others.

It is not enough simply to praise and to prompt. There is a profound need for action. There are not enough statistics. We do not know, for example, how many attacks are made by people on others in their homes. We do not have the statistics because there is no breakdown. 1 call on the Government to produce such figures. 1 understand that the Home Office expenditure on crime prevention publicity this year will total about £2.5 million. The fact that it is failing is shown all too clearly by the increases in crime. I appreciate that part of that is due not to the police, policing or crime prevention publicity but simply to the enormous miseries of boredom created by unemployment, young people not having adequate facilities and the general malaise of the disadvantaged which afflicts our country.

Dealing specifically with the problem that is before the House, I hope that in his answer the Minister will give the country some hope of positive steps designed to help people to cope, and that he will pay heed to the recommendations made by constabularies such as Leicestershire for more resources when they are needed. Perhaps we shall cease to be afflicted by the constant reports of mean, nasty, scurrilous and evil tricking of elderly people in their own homes. Perhaps some of the very small minority of people who commit such a crime will think how they would feel if the behaviour that they direct against others were inflicted on them when they get old, so that they may take heed of those miseries and avoid them for the future.

It is a very sad world in which we have to ask the House and the Government to take note of such a crime so late at night, but if note is taken, and if the Government take the action that is needed, perhaps the morning will be happier for many elderly people than it will be tomorrow, and not so many will be attacked during a long and unhappy night.

12.41 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

Much as I happen to like the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), I have to say that his speech tonight has displayed a basic ignorance of some of the essential facts, which I find rather alarming, especially as it comes from an hon. and learned Gentleman who has a position of some distinction in his party. During his speech, he used several of the fairly standard phrases that we hear from Opposition Benches. He said that the Government have failed to deal with crime.

Mr. Janner

True.

Mr. Hogg

We shall come to that in a moment.

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government should start to increase the resources available to the police, and the premise that underlay his comments was that the Government had somehow failed—

Mr. Janner

They have.

Mr. Hogg

They have not. His premise was that the Government had somehow failed to honour their pledge to the community on law and order. As I said, that demonstrates an ignorance of the facts that I find somewhat alarming.

Therefore, before I refer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's specific comments, I shall tell him something about the basic facts. Let us begin with expenditure. The Government are now spending over 38 per cent. more in real terms than in 1979. The manpower available to the police has increased by around 15,000 men over 1979, around 10,000 more police officers, the balance being civilians. So, pausing for a moment, what we have seen is an increase in expenditure of around 38 per cent. in real terms since 1979, more than any other increase in any other spending budget. That is a remarkable increase in dedication of resources. It has to be taken into account with the other demands on resources, because the hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to say, "More teachers." He would be the first to say, "More doctors." He would be the first to say, "More dentists," and so on and so forth. Spending on law and order, vital as it is, has to be weighed in a series of priorities as between spending Departments. There is no doubt that spending on law and order has increased much more dramatically than in any other area. That is a fact from which the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot depart. He would like to concentrate rather more resources on the giving of advice, and here I am inclined to agree with him because crime prevention is one of the most promising areas in which to seek to combat crime.

Crimes of violence attract the greatest publicity, but in reality crimes against property are by far the most numerous. Some 95 per cent. of all crime is crime against property and of this figure around 13 per cent. constitutes burglary of residential property. One can express these percentages in figures. In 1985, nearly 460,000 burglaries were recorded by the police. The best view is that something like the same number go unrecorded. We are talking about a large number of offences against residential property. The interesting thing about this is that a large number of these offences are essentially opportunist.

From an analysis of the figures it seems that about 25 per cent. of burglaries are effected without forced entry of the premises. That tells us that to a considerable extent these are opportunist crimes. People leave windows ajar or doors unlocked or leave keys in locks and somebody comes along and takes advantage of the situation. Opportunist crimes are precisely the type of offences against which householders can guard. It is therefore an area in which Government and institutions of society can and should give positive advice. That is precisely what the Government are seeking to do, because we have organised and concerted a coherent crime prevention programme. The first instrument of this programme is necessarily publicity. We must mount and maintain a publicity campaign designed to warn and advise.

Publicity campaigns can raise the level of public awareness and can give good and practical advice. In the current year we will spend approximately £2.5 million on crime prevention publicity. The most noticeable aspect of that is the magpie campaign. It is directed primarily against burglary and auto crime. It has covered the north of England, the midlands, London and the home counties. It has comprised, as was necessary, a television advertising campaign backed by local press articles, posters and over 11 million leaflets. It was perhaps an object lesson in the kind of campaign that Governments can run. It alerted the public, was simple to understand and gave clear and unequivocal advice.

Inevitably, the Government's activity in this area must go far beyond mere advertising and we do much more than that. At the heart of the Government's programme of crime prevention is the standing conference, which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, has set up a number of working parties which will investigate, report on and advise upon various aspects of criminal behaviour. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that the working party group on residential burglary which is chaired by one of our colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) is due to report in the middle of November.

My view — it is probably the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, too—is that if crime prevention is to be successful, it has to be local; it has to identify itself with the area with which it is concerned. Therefore, the Government are placing enormous emphasis upon crime prevention panels and neighbourhood watch schemes. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that Leicester has had very good experience of both. I congratulate the crime prevention panel in Leicester upon having organised the concert that was held in December 1985 in the De Montfort hall. About 2,500 elderly people gathered at that concert, where they were reminded of a whole variety of crime prevention methods. It was a considerable success.

The neighbourhood watch schemes have also proved remarkably successful. In the hon. and learned Gentleman's own county, there are about 40 neighbourhood watch schemes. Crime prevention panels and neighbourhood watch schemes provide a framework and a mechanism whereby we can give advice, help and guidance. But we can do more than that. We are also making use of the community programme. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know what the Government have in mind. Very substantial sums of money are already dedicated to the community programme. By this method the long-term unemployed can be involved in the important task of assisting those who are most vulnerable in society to make their homes more secure and at the same time giving them reassurance.

I shall give two examples. The hon. and learned Gentleman will probably know both. Since 1983, Age Concern has organised a project within the community programme agency in Avon, which involves 1,200 people. They are involved in the task of protecting property, especially the property of the aged. Property has been marked and advice and reassurance have been given. In the hon. and learned Gentleman's own city of Leicester there is a similar pattern. For many years, Age Concern in Leicester has been offering advice to elderly people on crime prevention. In recent years, it has established a community-funded programme to fit locks and other security devices to the homes of the elderly and to repair damage caused to the property of the elderly through burglary.

The Government have a coherent crime prevention programme. Of course we place great emphasis on giving advice. We use the neighbourhood watch schemes, advertising and crime prevention. But we go further than that. Through the medium of the community programme, we are providing practical help for those who need it most —the elderly and the vulnerable.

It is inevitable that I have referred largely to the work done by the Government through the agency of Government-sponsored organisations. However, many other groups and organisations are involved in precisely the kind of ventures that have been commended to us by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Sometimes they are voluntary organisations; sometimes they are commercial organisations; and sometimes they are specialist organisations.

I pay tribute to Help the Aged. Last month it published a pamphlet entitled "Be Safe." The elderly were given advice about the kind of measures that they should take to protect themselves and their property. Sometimes it can be done by Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman will probably know of the publication entitled "Knock, Knock, Who's There?" It is designed to warn the elderly about the dangers of con men, tricksters and bogus officials—precisely the kind of individuals to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. He might know rather a lot about that publication as, following a spate of incidents in Leicester involving confidence men and tricksters, about 100,000 copies of the leaflets were handed out through the good offices of the social services department, for which I am extremely grateful.

There are the more sophisticated projects such as the "Stop Thief" video produced by the Prudential and the home security video to be produced by the Halifax building society. Examples can be piled one on the other.

Much crime, especially crime against property, is avoidable. Much of the anxiety experienced by the elderly can be lessened. The hon. and learned Member is quite right to emphasise the need for advice, guidance and assistance. The Government have that precisely in mind. That is why we have mounted, conducted and orchestrated the most coherent crime prevention programme contemplated by any Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong when he tries to pretend that the Government have not dedicated resources to the police and law and order. No previous Government have increased spending on the police as much as we.

Mr. Janner

And you have failed.

Mr. Hogg

No, we have not failed. We must ask ourselves why crime has increased, and I will give the hon. and learned Member one of the reasons. Many of his friends and colleagues—but not him—have spent far too much time here and elsewhere undermining the moral authority of the state and the moral basis of society. If people go about chipping away at the moral basis of society and trying to pretend that people have entitlement—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes to One o'clock.